Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The bible condones murder and rape.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
FioDeus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 20-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote FioDeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The bible condones murder and rape.
    Posted: 20-Aug-2011 at 21:56
(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.

 

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

 

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?  Answer: God.


Be like water my friend.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2011 at 22:09
Like i said, it was a case of kill or be killed. The Jews had to be ruthless otherwise they would have been destroyed
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
FioDeus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 20-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote FioDeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2011 at 23:09
No, they did it in the name of their god, Yaweh.

An evil god.
Be like water my friend.
Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2011 at 05:45
Originally posted by Nick1986

Like i said, it was a case of kill or be killed. The Jews had to be ruthless otherwise they would have been destroyed


I don't think that's a good enough reason though. There are also many examples of despicable acts of cruelty which were actually not called for and you can't say that 'it was a ruthless time and they had to be ruthless'.

What about David killing 200 Phillistines and joyfully handing their foreskins to the israelites? Why prove that he killed them by taking their foreskins, why not any other body part? Why have to do some thing so barbaric in the first place? A man who is supposed to be a prophet, well above sainthood.

Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
                             1 Samuel 18:27

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.
                            
Judges 21:10

I'm assuming you can also explain why they killed the non-virgins and kept the virgins for themselves? Btw, how did they know that those women were virgins? I'm sure they had time to ask the people of jabesh-Gilead whilst they were fleeing for their lives... No, they raped them, that's the only way to find out if a woman is a virgin, if she bleeds then she is, is she does not then she is killed.

That was definitely necessary, I can see the justice behind it!

Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 12:27
The Egyptians used to cut off the hands of dead enemies as a way of counting the dead. David's decision to circumcise the dead Philistines may have stemmed from Saul's suspicions that David might also cut off the hands of dead Israelites, deceptively increasing the number of kills. As the Jews were already circumcised it was evident the men David killed were indeed philistines
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 14:03
Cruelty and barbarous tactics and or social processes? By whose measure? the Egyptians...the Assyrians.. The Hittites? the Babylonians...the Syrians....The Persians? The Romans? The medieval Christians? The varying ancient dynasties of China? The Huns? The Arabs of the dark ages-medieval period? The Turks in the 19th and 20th ce?
 
20th ce-21st ce revised definitions of the age of enlightenment with closet nationalistic agendas attached?  
 
It's an old song sung by many and still sung by some.
 
Who at some point didn't use use them. Context remains everything...in this case, conquest and consolidation and development or continuation of a culture.... so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later.
 
The same might be done  for any of the others noted above.
 
And right now that's what I am smelling reference this OP.
 
As to whether scripture supports and condones murder? Speculative and subjective in interpretation to either it's defenders or it's detractors...nothing more. Bible and Jew and Christian haters love to dwell in it.  But not from the concept of comparative analysis of other cultures. No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.Wink
 
Nor for that matter is any of this new.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 22-Aug-2011 at 14:10
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 16:50
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Cruelty and barbarous tactics and or social processes? By whose measure? the Egyptians...the Assyrians.. The Hittites? the Babylonians...the Syrians....The Persians? The Romans? The medieval Christians? The varying ancient dynasties of China? The Huns? The Arabs of the dark ages-medieval period? The Turks in the 19th and 20th ce?
 
20th ce-21st ce revised definitions of the age of enlightenment with closet nationalistic agendas attached?  
 
It's an old song sung by many and still sung by some.
 
Who at some point didn't use use them. Context remains everything...in this case, conquest and consolidation and development or continuation of a culture.... so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later.
 
The same might be done  for any of the others noted above.
 
And right now that's what I am smelling reference this OP.
 
As to whether scripture supports and condones murder? Speculative and subjective in interpretation to either it's defenders or it's detractors...nothing more. Bible and Jew and Christian haters love to dwell in it.  But not from the concept of comparative analysis of other cultures. No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.Wink
 
Nor for that matter is any of this new.


Smell what you wish, I am just laying down the facts as I perceive them. What is the standard of morality against which i compare these acts? Perhaps against the obvious standard, which is that of a religious figure of course. Frankly, I don't believe that these cruel acts ever took place. I am just against the idea that people can believe in something that professes good conduct and ethics whilst being involved in the most depraved acts history had ever seen. I do not really care in which way you try to reason it, 'it was a cruel time' just doesn't cut it for me. There is a clear difference between the NEED to preserve oneself and to blatantly engage in the lowest forms of murder and rape.

