Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 286 of 384 (515689)
07-20-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Peg
07-20-2009 6:16 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:
you assume they raped them because it fits with your warped view of God.
The account says they made them their 'WIVES'
Actually my view of your god (and my god at one point in time) was 'warped' by reading the Bible in its entirity not just cherry picking as you and many other religious people do. If you do not find rape, pillaging, infanticide, ethnicide and other attrocities commanded by God in the Bible warped and twisted, than you truely are a sociopathic nutcase.
How do you define rape Peg? Let me repeat the analogy I used earlier so it sticks in your brain. If a man kidnapped your 16 year old daughter, forced her to "marry" him and then forced her to have sex with him; would you consider that rape?
Do you really think these virgin women and girls after having there husbands and fathers KILLED, and being KIDNAPPED by enemy soldiers and taken to the soldiers camps and forced to be "married" by these said soldiers, had consensual sex with their oppressors? So do you or do you not consider forcing women and young girls to have sex without their concent, rape? It is a yes or no question.
Peg writes:
You did not mention one scripture that command the men to rape anyone. The accounts were all talking about slaves and making the captive women, wives.
So sex slaves have a choice in whether they have sex with there masters? I think not. This is a clear case of rape which your god clearly allows to occur.
The following is not rape/sex slavery?
Exodus 21:7-11 writes:
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.
Selling your daughter as a sex slave isn't condoning and encouraging rape? What is the difference between this and selling your kids out as sex slaves in today's society?
Deuteronomy 20: 12-14 writes:
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.
II Samuel 12: 11-14 writes:
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
God is not only condoning rape he is single-handedly making it occur.
Myself writes:
If it [slavery/rape/child abuse/etc] is not ok now or back in the 1800s why is it ok, condoned and commanded by your god 2000 years ago.
Peg writes:
It has never been ok and God never said it was ok.
I showed you several dozen scriptures where God COMMANDED the pillaging and murder of entire villages including children and infants. The evidence is there you just choose to ignore it.
I was wrong about you Peg you have some deep psychological issues which you need to work on.
Peg writes:
He has been putting up with all that humans do, but he has never condoned it. He has allowed us to use our free will and we have abused it.
Peg, condoning and allowing are synonmous. If you allow something to happen you are in fact condoning it.
In this respect I have to agree with Dawkins take on it:
Dr. Richard Dawkins in the 'God Delusion' writes:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
Even some of the most intilligent and intelectual minds of history have had serious issues with the Hebrew god of the OT:
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Short, August 4, 1820. writes:
"There are, I acknowledge, passages [in the Bible] not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. The one (i.e. Moses) instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the grip of the priests of the superstition, a blood thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel."
Peg, I grow tired of arguing with you on this. You have no interest in seeing anything from anyones perspective but your own and it is useless arguing with you since you cannot follow simple logic.
I on the other hand was a Christian at one point in my life and have seen things from both sides of the fence. I grew up in a Christian family, my grandfather and father were both ordained ministers as well as several of my uncles, I as well as the majority of my family went to Christian colleges, I gave my life to Jesus at the age of 8 and was baptized again when I was in my early 20's, I read my Bible and prayed daily and married a Christian women, and I defended the cause of Christianity for nearly 30 years. However, through self-study, education and frank and earnest sole-searching I discovered how steeped in self-deception I actually was. As a result I saw that Christianity like all other religions is a emotional and societal crutch and had zero emperical evidence to support it and a slew of moral, scientific and historical contradictions, errors and out-right fabrication. As a non-religious person, I am now happier than I have been in my entire life and would not trade it for the world.
I hope you find happiness and joy in this life rather than hoping for a blissful existence in an afterlife that has no evidence of its existence.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Peg, posted 07-20-2009 6:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Peg, posted 07-21-2009 5:11 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 287 of 384 (515690)
07-20-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Hill Billy
07-17-2009 6:48 PM


