Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
58 online now:
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,821 Year: 933/6,534 Month: 933/682 Week: 168/445 Day: 13/48 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Created in the image of God
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 101 (3301)
02-02-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by TrueCreation
02-01-2002 11:46 PM


Thats actually very simple. Early man lived very much in extended families or tribes and unlike what the book of genesis quite ridiculously advances,the average lifespan was considerably shorter back in those days...you were lucky if you lived to the ripe old age of 60,especially if you were a man. The list of attrition factors was very long; war,famine,disease,droughts,animal predation,you name it. The deck was very much stacked against humanity because aside from our higher cognitive capabilities,we have really no natural deffense(claws,fangs,fast locomotive capabilities to get away or wings to fly,poisonous skin,hardened scales,ect). Man really had only two things going for him...his brain power,as i previously mentionned and procreation. Having as many children as possible that could either become deffender or providers for the tribe at a very early age(10-12 years old on average) was the best way to offset the many difficulties they faced everyday. And because men were the ones doing most of the dangerous work (war,hunting,building things) and because women have on average a longuer lifespan then men,there were almost always more women then men in early tribes. Given all these factors,it natural that they took a very dim view of male homosexuality back in those days because every homosexual couple meant that there were less children being born to the tribe an this flew right in the face of their very survival. So the holy men/priests/rabi of those tribes who were for all intents and purposes representative of the law in the tribe,declared male homosexuality a sin punishable by death and wrote it in their biblical laws,along with other similar laws,like eating shellfish or porks,both of which are dangerous to consume if they are not prepared properly. Its also interesting to note that there's really not much condemnation in the bible for FEMALE homosexuality. The reason is that polygamy was a common practice back in those days as well,because of the larger number of women compared to the number of men and it was viewed as perfectly natural and even desirable that the many wives of a man be inclined to feel a close kinship and even pleasure each other when the husband was busy with one(or sometimes two or three) of his many wives or away at war/hunting. And considering how the vast majority of men get a kick out of watching two women doing it,its likely that the foolish rabi the would put down such practice as sinfull in the bible would have been quickly replaced by a more reasonable rabi...but that last one is just my humble opinion...:-). Anyway,as you can see,you dont need God to suddently find something sinfull....sometimes,secular reasons will do just fine. The problem is that we inherited that mentality along with their religion but the situation that created the problem the early hebrew faced does not exists anymore. Humanity is thriving on earth to day and is not threatened with extinction...at least not by factors that have anything to do with homosexuality but unfortunately,the cultural bias remains to this day even though the reason for it is long gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 02-01-2002 11:46 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 12:02 PM LudvanB has responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 101 (3304)
02-02-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by LudvanB
02-02-2002 6:53 AM


"Thats actually very simple. Early man lived very much in extended families or tribes and unlike what the book of genesis quite ridiculously advances,the average lifespan was considerably shorter back in those days..."
--As I have continually emphesised for you, these old ages are nothing like 'rediculous' as you so portray it to be like so, as you simply have to admit that it is not rediculous, unless ofcourse you can give me a comment a little better than 'but the fact is that cancer cells are deadly to human life so they certainly do not allow us to live 900 years'.

"you were lucky if you lived to the ripe old age of 60,especially if you were a man. The list of attrition factors was very long; war,famine,disease,droughts,animal predation,you name it. The deck was very much stacked against humanity because aside from our higher cognitive capabilities,we have really no natural deffense(claws,fangs,fast locomotive capabilities to get away or wings to fly,poisonous skin,hardened scales,ect). Man really had only two things going for him...his brain power,as i previously mentionned and procreation. Having as many children as possible that could either become deffender or providers for the tribe at a very early age(10-12 years old on average) was the best way to offset the many difficulties they faced everyday. And because men were the ones doing most of the dangerous work (war,hunting,building things) and because women have on average a longuer lifespan then men,there were almost always more women then men in early tribes. Given all these factors,it natural that they took a very dim view of male homosexuality back in those days because every homosexual couple meant that there were less children being born to the tribe an this flew right in the face of their very survival. So the holy men/priests/rabi of those tribes who were for all intents and purposes representative of the law in the tribe,declared male homosexuality a sin punishable by death and wrote it in their biblical laws,along with other similar laws,like eating shellfish or porks,both of which are dangerous to consume if they are not prepared properly."
--Great story there, ofcourse this assumes that Evolution happens, and cannot go against the bible unless that is true, so it is circular reasoning, assuming that the Biblical Creation is right, this story is nothing short of fairy tail. And it is not surprising that God would have people write in the bible on sanitation laws, they didn't even know about Germs and bacteria and yet the bible portrays their presence.

