It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The bible – god’s word or mans?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by luciferhorus
I would have to fail Her on historical methodology; I would not even mark


why? can you cite specific examples?



I have posted numerous example above.




On moral philosophy with regards to the justifications for rape,


do you have an example?


Numbers 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.


and

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.....................

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead.
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)



They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.



Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.



(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)



As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)



Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]





(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)



"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."


(Judges 5:30 NAB)



They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)



(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by JPhish
 

Explanation: I don't think it would be boring at all as I am endlessly creative and the desire for such "Bruce Almighty" type of freedom in a reality where I am the only conscious thing that can be "hurt", is quite appealing!

“A nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there”

Found the wiki page on the episode
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by luciferhorus

genocide, infanticide,
ive shown this to be allowable even by human standards here

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yes I did read that. It never ceases to amaze me that any amount of genocide, war, imperialism, the dropping of depleted uranium on children etc., etc, can be justified by the American Christian narco-terrorists / state-terrorists. It is all God's will, of course.





human and animal sacrifice cultism,


jesus was the only human sacrifice, and he ironically was killed by man. and since when is it ever ¨wrong¨ to kill an animal? dont people eat meat?


cannibalism etc.,
give one example where god said it was ok, please.



Deuteronomy 28:53
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
28:54
So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
28:55
So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
28:56
The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
28:57
And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
28:58
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;







posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by JPhish
 

You didn't answer the question, simply saying i believe many things isn't an answer.
oh, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware it was a loaded question to which you were expecting a particular response . . . I do believe many things, and that is my answer; I’ve also already expressed that it is irrelevant whether or not I’m a Christian.

If you're a Christian i'm posing this threads topic to you

How about we say I’m a martian and I address it anyway?

- if the bible is written by man and not god then it's not god's perfect word but man's own word.

That’s not logical. If I were to approach my 9 year old niece and have her write everything I told her. It would be my words in her writing. The bible is considered by many to be G*ds’ word, but not G*ds’ writing. If you want to call into question my nieces writing ability, you might have a valid argument there.

If god really wonted man to write a book on his behalf he wouldn't have any contradictions or mistakes in it. God would know to have man write it down perfectly dictated by him. And wouldn't let alterations happen if it's his book. - His final word on every matter.

Incorrect; the nature of the universe is cyclical, ergo a static truth is hard to come by. The interpretive and dynamic nature of the bible only adds testament to its’ aptness.

The fact that Christians accept it was written by men who had visions and inspirations by god and yet still value that as gods peferct word makes no sense. Unless it was dictated by god completely it's not his complete word - it's mans and gods word. Unless it's gods word 100% it's not the true undeniable word of god.
You’re assuming that merely because there was a median there is an error. I’m sure G*d would have no difficulty playing "banana phone”.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
to me it sounds like a historical account of people trying to survive. they apparently had a shortage of women (which isn't surprising since every form of belief system at the time, including the pagan religions, viewed women as subspecies property). can't reproduce without women, i'm told. that may not be true anymore, however.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
to me it sounds like a historical account of people trying to survive. they apparently had a shortage of women (which isn't surprising since every form of belief system at the time, including the pagan religions, viewed women as subspecies property).


Yes of course, however ...

Consider George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush.
Clear his God is the God of the Capitalist elites, corporationists, narco-terrorists, religious hypocrites, etc.

It does not follow however that the Creator is like that; it is merely Bush's antrhomorphic projection of the Capitalist God.

Similarly with the Bible, rape, genocide etc., was carried out in the name of their God; it does not necessarily follow however that the Creator is like that; it is merely the anthromorphic projection of our ancestors.

Frankly most Captialist Christians only believe that 'some' parts of the Bible are the words of God; the parts that suit them.


Consider for example:

‘Carry neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two robes, neither shoes, nor yet a staff. Mt 10’

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth...
- Matthew 6:19

Sell all that you have and give to the poor... Luke 12:33


This of course has nothing to do with the Capitalist Christians who simply make a mockery of Jesus and use himas a justification for Capitalism, Imperialism, state terrorism, narco-terrorism, etc

And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.


Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a king.” (Luke 23:1-4)


..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus.