Re: More evil than I thought
What? Is this a serious question?
Seems to me more along the lines of "If we have no bananas then how can we go fishing?"
You have free will.
GOD observes you exercising that freewill.
Before you exercise it.
Foreknowladge and predestination are separate concepts.
I've had enough concept stew thanks.
I see you're having trouble with thinking logically, so I'll try to use small words and extreme detail so you can try and follow the line of reasoning.
God is sitting in the nothingness that exists before he creates anything. He, knwoing everything, knows what will happen when he creates the universe. He knows, before he moves a muscle, that Adam will eat of the tree of knowledge and therefore doom all human life until the end times. He knows there will be evil on the world, that he will need to wipe out all of humanity, at least once, in order to rid the world of this evil. He knows that at 5:35, on July 20, 2009, I will leave my office, get in my car and drive. He knows that a person using the moniker Hill Billy on an EvC forum will again misunderstand, misrepresent, and ridicule a concept he has never thought of and can't comprehend.
He KNEW all that before he created the Universe. He went ahead and created the universe anyway. Thus it comes to pass that Adam eats the apple. God knew it would happen, did nothing to stop it, and thus is ultimately respinsible, since Adam couldn't have chosen otherwise, else God would have been wrong, and we know that can't be allowed to be a possibility.
God KNEW that the entire world would be so full of wickedness that he would have to flood his entire creation, killing all the people he claimed to have such love for, except for one family and the things they could fit on a boat. How could those people have been anything but wicked, since God made the universe knowing they would be so. If they were not wicked, God's foreknowledge would have been wrong, and we can't let that be a possibility.
God KNEW that I would turn left. All the things set in motion by his creation have led to that moment, and I have no option but to turn left, because if I turned right, God's foreknowledge would have been wrong, and we know we can't let that be an option.
God KNEW you would not understand this argument because you either don't want to consider the implications, or you can't comprehend the logic behind this. If you all of a sudden did understand, God would be wrong in his foreknowledge, and we know that can't be an option.
Foreknowledge, of the kind that God has, does indeed equal, exactly and unequivocably, predestination. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY way out of this is if God doesn't know the future, in which case he's not omniscient, he can be wrong, and your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Hill Billy, posted 07-17-2009 6:48 PM Hill Billy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Hill Billy, posted 07-23-2009 11:58 AM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 288 of 384 (515691)
07-20-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Hill Billy
07-17-2009 6:27 PM


Re: same old
While it may not be bad for the baby (assuming you caused no pain) it likely would be bad for those who loved the baby as well as those civil servants that had to deal with the remains.
The argument is crap anyway. If it's bad for you it's bad.
Those who loved the baby would be sad, but if you're right, their sadness is nothing compared to the joy and innocence that the baby exists in for eternity. The parents and other loved ones should be comforted by the fact that their baby will never be corrupted, will never have to contend with evil and will spend eternity in the joy and grace of God. Being sad at that just doesn't make sense, so they're just delusional.
The civil servants may be inconvenienced doing, you know, their job, but again, that's a minor thing compared to the ultimate, eternal joy that the baby is enjoying. They will also get paid for their work, and so, ultimately will find temporal joy down here by spending that money on things they like.
It's bad for me. I've sacrificed myself to the torment of Hell so that the baby would never have to experience the evil that lives in this world. In fact, I don't want anything to be left away from God, so I will kill all babies, and all people in the world, figuring that many people are in a state of grace and will go to God, and most of the ones who aren't probably won't convert anyway, so leaving them alive would be just as bad as letting Sodom go on living, and we all know what God did there.
So, yes, like a famous person I've heard of, I'm willing to sacrifice my very soul to make sure that all the righteous people in the world are able to go and live in the grace of God for the rest of eternity. I'm probably the biggest martyr in the world.
So, what does it say about yourself that you're not willing to sacrifice yourself for the joy of all those babies and true Christians that are daily tempted and led astray by the forces of evil? Are you just too selfish to do that?
Ain't it a good thing I'm not actually going to do this because I find your philosophy (and yes, this is your philosophy taken to it's logical conclusion) repugnant and unbeleivably callous and evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Hill Billy, posted 07-17-2009 6:27 PM Hill Billy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taz, posted 07-21-2009 2:44 AM Perdition has not replied
 Message 291 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 3:22 AM Perdition has replied
 Message 349 by Hill Billy, posted 07-31-2009 9:25 AM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 289 of 384 (515692)
07-20-2009 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Hyroglyphx
07-18-2009 11:41 AM


Re: More evil than I thought
I suppose though that it is entirely possible that there could be infinite possibilities concerning the future, and that one could be headed down a certain path which will lead to door X, but at any given time one could opt to go down door B, but not that we are even aware of such possibilities.
But wouldn't god already know that we would change course and thus go to door B, and thus he would know that we would never open door X, thus making door X just an illusion of a choice on our part?
Most people who believe in free will, will assert that there are many possibilities and we are choosing which one we ultimately pick, but with exact and perfect foreknowledge, the choice is just an illusion, since picking contrary to the foreknowledge is not an option.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-18-2009 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 290 of 384 (515767)
07-21-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Perdition
07-20-2009 2:54 PM