"Its also interesting to note that there's really not much condemnation in the bible for FEMALE homosexuality."
--No actually, it condemns them equally, as when they do speak of condemning homosexuality, it condemns not only men but women to do so.

"The reason is that polygamy was a common practice back in those days as well,because of the larger number of women compared to the number of men and it was viewed as perfectly natural and even desirable that the many wives of a man be inclined to feel a close kinship and even pleasure each other when the husband was busy with one(or sometimes two or three) of his many wives or away at war/hunting. And considering how the vast majority of men get a kick out of watching two women doing it."
--Again great story, but it assumes as I stated above.

"its likely that the foolish rabi the would put down such practice as sinfull in the bible would have been quickly replaced by a more reasonable rabi...but that last one is just my humble opinion...:-)."
--The bible refers to homosexuality for both men and women when it discusses it, and it seems as it all is an opinion that the skeptics would see as more attractive than the bibles.

"Anyway,as you can see,you dont need God to suddently find something sinfull....sometimes,secular reasons will do just fine."
--Sure you can make up a story for almost anything really, but what your going to need now is potential falsification, so how is your story more accurate than the biblical portrayment discluding a basis in opinion.

"The problem is that we inherited that mentality along with their religion but the situation that created the problem the early hebrew faced does not exists anymore. Humanity is thriving on earth to day and is not threatened with extinction...at least not by factors that have anything to do with homosexuality but unfortunately,the cultural bias remains to this day even though the reason for it is long gone."
--The reason for it can go either in your view of it being an 'extinction problem' or it can go in the bible as obviously a practice that will get yourself into the hands of disease as happens abundantly today, and also as simply an abomination that God didn't make you to do. So, is there any way you can think of falsifying the bibles view without the basis in opinion? Or is it all simply opinion?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 6:53 AM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 5:38 PM TrueCreation has responded

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 101 (3316)
02-02-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 12:02 PM


This not an opinion TC...this is anthropological data gathered about the myths and custums of people who lived back then. Its based of writings as well as art and good old fashion common sense. You are always speaking about your Bible is if its was somehow special and unique...there are dozens of different "holy" books across dozens of different cultures. Why should yours be any truer. What i told you about homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution. As i said,it a cultural thing,nothing more. Are you really gonna stand (or sit) there and tell me that all mighty God took even one second of his eternity to make up rules about sexual practices,what we eat(pork and shellfish) and how we dress(Bible says no cloth weaved with more than one thread,its a sin)? Come on,TC...even you cant be that gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 12:02 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:02 PM LudvanB has responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 101 (3320)
02-02-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by LudvanB
02-02-2002 5:38 PM


"This not an opinion TC...this is anthropological data gathered about the myths and custums of people who lived back then. Its based of writings as well as art and good old fashion common sense."
--Quite vague, as I asked if there is any evidence for falsification of the biblical presentation as we have discussed, so is there any evidence against it, or is it all for it, if there is evidence to contrast in any sence at all.

"You are always speaking about your Bible is if its was somehow special and unique...there are dozens of different "holy" books across dozens of different cultures. Why should yours be any truer."
--Because it has not been falsified, it is completely true,
(as long as it is falsifiable, as some parts in the bible require complete faith, that is, there is no evidence for or against it, this would require faith) front to back cover, from everything that we find that can be tested, it comes up positive, if you would like to list anything else you think is eroneously proclaimed in the bible, I'd like to discuss it's feasability, unless you fear it is all accurate.

"What i told you about homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution."
--I never said it was, you brought it up and I could help but comment.

"As i said,it a cultural thing,nothing more."
--Sure, but it could also be a law ordained by God himself, but I know you wouldn't examin it.

"Are you really gonna stand (or sit) there and tell me that all mighty God took even one second of his eternity to make up rules about sexual practices,what we eat(pork and shellfish)"
--Well actually he didn't take a second, as time did not exist . God layed down these commandments, some for our safety, and some to make us realize we are not perfect, and that we need a savior, being what the bible teaches.