Was restoring the kingdom of Israel really worth killing and raping every single woman, old man and child that inhabited the land of Canaan? Just because it happened in ancient times does not absolve these acts from being labelled as despicable and unjust.
Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 17:54
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Cruelty and barbarous tactics and or social processes? By whose measure? the Egyptians...the Assyrians.. The Hittites? the Babylonians...the Syrians....The Persians? The Romans? The medieval Christians? The varying ancient dynasties of China? The Huns? The Arabs of the dark ages-medieval period? The Turks in the 19th and 20th ce?
 
20th ce-21st ce revised definitions of the age of enlightenment with closet nationalistic agendas attached?  
 
It's an old song sung by many and still sung by some.
 
Who at some point didn't use use them. Context remains everything...in this case, conquest and consolidation and development or continuation of a culture.... so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later.
 
The same might be done  for any of the others noted above.
 
And right now that's what I am smelling reference this OP.
 
As to whether scripture supports and condones murder? Speculative and subjective in interpretation to either it's defenders or it's detractors...nothing more. Bible and Jew and Christian haters love to dwell in it.  But not from the concept of comparative analysis of other cultures. No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.Wink
 
Nor for that matter is any of this new.


Smell what you wish, I am just laying down the facts as I perceive them. What is the standard of morality against which i compare these acts? Perhaps against the obvious standard, which is that of a religious figure of course. Frankly, I don't believe that these cruel acts ever took place. I am just against the idea that people can believe in something that professes good conduct and ethics whilst being involved in the most depraved acts history had ever seen. I do not really care in which way you try to reason it, 'it was a cruel time' just doesn't cut it for me. There is a clear difference between the NEED to preserve oneself and to blatantly engage in the lowest forms of murder and rape.

Was restoring the kingdom of Israel really worth killing and raping every single woman, old man and child that inhabited the land of Canaan? Just because it happened in ancient times does not absolve these acts from being labelled as despicable and unjust.
 
First you err historically here and scriptually..they were not, in the context of the source, restoring anything they were creating it.
 
Consequently the odor grows stronger with that perhaps freudian slip.Wink
 
I'll say it again.. this isn't new on the history blog or forum environement.. but it might be perhaps what I alluded to earlier.
 
''so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later. ''
 
''Bible and Jew and Christian haters love to dwell in it. But not from the concept of comparative analysis of other cultures. No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.''
 
And I might add.... under the guise of historical analysis.LOL
 
You can also add atheists and agnostics to the latter as well.LOL
 
As for the rest of your commentary, it merely smacks of naivety of the historical record as it relates to typical advancement of nation and ethnic state growth and development, from ancient times to the present.  And, imo, falls within the failed Platonian utopianist camp.
 
Alas.... many good men have lost their way trying to counter the realism of the beast known as man.Wink
 
I see nothing new about that either. And yes Baal facts as 'you percieve them' succintly furthers the point..subjective and speculative...nothing more.
 
Not to mention... if you do not believe they ever occurred... then the speculation and conudrum inherent of the "idea that people can believe in something that professes good conduct and ethics whilst being involved in the most depraved acts  history had ever seen''.... is illogical in the method approach as well as naive to actual cultural developement. And merely belongs then in the bullshit repository section of 'alternate history'.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 22-Aug-2011 at 18:10
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 19:30
It must also be remembered that corpses were stripped of their clothes, weapons and armor which would be reused by the victors. By the end of the war with the philistines many Israelites would have worn the same armor. Circumcision was the only way of telling Jew and pagan apart as many Philistines would have had Semitic features, being descendents of Greek settlers who intermarried with the locals
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2011 at 22:44
One last note.... this thread actually does not belong in this sub... it should either be in the
 
 
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
It has nothing to do in context with the intent of the Current Affairs sub...unless of course one kens and recognizes the probable intent, imo,  of the OP.... to be in concert with my earlier statement.
 
Particularly that portion of the comment highlighted in blue.Wink
 
 
''so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later. ''
 
As I noted... it is an old trick for Bible, Jew and Christian haters to attempt the historical nexus under the guise of anlaysis when their intent was obviously more in line with the standard obsfucatory efforts to support surreptitiously their real agenda.....iow. ''No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.''
 
In other words it failed...as I am to old a wolf to be bought in by the old trick of a lamb on a chain.LOL
 
But for now... I will leave it here.
 


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 22-Aug-2011 at 22:47
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 00:45
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

Originally posted by Nick1986

Like i said, it was a case of kill or be killed. The Jews had to be ruthless otherwise they would have been destroyed

What about David killing 200 Phillistines and joyfully handing their foreskins to the israelites? Why prove that he killed them by taking their foreskins, why not any other body part? Why have to do some thing so barbaric in the first place? A man who is supposed to be a prophet, well above sainthood.
http://www.northernway.org/twm/mary/main.html

I'm assuming you can also explain why they killed the non-virgins and kept the virgins for themselves? Btw, how did they know that those women were virgins? I'm sure they had time to ask the people of jabesh-Gilead whilst they were fleeing for their lives... No, they raped them, that's the only way to find out if a woman is a virgin, if she bleeds then she is, is she does not then she is killed.
That was definitely necessary, I can see the justice behind it!