Re: same old
Perdition writes:
Ain't it a good thing I'm not actually going to do this because I find your philosophy (and yes, this is your philosophy taken to it's logical conclusion) repugnant and unbeleivably callous and evil?
For those of us who actually remember when hillbilly first showed up, it's kinda hard to take him seriously. His first 50 posts were nothing more than smart-ass comments. Only when threatened with suspension did he start pretending to debate.
I'm just sayin' so you don't have to spend too much energy wondering why his philosophy don't make any sense. He just makes them up as he goes along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 2:54 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 291 of 384 (515770)
07-21-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Perdition
07-20-2009 2:54 PM


Re: same old
It's bad for me. I've sacrificed myself to the torment of Hell so that the baby would never have to experience the evil that lives in this world.
Not necessarily.
For all you know you may repent just after you have killed the baby/babies.
If God created your repentance when He created the universe you can essentially do anything you want, because you are going to heaven regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 2:54 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Perdition, posted 07-21-2009 3:12 PM Brian has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 292 of 384 (515783)
07-21-2009 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by DevilsAdvocate
07-20-2009 2:39 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Deuteronomy 20: 12-14 writes:
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.
II Samuel 12: 11-14 writes:
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.
God is not only condoning rape he is single-handedly making it occur.
You fail to comprehend the context of these scriptures, you are miss applying what it meant to be an isrealite slave, and fail to take the ancient cultures into consideration.
the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history
Slavery existed long before the mosiac Law so you cant blame God for it. He kindly regulated slavery amongst the Isrealites so that slaves had some rights and when the Israelites followed his laws, slaves fared pretty well. they were free from working on the sabbath like other isrealites for instance.(Exodus 20:10)
Now regarding your contention that isrealite soldiers were commanded to rape women, you are wrong.
Isrealite soldiers were not permitted to have sexual relations with anyone when they were in battle. 1Sa 21:5 shows this to be the case. As does Deut 23:9 which is the law prohibiting sexual intercourse for soldiers in battle.
So Gods law is quite different to what you are claiming.
Your view is distorted and very extreme. Its not based on an accurate understanding of the culture of the peoples back then or the scriptures you are miss-quoting.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-20-2009 2:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-21-2009 1:27 PM Peg has replied
 Message 295 by themasterdebator, posted 07-22-2009 1:24 AM Peg has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 293 of 384 (515815)
07-21-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Peg
07-21-2009 5:11 AM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:
You fail to comprehend the context of these scriptures, you are miss applying what it meant to be an isrealite slave, and fail to take the ancient cultures into consideration.
Don't try to blameshift and move the goalposts. DID OR DID NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CONDONE AKA ALLOW THE PRACTICE OF SLAVERY AND SELLING THEIR CHILDREN AS SEX SLAVES TO OCCUR? It is a yes or no question.
Talk about moral relativism. Why is it ok by God to sell your daughter as sex slave 2000 years ago but not today?
In modern law, if you allow/condone/enable a crime to occur and it is within your power to prevent, intercede or at least try to act against this crime and you do nothing or allow it to happen than you can be tried under the law as an accessory to the crime. When did your god prevent any of these acts from occuring? Why was he more worried about the amount adornment in the tent by those who grovelled at his feet than the slaughter, rape and enslavement of innocent children and other attrocities?
So why should your god not be tried and convicted for enabling and sometimes commanding the occurrance of these horrendous acts to occur. By the way a great book, play and movie about this very subject is "The Trial of God" (also 'Night' is a sombering depiction of the terrors of the Holocaust) by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Auschwitz concentration camp inmate, in which a group of Jews in a Nazi concentration camp conduct an adhox trial against God for his abandonment of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
Elie Wiesel in 'Night' writes:
I was the accuser, God the accused. My eyes were open and I was alone — terribly alone in a world without God and without man.
My whole argument is in trying to pin down your rationalizing of the worship of a god who specifically commanded and/or condoned (allowed) slavery, ethnicide, infanticide and other attrocities to occur.
I even asked you point blank in Message 209
Peg writes:
Myself writes:
DID GOD HIMSELF ORDER THE KILLING OF BABIES AND INNOCENT CHILDREN. YES OR NO?
Yes.
Whether these events actually took place or not makes no difference. It is your unquivering justification of these acts which I find disturbing.
Peg writes:
the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history