"and how we dress(Bible says no cloth weaved with more than one thread,its a sin)? Come on,TC...even you cant be that gullible."
--Assuming it requires gullibility, but where did you get the 'no cloth weaved with more than one thread' being a sin in the bible?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 5:38 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 6:29 PM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 96 by nator, posted 02-07-2002 2:24 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 101 (3325)
02-02-2002 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 6:02 PM


TC,the bible does not require to be proven false....it has to be proven true...at least as far as i'm concerned. The multi thread cloth laws are in levictus i believe,along with the pork,shellfish and homosexuality laws. And as i said,the Bible does not condemn FEMALE homosexuality...at least not specificaly. You can decide to infer that it does but that is just your opinion,not a fact...i'd even go so far as to say that most of your interpretations are very much your own BTW...i've spoken to other christian believers that gave me different explanations for some of my questions...One of them actually agreed with me about homosexuality and said that what the Bible actually condemns is homosexual prostitution and not the loving commited relationship of either two men or two woman...perhaps it would help if you guys all got together sometime to get your stories strait...no pun intended. Homosexuality per say is not more dangerous than heterosexuality btw...aids is not born from frictioning body parts...its a virus...it has to exist in one of the two homosexual men in order to be transmited. Promiscuous and anonymous unprotected sex...now thats playing the roulette big time but thats true for both strait and gays...and even then,not women...there is no single documented case of female to female transmition of any sexually transmited disease in medical science. But as i said...you can choose to infer that God wrote the Bible through the hand of man if you so desire...i choose to go with the more logical and likely conviction that man came up with the Bible all on his own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 6:02 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 7:10 PM LudvanB has responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 101 (3328)
02-02-2002 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by LudvanB
02-02-2002 6:29 PM


"TC,the bible does not require to be proven false....it has to be proven true...at least as far as i'm concerned."
--Like I said before, when someone seeks to present it as being false, it on the contrary is proven feasable (No one can say true, no matter what the evidence of the past, thus evolution, but if you going to say that Evolution is fact, then it is no more fact than the falsifiable truths of the bible).

"The multi thread cloth laws are in levictus i believe,along with the pork,shellfish and homosexuality laws."
--I couldn't find anything on shellfish or pork or even multi thread cloth in leviticus?

--Though, I found these other sanitation laws in leviticus quite amazing:

Leviticus 11:25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 11:32 When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean.

Leviticus 11:31 Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening.

Leviticus 11:33 If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot.

Leviticus 11:34 Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean.

Leviticus 11:35 Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean.

Leviticus 11:37 If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean.

Leviticus 11:38 But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:39 If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening.

--And there is much more in this chapter of Leviticus, I find this amazing as it ties in directly to diseases and germ related problems, that obviously would have been solved by obeying God, who knew Germs existed.

"And as i said,the Bible does not condemn FEMALE homosexuality...at least not specificaly. You can decide to infer that it does but that is just your opinion,not a fact..."
--Actually it is fact that the bible condemns female homosexuality directly:

--While discussing homosexual abomination in Romans--
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

"i'd even go so far as to say that most of your interpretations are very much your own BTW..."
--Like what? Is it not obvious.

"i've spoken to other christian believers that gave me different explanations for some of my questions...One of them actually agreed with me about homosexuality and said that what the Bible actually condemns is homosexual prostitution and not the loving commited relationship of either two men or two woman...perhaps it would help if you guys all got together sometime to get your stories strait...no pun intended."
--That would be great, I don't know if you can find the guy again though.

"Homosexuality per say is not more dangerous than heterosexuality btw...aids is not born from frictioning body parts...its a virus...it has to exist in one of the two homosexual men in order to be transmited. Promiscuous and anonymous unprotected sex...now thats playing the roulette big time but thats true for both strait and gays...and even then,not women...there is no single documented case of female to female transmition of any sexually transmited disease in medical science. But as i said...you can choose to infer that God wrote the Bible through the hand of man if you so desire"
--I don't think that it has to be a cause of a disease neccessarelly, though origins of diseases could be linked to it in some form or another, though I don't see that argument relevent enough. The fact is that God didn't create us to do such things, so he condemned it because it is a pleasure not focused on God but your own lust.
--Also, though it isn't sexuality, the HIV virus I believe originated in the perverse actions that went to South America and had sex with the Green Monkeys, I believe.

"i choose to go with the more logical and likely conviction that man came up with the Bible all on his own."
--Well all I have to say is, God, we must have been extreamly smart then!