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
earth.- Matthew 5:34-35


And then:

'Do not pray in public in the streets and the Temples.'(Mt. 6)

If Christians really believed that, no church would ever be built; in fact they would burn them down as the ancient Israelites did (they destroyed the various temples of idolatry.

Christianity today represents the anti-thesis (opposite idea) of the teachings of Jesus.

If a person who was like Jesus' ilk was alive today, crying out against the Capitalist elites, the lawyers, tax collectors and the religious hypocrites (i.e., the Christians), the Christians would despise him.

Christianity is just my father's (the Devil) sick joke on humanity which makes a mockery of Jesus.

Love and Light

Lux
Light of the World.


"E"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."............" "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me you workers of iniquity.' "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.

Matthew 7:13-27



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by luciferhorus
 


actually, that was the norm of the times these people lived in. for example, the vedics had a problem with women. their preference for male children was exacerbated by the vedic dowry tradition, which put a financial burden on the family of the bride to be. if she didn't please her husband or if the bride's family couldn't come up with the entire dowry, the groom's family could kill her in various ways as a means of recouping their losses (revenge for wasted time?). as a result, they would often kill their female children at birth, creating a huge male population without prospective wives. eventually, only the maharajis could afford wives. and they would fight battles over these rare women. if one knew he was about to be invaded, he would have all the women (including old and young) brought to the center of the city and lit on fire. he wasn't about to let the invaders get his women! soon, there were no women at all.

same thing happened in china. (it's still happening in china, due to the one child policy and traditional preference for male children)
and ancient greece (they were male pedophiles, mostlly (see pederasty)) and even ancient rome (although they promoted the family moreso, only for political reasons -- strong family unit equals strong nation). ancient egypt appears to be one of the few places women had any value and even they had a preference for males.

i think these examples you're quoting are historical accounts of people who were trying to survive in an exceedingly hostile environment. thus they developed various laws and traditions geared to increasing the longevity and survivabilty of the entire group (as opposed to only increasing the longevity of the emperor or pharaoh).





[edit on 4-2-2009 by undo]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
jesus was so ahead of his time, it's astounding! no one treated women as kindly as he did, in that time frame. in fact, we still struggle today because paul's word regarding women were treated as if they were directly from God, when in fact, they were just paul's perspective of the time they lived in.

back then, if a jew looked at a women and had any impure thoughts, he had to make sacrifice for forgiveness. they stopped looking at women at all, in fact, some would close their eyes and stumble over nearby objects to avoid "sinning". this was exacerbated by the near global disdain for women. by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, it was a disaster. women were to blame for pretty much everything at the community level. paul came out of that, and it's only natural he brought some of his traditional views of the man-woman thing with him.

i don't mean to say that the bible is unreliably inaccurate, per sey, but that it is a historical work, who's main point of divinity is in its prophetical texts and the words of Jesus -- which ring so true. in fact, he even describes some of the laws of moses as being simply that, the laws of MOSES. he wanted the people to know that God was indeed real but that the writings of men in power can sometimes be misconstrued as God breathed when in fact, they are man breathed and based on supposition. i will say however, that i believe the biblical texts to be the most accurate accounts of the ancient past available and that the prophecies are by far, the most astounding. not to mention, jesus was very cool, way ahead of his time.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



That’s not logical. If I were to approach my 9 year old niece and have her write everything I told her. It would be my words in her writing. The bible is considered by many to be G*ds’ word, but not G*ds’ writing.


I'm not saying god wrote it. Not sure what you're getting at. I'm saying that if man wrote the bible through visions that were inspired by god. How can you take what they saw as visions as the literal word of god if god didn't directly tell them word for word what to write?


Incorrect; the nature of the universe is cyclical, ergo a static truth is hard to come by. The interpretive and dynamic nature of the bible only adds testament to its’ aptness.


I'm not going to even try to decypher what that means - can you please explain more simply.


You’re assuming that merely because there was a median there is an error. I’m sure G*d would have no difficulty playing "banana phone”.


If god is all powerful he could have just explained the visions in a more
coherent manner. God should have had the foresight to know he would not be understood completely and expalin the visions more simply.