In what ways where the Hebrew slaves treated any better? Show me some evidence. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Roman Justinian Code also had laws on slavery and some of the regulations are very similar if not almost identical to the Hebrew ones and some of which were more humane than the Hebrew ones:
Regulations restricting maltreatment of prisoners and slaves:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #116 writes:
If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.
Rules restricting endentured servitude:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #117 writes:
If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.
If a debt by a master is not paid, his slaves are to be freed:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #119 writes:
If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who has borne him children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.
The children of a slave and a free women cannot be enslaved:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #175 writes:
If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.
The children of a slave and a free women cannot benied their inheritance:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #176 writes:
If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry a man's daughter, and after he marries her she bring a dowry from a father's house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the slave die, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all that her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children
Babylonian slaves got medical treatment:
Code of Hammurabi: Laws on Slavery #215-219 writes:
If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.
If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.
If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.
If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.
Codex Justinianus writes:
But at the present day none of our subjects may use unrestrained violence towards their slaves, except for a reason recognized by law. For, by a constitutio of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, he who without any reason kills his own slave is to be punished equally with one who has killed the slave of another. The excessive severity of masters is also restrained by another constitutio of the same emperor. For, when consulted by certain governors of provinces on the subject of slaves, who fly for sanctuary either to temples, or to the statues of the emperors, he decided that if the severity of masters should appear excessive, they might be compelled to make sale of their slaves upon equitable terms, so that the masters might receive the value; and this was a very wise decision, as it concerns the public good, that no one should misuse his own property. The following are the terms of this rescript of Antoninus, which was sent to Laelius Marcianus: The power of masters over their slaves ought to be preserved unimpaired, nor ought any man to be deprived of his just right. But it is for the interest of all masters themselves, that relief prayed on good grounds against cruelty, the denial of sustenance, or any other intolerable injury, should not be refused. Examine, therefore, into the complaints of the slaves who have fled from the house of Julius Sabinus, and taken refuge at the statue of the emperor; and, if you find that they have been too harshly treated, or wantonly disgraced, order them to be sold, so that they may not fall again under the power of their master; and, if Sabinus attempt to evade my constitutio, I would have him know, that I shall severely punish his disobedience.
Now who is "fail[ing] to take the ancient cultures into consideration"? You have provided zero evidence to back up your claims.
Peg writes:
they were free from working on the sabbath like other isrealites for instance.(Exodus 20:10)
But you could beat them to a bloody pulp as long as they could get up two days later. Oh, what a humane, loving god. Again he could have stopped this practice anytime he wanted and did not. Why place restrictions on when people could work and not work yet allow the practice of slavery, sex slaves (even your own daughter), stoning, and other horrendous acts to occur.
Peg writes:
Now regarding your contention that isrealite soldiers were commanded to rape women, you are wrong.
Isrealite soldiers were not permitted to have sexual relations with anyone when they were in battle. 1Sa 21:5 shows this to be the case. As does Deut 23:9 which is the law prohibiting sexual intercourse for soldiers in battle.
Sure, whatever you say Peg. You are not fooling anyone. I never implied that these men were raping the women while they were still conducting battle. That may or may not have occurred, I have no clue. However, once they got these virgin women and girls back to there camps and 'married' them, were they willing participants of there rape? Does it really matter if the rape occurred during or after the battle? Really?!?
Peg writes:
Its not based on an accurate understanding of the culture of the peoples back then or the scriptures you are miss-quoting.
Bullshit. I am quoting directly out of the Bible, how is that misquoting? Misquoting would mean that I am not copying the quote correctly that I am pulling from the Bible. Show me where I did that.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Peg, posted 07-21-2009 5:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Peg, posted 07-22-2009 7:05 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 294 of 384 (515826)
07-21-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Brian
07-21-2009 3:22 AM