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

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 6:29 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 7:51 PM TrueCreation has responded

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 101 (3329)
02-02-2002 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 7:10 PM


Actually,you dont need to have sex with a monkey to gets hiv...any mixing of bodily fluids will do (say like monkey saliva mixed with human blood,the result of a monkey bite).

You dont need God to discover that some things are hazardous to do...its more likely that some people tried them first,they got sick and died and THEN,the laws were enacted. Its quite probable that back then they believed that God was directly punishing the offenders and had no knowledge whatsoever of what germs were.

As for homosexuality,you say God did not make us to do this...this assumes that A: God DID make us,an assertion with no facts to expressly back it up or that B: thats God DIDN'T intend for some men and some women to be homosexual...again,just your and your chosen mythology's OPINION.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 7:10 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 8:36 PM LudvanB has responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 101 (3332)
02-02-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by LudvanB
02-02-2002 7:51 PM


"Actually,you dont need to have sex with a monkey to gets hiv...any mixing of bodily fluids will do (say like monkey saliva mixed with human blood,the result of a monkey bite)."
--Mabye not but thats what they did, and that is what it is traced to, sex with the green monkeys, besides, I am not sure about the monkeys but, the HIV virus isn't present in saliva.

"You dont need God to discover that some things are hazardous to do..."
--Well first, God disn't 'dicsover' it, he made it himself, so whats there to discover? Also, he didn't need to tell us to just trust him because he knew, sure, but he did because he's a God of love, not death and survival of the fittest or something of the nature.

"its more likely that some people tried them first,they got sick and died and THEN,the laws were enacted. Its quite probable that back then they believed that God was directly punishing the offenders and had no knowledge whatsoever of what germs were."
--Like I would continuously emphesise that an approach like this will be more atractive to a biblical skeptic. Oddly, they seem to know how diseases are transmitted, and possibly how to diffrentiate viruses from bacteria. The thing is, that if you were to take all of those sentances and replace unclean with diseased, or germ infection, or something like that, it is completely scientifically accurate, which could be what they meant by unclean. Also, it says God said these things, not man.

"As for homosexuality,you say God did not make us to do this..."
--Ofcourse, if we wan't to figure validity and feasability, we must do so.

"this assumes that A: God DID make us,an assertion with no facts to expressly back it up or that B: thats God DIDN'T intend for some men and some women to be homosexual...again,just your and your chosen mythology's OPINION."
--Not my opinion, the bibles, we are discussing the bible right?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by LudvanB, posted 02-02-2002 7:51 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by LudvanB, posted 02-03-2002 1:19 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 75 by JClarke, posted 02-04-2002 10:31 PM TrueCreation has responded

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 101 (3343)
02-03-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 8:36 PM


Thats what is said TC...your opinion AND the opinion of your chosen mythological beliefs(the Bible),none of which is substanciated by facts...HIV and other sexually transmited diseases do not infect gays more then they do straits. hetero man has sex with infected hetero woman...BANG...he's infected,end of story. But aside from sexually transmited diseases,there is no inerant danger or harm from homosexuality itself. As for the grease monkey,it was my understanding that it was unclear to science as to how it jumped from them to us but even if that were the case,thats zoophelia,which is not the same as homosexuality. Zoophelia is purely a sexual perversion because there is no attachement or love for the animals being abused,much like pedophiles have absolutely no love for the children they abuse and harm. Most homosexuals,however,do not congregate strictly for sexual reasons...many of them because partners for life,despite the state's ridiculous refusal to recognize their unions. It is possible that the zoophile that first got the hiv virus from a monkey transmited it to a partner who was unaware of his zoophiliac practices. And i'm not gonna deny that the homosexual community should really re-examine many of their unsafe sexual practices because thats the main reason why the virus became so wide spread so fast but the fact that until a few years ago they were always being driven underground by bible nuts influencing public policy in our secular states with their religious nonsense did not help either...it took some heterosexuals getting it as well for the governement to finaly realize that this was not a "gay problem" but a plague that threatened everyone. In any event,the vast majority of HIV infected people on the planet are not gay and did not contract it through gay sex.

As your your interpretation of unclean,there is no question that they understood the concept of disease back then,probably having lost many people to them. You decided to believe that they knew about those disease because God told them about it...but common sense rather dictates that they learned about diseases the hard way,by watching many of their loved ones die from them...hence the levictian laws being enacted as a safeguard against further contamination.