Talk about logical arguments


[edit on 4-2-2009 by andre18]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
i am not so sure you are talking about the same thing.
visions and 'god said' are different. what visions are you referencing?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I'm just using visions as an example. God speaking directly or just through inspiration, it really doesn't matter. If man wrote the bible through God speaking to him through visions or inspiration or angels or through god directly - it doesn't matter which, take your pick. How can you take what they saw as visions or angels etc as the literal word of god if god didn't directly dictate what to tell them word for word what to write?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by andre18]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


i think the context is very important. if it's a vision, it's different than an inspiration. in a vision, the data is direct, although it may be heavily symbolized. the symbolism serves a purpose.

in revelation, the symbols not only tied old testament prophecy to new testament prophecy, they also allowed the data to remain hidden from the reader till such time as the time arrived for understanding. some pieces of information were immediately recognizable and understandable, whereas others, had to remain buried in their respective symbols for the purposes of future translation. you can see how this would be necessary if the data was about events transpiring 2000 years later. what person of that time would understand the symbols if they were about something that hadn't been invented yet

inspired thought has more to do with what you believe the case may be, based on your personal understanding and personal convictions. it's like having the professor who is inspired by einstein, talk on the subject of 'spooky action at a distance.'



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
That’s not logical. If I were to approach my 9 year old niece and have her write everything I told her. It would be my words in her writing. The bible is considered by many to be G*ds’ word, but not G*ds’ writing. If you want to call into question my nieces writing ability, you might have a valid argument there.


It would not be your word. It would become a replacement for your word. Your word would only be the words you spoke to her.

To call what she writes your word says that you couldn't or wouldn't speak to other people in the same way. To call the bible gods word suggests that he can only speak to you in a book, and this I know is not true.

The bible was never mentioned to me in my teachings, but at the same time I do not think it is coincidence that after I learned I found the bible and could see the truth in it. But it is certainly not the word of god, it does however contain many truths, specifically in the word of Jesus.

There is a reason they say you can't understand the bible without the holy spirit. And this I also know to be true. I never understood any of it really until after my experience. And after my experience, reading the words of Jesus was like reading my own words, reading my own teachings. And the bible was never presented to me in the way I learned by anyone.

The closest the bible comes to being the word of god is when it quotes Jesus. Which is because the father is clearly speaking through him. But still not the word of god itself. It's not the same as hearing it with your own ears. It is but a shadow of it.



[edit on 4-2-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by luciferhorus
 


i think these examples you're quoting are historical accounts of people who were trying to survive in an exceedingly hostile environment. thus they developed various laws and traditions geared to increasing the longevity and survivabilty of the entire group (as opposed to only increasing the longevity of the emperor or pharaoh).

[edit on 4-2-2009 by undo]


Yes of course, however it is quite another matter when 1000's of years later such actions are considered by modern Christians to be the word of God.

Today our heads of state, Obama (in the US) and Elizabeth Windsor are both Christians and yet the same old, torture, murder, imperialism, narco-terrorism, etc., goes on. It has nothing to do with Jesus or with the Creator, but they do both claim to represent the Creator and Jesus.

Same old, same old.

LL

Lux



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciferhorus
Numbers 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.


The scripture is not referring to rape, rather those who would be taken as wives, as per the custom back then.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.....................

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead.


Again, wife-taking, as per the custom of that day.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.


Again, the scripture is pointing to wife-taking, which was the custom of that day.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


This is referring to the rules of war and is specifically talking about if a town surrenders to Isreal and does not mention rape.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]


First thing, no mention of rape.

Second, God was simply outlining the consequences of his actions, not specifically doing those things to him.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."


Sounds like its talking about marriage, not rape.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)


Again, marriage, not rape.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)


Pleasing her owner does not entail sexual relations. From the context of this scripture, sex is not even brought up, until there is marriage. So I fail to see where rape fits into this.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)


Zechariah was specifically foretelling the fall of Jerusalem. I fail to see how God is supporting rape in this scripture.


Originally posted by luciferhorus
Yes I did read that. It never ceases to amaze me that any amount of genocide, war, imperialism, the dropping of depleted uranium on children etc., etc, can be justified by the American Christian narco-terrorists / state-terrorists. It is all God's will, of course.


If a person is threatening your life and you have to kill that person in order to save your own life, is it wrong?

If a person is threatening your family and it's possible you would have to kill him in order to protect your family, is it wrong?