Re: same old
For all you know you may repent just after you have killed the baby/babies.
True, that may happen, but if I perform the action with the intention of repenting before I die, then is it really repenting? Maybe. Also, repenting means I decide that what I did is wrong, and except for God commanding "Thou shalt not kill" it seems that what I did was right, so why would I repent, except for save myself the torment of Hell, which again, doesn't seem like real repentance. And if anyone would know if I've really repented, I think God would be it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 3:22 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by themasterdebator, posted 07-22-2009 1:36 AM Perdition has not replied
 Message 298 by Brian, posted 07-22-2009 5:41 AM Perdition has replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 384 (515875)
07-22-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Peg
07-21-2009 5:11 AM


Re: Double standards?
Slavery existed long before the mosiac Law so you cant blame God for it. He kindly regulated slavery amongst the Isrealites so that slaves had some rights and when the Israelites followed his laws, slaves fared pretty well. they were free from working on the sabbath like other isrealites for instance.(Exodus 20:10)
First, I am sorry, I dont find being potentially beaten and lashed at any time as "fared pretty well". maybe you missed the pictures uploaded earlier. Do you think someone whose back looks like that is faring pretty well?
Second, Peg, this is highly illogical. Thats like saying you could not blame the US Government for allowing slavery in the 1800s. Slaves in the US had rights too. Sunday was generally a day of rest. There masters could not arbitrarily kill them. It all follows the same principles God established for slavery in the Israelites. In fact, as was pointed out earlier. Southerners would cite the Scripture pointing out that God had "regulated" slavery but not "abolished" it, so slavery was right by Gods laws. Can you please explain the difference between slavery in the US and slavery in Israel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Peg, posted 07-21-2009 5:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Peg, posted 07-22-2009 7:20 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 384 (515876)
07-22-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Perdition
07-21-2009 3:12 PM


Re: same old
so why would I repent, except for save myself the torment of Hell, which again, doesn't seem like real repentance.
This is probably the most popular reason for repenting. Why do you think preachers commonly threaten people with hell/non-entry to heaven if they do not repent their wicked ways? Even Jesus uses the tactic occasionally when threatening the wicked. It should most definitely be a legitimate reason to repent when even Jesus attempts to get people to repent by these means.
Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Perdition, posted 07-21-2009 3:12 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2009 2:26 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 297 of 384 (515879)
07-22-2009 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by themasterdebator
07-22-2009 1:36 AM


Re: same old
Hi master,
themasterdebator writes:
This is probably the most popular reason for repenting. Why do you think preachers commonly threaten people with hell/non-entry to heaven if they do not repent their wicked ways? Even Jesus uses the tactic occasionally when threatening the wicked. It should most definitely be a legitimate reason to repent when even Jesus attempts to get people to repent by these means.
It does not make any difference what preachers threaten people with.
By one man sin entered into the world bringing death and separation from fellowship with God.
John 3:18 says mankind is condemned already because he has not believed, it gives no other reason.
So mankind is already condemned and does not have much of a choice. If he does nothing he will spend eternity in the lake of fire. But he could choose to accept the free full pardon offered by God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by themasterdebator, posted 07-22-2009 1:36 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 298 of 384 (515882)
07-22-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Perdition
07-21-2009 3:12 PM