Yes we are discussion the Bible. I studied the Bible when i was younger and i found it to be very interesting as an indicator of the beliefs of ancient tribes of men. I also studied the 7 tablets of creation,writen by the ancient sumerians,the oldest civilisation known to man. Those tablets were writen nearly 4000 bc and relate a story somewhat similar to the book of Genesis but its much more complete and much less vague. As i told you the other day,the SUmerians are the original source for the story of Adam and their version contain far more details then the version of the hebrew,like the mention of Lilith,Adam's first wife. They are also very clear on several things,notably on their gods(yes plural) being actually flesh and blood beings that came from heaven(translation:the sky/space) and brought them their wisdom. The sumerian worshiped them and believed that they had created man. But their belief about the creation of the nature of the world was far different. They seemed to be aware of the fact that the earth was a planet in a heliocentric solar system and that it revolved around the sun. They were also aware of the existance of the other planet in the solar system and described them in details in their writings...even the ones that could not be seen from earth before the invention of the telescope in the 18th century. Oddly,they also refered to the earth,which they called Kiri as the 7th planet,not the third like we do because they counted the planet from the outside as opposed to the inside of the solar system. They also mention a 10th planet beyond Pluto who eliptical orbit around the sun in extremely large and only comes back near the earth every 3600 years or so. They called that planet Tiamat and were convinced that the earth was formet from the collision of a then much bigger earth and one of Tiamat's satellites as they planets passed each other some 4 billion years ago. They got all this knowledge from their "gods" according to them and even have a drawing of the solar system with all the 10 planets around the sun in their proper size and position on a tablet that is nearly 6000 years old. As i said,they did not describe their gods as invisible,intengible beings but as very visible,very much physical beings that came from the heavens. If you read the Book of Genesis while using the tablets of creation,many of the more vague passages become clear...such as the part about waters ABOVE the firmament. The tablets describe that the many planet in the solar system are covered with ice (frozen water) a fact confirmed by many of the probes send to explore our solar system by NASA. But the sumerian did not believe this was a water canopy of some kind...they had simply been told by their "gods" that there was water in space,in the form of ice. The book of genesis is merely a more romanticized and abridged version of those tablets,which is understandable since the Sumerian culture predates both the Babylonian and Jewish culture and both inherited the Sumerian knowledge. Unfortunately,the true meaning of this knowledge was lost or misinterpreted by the babylonians and then by the hebrew...hence,the book of Genesis.

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 8:36 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 70 of 101 (3357)
02-03-2002 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TrueCreation
01-28-2002 6:18 PM


Lots of things are "directly condemned" in the Bible, not just homosexuality. If you are going to follow the "rules" about homosexuality, you have to follow the rules on everything, wopuldn't you say, unless you are allowed to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow?

Some examples from Leviticus, the same book which declares homosexuality an abomination. If you are going to follow one of Leviticus' laws, shouldn't you follow them all?

Why don't you perform blood sacrifice on the altar anymore, even though it is commanded in Leviticus? In fact, the first NINE chapters of Leviticus concerns itself with bloody sacrifice. Far less time is spent on homosexuality.

15:19-30, 33 God lays down the law on menstruating women. Such women are to God both filthy and sinful, and anyone who comes near them is contaminated by them.

12:1-8 Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the
mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be
purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys.

God really doesn't like women, does he?

Don't round the corners of your head or mar the corners of your beard. 19:27

Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12

Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. 20:27

The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9

Handicapped people must not approach the altar. 21:16-23

Cursers and blasphemers must be stoned to death. 24:16, 24

God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men. 27:3-7

11:10-12 Clams, oysters, crabs and lobsters are abominations to God.

18:29, 19:8 "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be cut off from among their people."

19:18 "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This is by far the best verse in Leviticus, and one of the best in the entire bible. It
seems out of place here, however, since in the next chapter God orders us to kill wizards (20:6), children who are
disrespectful toward their parents (20:9), adulterers (20:10), and homosexuals (20:13). And throughout the Old Testament,
God encourages the Israelites to kill their neighbors every chance they get. (See Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15 for just two
of many examples.)

20:10 Both parties in adultery shall be executed.

20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife ... both of them shall be put to death." Which? The man and his father?
The father and his wife? Or the man and his father's wife? Oh heck, just kill all three.