The foreskins I see as a reference to human sacrifice, actually a substitution for it. Circumcision came from the norion of personal sacrifice one has to make to be accepted in the Sacred Time /Eliade/; hence collecting the foreskins of men was direct sacrifice to god. Now, we have to keep in mind that all religions evolved in a religious matrix of a kind - the Westren type matrix was set up with the Sumerian god Dumizi - he died and was reborn, setting the matrix for Osiris, Dionysos, and Jesus. So, in this matrix there are several components that are repeating itself all the time in all western religions - virginity, sacrifice, death/ressurection are among those.

Yahwe is only a god whose cult develops like the cult af any other western god, sliding in the same matrix. Of course, Yahwe didn't die and get ressurected, this developed later with Christ /Yahwe and Christ are one and the same image with 2 faces, which explains why the protestant denominations actually see Christ being Yahwe and then being Christ, and the Catholics seeing god father, Son and Holy Ghost in one/.

Anyway, to understand the foreskins and the virgins we have to look at the matrix - in the cult of Dumuzi - and in it we have Hiero Gamos, /the Sacred Marriage between Inanna and Dumuzi that gives life to everything/,and sacrifice /Dumuzi dying/. Hiero Gamos ritual may have been accompanied with a real copulation of a priest and a priestess, or a virgin girl selected for the purpose. In a way, taking a virgin is the same thing - a sacred marriage that put one in a the Sacred Time.

So, they needed virgins, because those women weren't from the tribe that was sacred to god, to make them so they had to be virgins, and in this way to sacrifice their virginity to Yahwe in the same way in which men had to sacrifice their foreskins through a circumcision in order to get into the Sacred Time and Space. In many ways giving up virginity for women is the ancient remnant of Hiero Gamos, that's why Christianity /some denominations still do that/ demand women to be virgins before marriage - because giving up their virginity in a marriage into the Church they actually perform a sacrifice and Hiero Gamos in one that puts them in the Sacred Space.

I actually think it's quite logical, everything makes sense - the Jews go to conquer some heathen people and to use what they have they have to sanctify them - cut their men's foreskins and marry their virgin women, in this way performing both a scarifice and Hiero Gamos to Yahwe. Before this being done the ehather people are filthy, unusable, because they are not part of the Sacred Space sanctified by Yahwe. Only after those sacrifices are done, the heathens are not heathens anymore, but part of the sacred space, hence what they have can be used by the Jews. This is "making them kosher" so to speak.

Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 14:55
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

One last note.... this thread actually does not belong in this sub... it should either be in the
 
 
 
 
or
 
 
or
 
 
It has nothing to do in context with the intent of the Current Affairs sub...unless of course one kens and recognizes the probable intent, imo,  of the OP.... to be in concert with my earlier statement.
 
Particularly that portion of the comment highlighted in blue.Wink
 
 
''so be wary less ye soley id the ancient Hebrews as the world's only perpetrators and lobby for a nexus with that and their sacred-social writings and cultural actions. And or attempt to create an agenda that is covertly attached to an opinion about their descendants 5000 years later. ''
 
As I noted... it is an old trick for Bible, Jew and Christian haters to attempt the historical nexus under the guise of anlaysis when their intent was obviously more in line with the standard obsfucatory efforts to support surreptitiously their real agenda.....iow. ''No.... generally, it is for political machinations of the present.''
 
In other words it failed...as I am to old a wolf to be bought in by the old trick of a lamb on a chain.LOL
 
But for now... I will leave it here.
 


If you have something concrete to offer then please do so because I don't see why you are so resolute on saying that have some kind of agenda in this, I don't. The situation happening in Palestine ad Israel nowadays is definitely not parallel to this biblical account. As I said before, you can accuse me of having any agenda you want and to be biased against christianity/judaism but i have laid down my facts.

As to your opinion that I am a utopian idealist, I was debating that these actions were too horrible not in comparison to what people did back then but against the fact that these actions were 'sanctified' in the bible as being normal and necessary. There is not even one word said after the mention of these 'parables' which shows at least a feeling of gravity, not necessarily saying that they were wrong, but at least admittance that these actions were cruel, nowhere to be found. Just simple prose, same style you would use to write any other story...