You have no choice
True, that may happen, but if I perform the action with the intention of repenting before I die, then is it really repenting?
Yes, it is because it has already been decided that you would repent at a certain time and place, this event was created at the time of creation.
God would have already decided that you will feel so much remorse over your actions that you will turn to God and repent, YOU have NO choice in the matter because it has already been decided.
And if anyone would know if I've really repented, I think God would be it.
Yes, God already knows who is going to heaven, He knew even before He created the universe, so you are only playing out a part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Perdition, posted 07-21-2009 3:12 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Perdition, posted 07-22-2009 10:57 AM Brian has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 299 of 384 (515888)
07-22-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate
07-21-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Don't try to blameshift and move the goalposts. DID OR DID NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CONDONE AKA ALLOW THE PRACTICE OF SLAVERY AND SELLING THEIR CHILDREN AS SEX SLAVES TO OCCUR? It is a yes or no question.
selling children as sex slaves - No. Thats your own interpretation which is incorrect.
Deutoronomy 19:29 "Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals"
the isrealites were given laws outlawing immoral sexual relations. There was a case of gang rape in the isrealite city of Gibeah that resulted in the death of the girl. When the other tribes of Isreal heard of what happened they attacked the city and nearly wiped out the entire tribe of Benjamin. So to claim that they permitted, and God commanded, rape is absurd.
You called the cannanite children innocent in Msg 209 and perhaps they were...however it was their parents who chose to stand and fight, so who really is to blame??? They could have left the land and taken their children with them for safety, but they didnt.
This doesnt mean that God wanted the innocent children to die, but the war had begun and the cannanites made a bad decision. Its not God who is to blame and it does not mean that he approves of the slaughter of innocent children. The cannanites chose to fight him and he passed judgement on them and all who belonged to them....the only ones who God allowed to live were those who requested mercy and joined the isrealites (Rahab the harlot and 1 city of cannanites)
_____________________________________________________________
Here are the mosaic laws concerning the treatment of slaves:
hebrew slaves were to be set free after 6 years
Exodus 21:2 "In case you should buy a Hebrew slave, he will be a slave six years, but in the seventh he will go out as one set free without charge"
the freed slaves were to be given some of the owners assets
Deuteronomy 15:13"And in case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. 14You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress."
this shows that slaves were paid for their service the same way a hired laborer was paid to the point where a slave could become wealthy enough to buy himself out of the slavery
Leviticus 25:49 "...Or if his own hand has become wealthy, he must also buy himself back. 50 And he must reckon with his purchaser from the year he sold himself to him"
Female slaves were protected especially and if the owner failed to comply in respect to her entitlements, she was legally allowed to go free without the payment of a redemption price as shown at Exodus 21:77
"And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he does not designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her. 9And if it should be to his son that he designates her, he is to do to her according to the due right of daughters. 10If he should take another wife for himself, her sustenance, her clothing and her marriage due are not to be diminished. 11If he will not render these three things to her, then she must go out for nothing, without money."
The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set free if mistreatment by the owner resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye.
Exodus 21:26 "And in case a man should strike the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he really ruins it, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his eye. 27And if it should be the tooth of his slave man or the tooth of his slave girl that he knocks out, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his tooth."
I know you're having trouble with this law, but you must recognize the difference between hitting out in anger (humans have a tendency to do) and bludgeoning someone to death with intent on killing him. This law is the only way to provide an owner the benefit of the doubt that he did not intend on murdering his slave.
If the slave died, the owner was to be put to death for murder.
Exodus 20:20"And in case a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand, that one is to be avenged without fail. 21However, if he lingers for a day or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is his money"
Male slaves, both hebrew or foreigners could join in the worship and festivals of the isrealites. Slaves of Priests could even eat of the holy things of the temple. This was prohibited to free Isrealites and to hired laborers, yet slaves of priests could.
Exodus 12:43 "This is the statute of the passover: No foreigner may eat of it. 44But where there is any slave man purchased with money, you must circumcise him. Then first he may share in eating it. 45A settler and a hired laborer may not eat of it."
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Sure, whatever you say Peg. You are not fooling anyone. I never implied that these men were raping the women while they were still conducting battle. That may or may not have occurred, I have no clue. However, once they got these virgin women and girls back to there camps and 'married' them, were they willing participants of there rape? Does it really matter if the rape occurred during or after the battle? Really?!?
You keep calling it rape but how can it be when the women became a wife and was given the same legal status as free isrealite women? Perhaps you are not taking into consideration the status of women in general in ancient times. Women were given away in marriage all the time. They did not choose partners, their parents did. All women were told who they would marry and All women accepted this tradition. This was a cultural norm and the customary practice in all those nations. Im sure they accepted this (just as they accepted polygamy) because to be a single woman in those days was a detriment...the best outcome for a captive woman was to become a wife and to obtain a legal status and the protection that came with being a wife.
In the case of the following scripture the woman was permitted time to grieve for her family before the man was permitted to marry her and have sexual relations with her. If she agreed to leave him because they really didnt like each other, then he had to permit her to leave freely.
Deut 21: 11and if you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form, and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife, 12you must then bring her into the midst of your house....and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her...and she must become your wife. 14And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have humiliated her."
the humiliting spoken of her is with regard to sexual relations because Gods view was that if a man took a womans virginity, he had to honor it, (hence why rapists had to marry their victim) but if, like in this case, the two did not like each other ( i say two because she had a say in what happened to her also as is seen by the words "agreeably to her own soul") then the man had to do the right thing by her because he had taken her virginity. This has nothing to do with rape at all.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-21-2009 1:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-22-2009 6:39 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 300 of 384 (515889)
07-22-2009 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by themasterdebator
07-22-2009 1:24 AM


Re: Double standards?
themasterdebator writes:
In fact, as was pointed out earlier. Southerners would cite the Scripture pointing out that God had "regulated" slavery but not "abolished" it, so slavery was right by Gods laws. Can you please explain the difference between slavery in the US and slavery in Israel?
i'm sure some southerners treated their slaves in a kind manner, whereas we know many did not.
this does not mean that Gods regulations on slavery failed. It means that people (who inherently fail) failed to apply the principles of Gods regulations.
The fact is that slavery under Gods regulations is fair and merciful when applied. He can only give mankind his standards, he cant force us to apply them.
See my post No. 299 for details on Gods regulations that made slavery fair and merciful.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by themasterdebator, posted 07-22-2009 1:24 AM themasterdebator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-22-2009 9:51 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024