Many people operate on the assumption that killing is wrong under all circumstances, but there are situations where it is justified. Your statement above seems to me to be a blanket statement based on that assumption.


cannibalism etc.,

give one example where god said it was ok, please.


Deuteronomy 28:53
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
28:54
So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
28:55
So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
28:56
The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
28:57
And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
28:58
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;


How does God stating the consequences of disobedience mean that he advocates cannibalism? The beginning of chapter 28 states clearly what would happen if Israel remained obedient and verse fifteen contrasts that by stating what would happen



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
No, no and no. I don't assume anything, i know what i believe is the truth -i don't assume it, i know it. So you may ask how do i know?

Science is the foundation of truth, it's the only way we can find out what is real and what isn't. We have evidence through the scientific method that proves how the universe works. We know that it is a fact as is gravity and evolution. Now because the big bang is a fact, we can rule out god because we know the big bang negates the theory/idea of a god from existing.


how does the big bang negate god?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by luciferhorus
 


dunno, don't think it's possible to be a world leader and a christian at the same time, that is, unless you are only a figurehead and don't make any decisions that require doing unbiblical things.

as a christian myself, i use the old testament for various reasons, the two most prominent of which are:

1) historical research
2) prophetical research

most christian women i know avoid the old testament. they think it's a dark scary place. many christians are only familar with the sunday school stories - i.e. noah's ark, adam and eve, the exodus, david and goliath, joseph and the coat of many colors, daniel in the lion's den. but of course, there's alot more data in it than that. fascinating data that makes research (if you're into that kinda thing) a very interesting way to use the gray matter.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
You guys are not seriously considering the obvious, and that is if God does in fact exist, then what does He need a bible for to communicate His will?

He doesn't you know.

Revelation is a spiritual manifestation one that can only be accomplished by an individual living human being one of us at a time.

Personally I'm not against, nor am I for, the Bible, the Koran or the Cat In The Hat.

Consider the possibility that there are holy and unholy works.

If that is correct then what does that mean for those books, writings, paintings, whatever people claim to be or contain the word or will of God.

If such a thing is correct and true and the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon all of them are in fact spiritual works which contain the truth, then that work was received by revelation.

That means that supernatural means were employed, specifically word of knowledge, wisdom, or discerning of spirits, that is the only way such a thing could be accomplished.

In order to acquire a working interpretation of any section or part of such a book holy or un-holy, the individual seeking the truth would need to utilize the exact same means that were used to receive them.

That is what I am describing would be the case.

To begin with if the thing was actually received from any sort of God that might exist in the present moment, then nothing can be said to be true and correct, unless it is in sync with reality in real time, meaning it must be resolved to the condition of reality because it is one of simultaneous coexistence of multiple realities, which would be the exact situation if God in fact does exist.

Spiritual means would of necessity need to have been employed in the acquiring of revelation from God, given our true state of existence, therefore spiritual means must be utilized to acquire any working interpretation from any such thing as a holy writing or book.

---------------

Today's installment from WIG'N ( What is God Network )

WIG'N 19: Is God for real?

/b9mkv7

----------------------------------



[edit on 4-2-2009 by newday]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by luciferhorus
 


Actually all these so-called contradictions have explanations but it takes a lot of time to answer them. I will do three randomly just to show that it is possible.


Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

(a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)

(b) No (Joshua 15:63)


Joshua 10:23 & 40 does not specifically mention the city of Jerusalem.

23And they did so, and brought forth to him those five kings out of the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon.
Notice only the King of Jerusalem is mentioned not the city itself.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
Again no specific mention of Jerusalem, but some of the area's around it.

Then Joshua 15:63 specifically mentions the city of Jerusalem.

63 But the tribe of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, who lived in the city of Jerusalem, so the Jebusites live there among the people of Judah to this day.

Jerusalem was controlled by the Jebusites who's king and army were beaten in battle by Joshua and the King was killed. Nevertheless, after the burning of the city of Jebus and sometime before the dividing of the land, the Jebusites had control of the strategic heights of Jerusalem, which they had held for 400 years. So both scriptures are correct. Finally in 1070 BCE, King David conquered Zion the stonghold of the Jebusites. The book of Joshua was written around 1450 BCE so it makes sense that they were still living there when Joshua wrote this.

No contradictions here.

In my next post I will do another.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join