Please don't answer if you're going to repeat your mumbo jumbo about me being a wolf in sheep's skin Tongue
Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 15:01
Yes Baal I am sure you believe all that....LOL
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 18:09
How do we know the foreskins came from dead Philistines? They may have come from prisoners who agreed to convert to Judaism in return for their freedom
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Don Quixote View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4734
  Quote Don Quixote Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 18:54
Originally posted by Nick1986

How do we know the foreskins came from dead Philistines? They may have come from prisoners who agreed to convert to Judaism in return for their freedom

In my view it didn't matter if the Philistines the foreskins came from were dead or alive; because in the both cases they had to be sanctified, to me put in the Sacred Space by sacrificing their foreskins. It's important that exactly the foreskins were to be asked for, not ears or other part of the body; the same foreskins the Jews themselves sacrificed to Yahwe by getting circumcised. So, it wasn't mutilation, it was sanctifying. Genesis 17;14 states that all uncircumcised males were out of the sacred space:
"...And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant...."

Of course none of that has any relevance today, it's only of interest to history of religions - to explain how this occurred in the first place. Every religion has it's own logic, and every part of what was part of the Old Testament has relevance only to the particular period in which it mattered, in which it became part of the sacred writings of Judaism. To use it today for any religious or moral  purposes would be most out of it's time and space.

So, no, the Bible doesn't condone murder and rape; this part of the sacred text was relevant only for it's specific time and space, not now by any means. The Bible combines the whole history of Judaism and Christianity with everything that was relevant in one time or another, this doesn't mean that all of it is relevant today.


Edited by Don Quixote - 23-Aug-2011 at 18:58
Back to Top
FioDeus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 20-Aug-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
  Quote FioDeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2011 at 22:30
There is no attempt at Jew hate in this post.

Anybody subscribing to that belief is intellectually challenged.

The question is relevant
Be like water my friend.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2011 at 07:14
Why would anyone hate Jews? The settlers in modern Israel have committed a lot of atrocities but you can't blame the entire Jewish people for the crimes of a minority
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 19:18
Look how the cowardly little antisemite flees as soon as he discovers we all find his views abhorrent.
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2011 at 23:35
His posts contained a consistent theme and that smacks of the  anti-semitic, imo, no matter how cleverly the attempt to disguise. How do I know this?
 
15 plus years of blogging and forumming....ya see the same and can determine the signs.
 
The 4x generation's (read 21st ce. dis-effected youth crowd normally) attempts....
 
 (and whether he was being deliberately anti-semitic in his comments remains debatable)
 
 ...is nothing more then the rehash I read in print in France or Germany and elsewhere, in 1974.
 
Baal on the other hand, asked and made legitimate questions and responses. I refuted those I chose too; and recognize his intentions, I believe, as being one of a scholar seeking opinions...guidance and opportunity to present his problems within the premise or context of the OP. And in the spirit of academia....and I never criticize that.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 01-Sep-2011 at 23:36
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2011 at 14:31
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Yes Baal I am sure you believe all that....LOL


Please don't toy with me...

But I sincerely am not trying to target Jews in any way, I have no way of proving it on the net but you can take it or leave it, your call.



My concerns are merely with the Old testament and not with the New Testament which from what I recall from it contains less of what I consider to be very profane and not worthy of being part of a 'holy book'. I don't want to create a non-sequiter where you would not be able to understand why I am so angered by the passages I mention. Let us leave the stories of David, Moses, the israelites, Joshua behind because it seems that no matter my argument, murder, rape and genocide seem to be totally justifiable in this context as per your opinions Nick and CV.

What I find most disturbing with the bible is the incessant mentions of immoral acts which are perpetrated by people considered to be 'close to God'. Take the story of Lot as an example. Lot was a relative of both Jacov and Abraham and I'm sure you are familiar with the episodes of incest which transpired in that cave after he fled with his two daughters from Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, Lot had no control over what happened with his daughters (he was inebriated, maybe too much for a pious person, imo, especially on two consecutive occasions...) and I am fine with that. But why is the parable described so well and yet, one thing is always lacking, there is no moral at the end, no words of reproach from God, no 'Do not do as the daughters did unto Lot', not a single word to clearly state that God is against such behaviour.

In fact, when the homosexual people of Sodom wanted to sleep with the angels, what does Lot do? Well of course he offers his own daughters to be prey to these men's most base sexual desires. Did God not feel the need to tell his followers that this man was doing a right and a wrong as well?

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.
                                           Genesis 19:8

What about the story of Judah and Tamar the harlot? Because he didn't recognize her, he 'came unto her', this meaning that if it was a regular harlot it would have been fine and dandy? How about the fact that Judah is one of Jesus christ's forefathers? Is Jesus christ from the lineage of a prostitute, is this really what the bible is saying...

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12





I am avidly awaiting your responses and I promise that if you give me a reasonable explanation I will no longer post about this topic ever...


Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.