Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

That wasn't an Ad Hominem. It was an observation and an insult.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not when they are praying for you to have understanding. The implication is that they don't, and that they don't through a deficiency on their part. Not really, but it becomes a problem when people don't realize or deny that they are being insulting. If they care, like you seem to, it helps to point out the implications which cause a perhaps well-meaning gesture to be insulting. Either, as long as the opinion conveyed is derogatory. The intention to insult counts more of course, but both qualify.For instance, compare these two comments:
"You are to blame for your terrible alcoholism, and I consider you a lesser human because of it."
vs
"I sincerely hope that you get over your debilitating alcoholism which is preventing you from being a functional member of society."Consider those two statements from the point of view of someone who does not consider themselves to have a problem with alcohol, and to be a relatively upstanding member of society. The first is perhaps more insulting than the latter, but they are both insulting.It is possible to be unintentionally insulting, do you agree?Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

Participants,Subtitles hint at the discussion in progress. It is disappointing to see an interesting subtitle and then find the post has nothing to do with the subtitle. The discussion has moved past the subtitle.Please update the subtitle to agree with the post.Thanks
AdminPD

HericTIC writes:
So its slavery. Plain and simple. They were TAKEN and FORCED to stay for a time period. But we are not talking about POW's. Those are people taken in time of war and released following the war.The Bible has god commanding the Hebrews to invade a land, kill all the men and TAKE the women.Please explain how they are the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------HERICTIC writes:
It also states they were forced to have sex.So you're disagreeing with Denis who stated there was never any slavery condoned by god Well you lost me. I was originally debating Denis who stated that the Bible does not condone rape or slavery."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."In this verse, unlike a few others, god does not command the Hebrews to kill everyone. But god does command that if the Hebrews take captives, they should take any women they find pleasing. Force her to their home. Force sex upon her. Denis tried to make it out that she was willing. Obviously that is not the case. Here is the kicker. After bringing her home, raping her...if he does not like her, force her out.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------herictic writes:
Now the actions of forcing women to marry and have sex....even if you want to hide behind the excuse that it was for their benefit..does this sound like something an all powerful god would come up with or manind? Do you think perhaps an all powerful god (we'll use your reasoning about starving to death) could have somehow fed them without the women being forced as slaves and raped? What I am trying to convey (obviously poorly) is that the actions god takes throughout scripture never seem to back up the assertion he is all wise and knowing. In other words, the Hebrews claim god "said"...and do X. Yet the actions are obviously of man, attributing it to their god.You made a comment earlier. After the Hebrews wipe out the men, they "could" take the women so that they didnt starve to death.Think about it. Obviously the women do not wish to be taken. Their husbands, friends, sons were just killed.Yet I can understand how man could come up with such a concept to at least appear somewhat humane.But an all knowing god? He could create many miraculous scenarios that could feed the women, without them being taken.Im just saying, the Bible makes god out to be very naive, barbaric and unjust.

I thought I just did. well you read it one way and Denis reads it another, its obvious that neither of you can convince the other to see it "your" way. Sounds like a difference of opinion, I can see it either way, if it makes you feel better i can take your side, since Denis is rather quiet on here. but why would God? This is the one God of the Hebrews, these "peoeple" are probably gentiles/pagans/infedels and do not really matter. making these women hebrew is really doing them a favor in the long run.the rules of God in the OT apply only to the Hebrews, thier people. Its easy for me to see why nobody likes the Jews, you are helping make that debate clear.

Who is this nobody of which you speak? Do you feel no one likes followers of Islam also, since they are also "people of the book"? Or for that matter Christians.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But we are not talking about POW's. Those are people taken in time of war and released following the war.
The Bible has god commanding the Hebrews to invade a land, kill all the men and TAKE the women.Please explain how they are the same. I must have missed it. Please show me how POW's, which are captured during war, held captive and released after the war is over the same as forcing woman to have sex, marrying their captors then cast aside when their "husbands" no longer wants them the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------"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." Im sorry...but I've been debating for quite a few years. Its not that one "sees' it differently, its one twisting scripture bc they cannot accept it for what it states. It clearly states the following:1) Among the captives, if you see a woman take her. Notice there isnt a choice involved.
2) She is to become the captors wife. Notice she does not have a choice.
3) After she is a wife, let her mourn for a month. Then have sex with her. Notice a choice is still not offered.
4) The very last verse states she was under compulsion. This means forced.The only way anyone can see it otherwise would be to lie. Plain and simple. Or has a reading comprehension problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is my point. They dont matter according to this loving god! LOL! I'm sorry...but YOURE making this debate clear. You were the one who said anyone who isnt a Jew doesnt matter! Which is the point. There is one god today according to Christianity. Who loves all mankind. Yet according to the OT, and your words, that isnt the case. God behaves exactly like the Hebrews. An all knowing, all powerful god would have many scenarios to help and/or solve problems. But that isnt the case. He acts like man.Why? Bc its man doing the actions, attributing them to their god.

I think this was meant for Artemis.

"people of the book" has nothing to do with what you just tried to use it in. stick to your athiesm as your knowledge of religions is sub-par.People of the book is a an english translation of an Arabic phrase, meant to describe non muslims who had a literary source for thier religion (Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.), though the Qur'an also states this, in the Qur' an only Jews and Christians are mentioned.this nobody is the the plethora of cultures throughout history who have not been kind to the Jews and thier ideas of being the most superior people on earth.

You know you are the rudest poster on this forum.Yes I misspoke. I poster with any integrity would have pointed it out and not been a total ass about it.But still you have given no reason for your comment other than antisemitism. So it is the jews fault that there were progroms and the holocaust?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

lulz, d00d you are a total ass about everything, i say, so STFU and stop crying about everything.you get so offended so fast about everything, and then you switch from logic to name calling in the drop of a hat. you were wrong but i am an ass for pointing your ignorance out, when you are hostile about everything. lolololololol you are hilarious. why does name calling and character assasination rank so high on your list of go to tactics, when some one says something you disagree with? I think it is because you cannot logically defend your point, and use the tactics of the the left, in any debate you come across. Anything I say that you dont like and the next thing you type is a personal attack. why limit the vast history of the hebrews to the last 100 years? their enemies stretch back to the bronze age. Would you call the Egyptians antisemitic, how about the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Romans? Is anyone in any culture or society (in the past 4000 years) who is not for israel, automatically a racist antisemite? I think a little more diplomacy on thier end could have helped them a bit.

Here's one about the Rapture and Tribulation.It states that when the Rapture begins the dead in Christ will be taken to heaven.Others believe that all true believers will be taken to heaven as is.This means that people are going to be taken to heaven with their physical bodies.So if people can be taken to heaven with their physical bodies, why does God need us to die before we can enter heaven?And doesn't that mean that beside Jesus and Elijah (I think that's the name of the guy God so loved he just took him straight into heaven) are the only human souls in heaven and the rest of the souls are still wandering the planet?

Is it not true? Are you required to pay your son anything for chores? Yet this is socially acceptable.Jacob worked as a slave for 7 years for free to get his wife Racheal (Genesis 29). And he was even decieved, and forced to work another 7 years.

quote:

---

Either, as long as the opinion conveyed is derogatory.

---

"God, I pray that you would be with Phage, and that his first child will be healthy."The bad version of this would be?

quote:

---

It is possible to be unintentionally insulting, do you agree?

---

Of course. Many people are offended by this. My uncle almost slapped the white off me when I told him I was praying for him. But some people find it offensive to drive cars, since they are a greenhouse contributor. Does this mean everyone MUST stop driving now, or that in any way driving is bad?

quote:

---

But we are not talking about POW's. Those are people taken in time of war and released following the war.

---

Sometimes.

quote:

---

The Bible has god commanding the Hebrews to invade a land, kill all the men and TAKE the women.

---

I'm not sure where we are in the Bible. Which book and chapter are we talking about?

quote:

---

So you're disagreeing with Denis who stated there was never any slavery condoned by god

---

God did command his people to take tribes as slaves. I will look it up tonight, and post the verse. I did post it much earlier on on this thread though...

quote:

---

I was originally debating Denis who stated that the Bible does not condone rape or slavery.

---

The Bible never makes mention of God approving of slavery or rape, but it was used by Gods people, so I would assume that slavery was acceptable in Gods eyes.

quote:

---

Force her to their home. Force sex upon her. Denis tried to make it out that she was willing.

---

First, it's DENNIS, not Denis. Second, in any translation of the Bible (I looked up 5), there is no mention of FORCED sex.However, in Genesis 34:1-7, a rape does occur. A man named Shechem rapes Dinah, the daughter of Leah. And in chapter 7:"And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacobs daughter, a thing that ought not to be done."This verse clearly says that rape is disgraceful in Israel, and that the brothers and father of Dinah were upset. Shechum asks for Dinahs hand in marriage, and Jacob says no, because he raped her. This shows that it was not socially acceptable to rape. Rules of war would be somewhat different.

quote:

---

But an all knowing god? He could create many miraculous scenarios that could feed the women, without them being taken.

---

Devine intervention takes place many times, and Jesus feeds a multitude (later in the new testiment). In this case (I hope Im reading the same story you guys are), the Israelites were Gods chosen people. God would not have performed a miracle for someone who didn't believe in him, and therefore would not have asked.