20:12 If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed.

20:14 If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of your must be burned to
death.

20:15-16 If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed.

20:27 People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death.

21:18 Anyone with a "flat nose, or any thing superfluous" must stay away from the altar of God.

21:20 A man with damaged testicles must not "come nigh to offer the bread of his God."

22:3-5 A man who is unclean, or is a leper, or has a "running issue", or "whose seed goeth from him", or who touches any
dead or "creeping thing" ... "shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean."

23:29-30 Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you.

24:14-23 Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community.

19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with a mingled seed: neither shall
a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." I'm glad God told me about this, I was just about to do some of
these awful things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 01-28-2002 6:18 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by LudvanB, posted 02-03-2002 5:12 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 02-03-2002 6:59 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 02-04-2002 10:22 PM nator has not yet responded

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 101 (3360)
02-03-2002 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
02-03-2002 4:51 PM


indeed...if its true that your God inspired the writing of these abominable rules,then he's no God of mine...thankfully,your bible is nothing more than one treatese of superstitious nonsense of men among so many others. There are some good philosophies in there but its mixed in with all this cultural garbage and as a result,fewer and fewer people will bother sifting through the trash to get to the good stuff...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 02-03-2002 4:51 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-03-2002 10:59 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 4309 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 72 of 101 (3363)
02-03-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
02-03-2002 4:51 PM


Nice post, Schraf .

19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind"

Why? If God made the kinds distinct, what difference would it make? there won't even be infertile hybrids.

What a control freak.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 02-03-2002 4:51 PM nator has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3865
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 73 of 101 (3374)
02-03-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LudvanB
02-03-2002 5:12 PM


I don't think anyone here is out to trash the Bible. There is a lot there, but you can't be tied up in a rigid, literal reading.

Moose

I left my resume in the other computer (the "fast" one). - Why is my 66 MHz 486 kicking my 800 MHz Athlon's butt on the internet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LudvanB, posted 02-03-2002 5:12 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by TrueCreation, posted 02-04-2002 10:42 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 101 (3424)
02-04-2002 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
02-03-2002 4:51 PM


"Why don't you perform blood sacrifice on the altar anymore, even though it is commanded in Leviticus? In fact, the first NINE chapters of Leviticus concerns itself with bloody sacrifice. Far less time is spent on homosexuality."
--Untill Jesus was crusifide, this was true and we would still have to do it, but Jesus was the last sacrifice paying for all our sins.

"15:19-30, 33 God lays down the law on menstruating women. Such women are to God both filthy and sinful, and anyone who comes near them is contaminated by them."
--You streched them outragiously, God in no way said they were filthy or sinful, God said they were unclean, and as depicted throughout the rest of leviticus, this means that a disease is easilly transmitted, thus menstruating women. It also sais men who discharge are unclean also, how ironic? Not ironic at all today actually, since knowledge has increased as is also prophesied in the bible, though is obvious that knowledge would increase, it is odd to know that it increases in such a way as if the rapture were to happen any minute now, but anyways.

"12:1-8 Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the
mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be
purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys."
--I think you are reading the wrong bible or something, it did not say they werre dirty or sinful after childbirth. I am not sure what would be the difference of the 33 or 66 days you would have to ask some sort of doctor for an answer to that. But I know off the top of my head the other, as the bleeding occuring after childbirth is obviously a indictation of uncleaness, also it is odd how circumsision is to be done on the 8th day, as it is done today if you want to have a baby circumsised the 8th day is the time when least possibility of illment or infection will occur.

"God really doesn't like women, does he?"
--You stretch the truth way too far, but also note that it wasn't adam who ate the apple, it was eve.

"Don't round the corners of your head or mar the corners of your beard. 19:27"
--I find it odd how you only quote versus like these, why not quote some like this:
"`Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. "
"`Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
"`Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.
--Why not any of these? Is it your just seaking the ones that appeal to you?

"Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12"
--Yup, good thing we have a medium today, that is, we have Jesus.

"Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. 20:27"
--That is, a man or woman that is a medium/sorcerer.
"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

"The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9"
--You make it sound so much like it isn't.
"`If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."

"Handicapped people must not approach the altar. 21:16-23"
--You make it sound so bad, I would like a defect in those days, it basically says that they don't have to do this, so they are not to go near the alter,

21:22 - "He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food;"

21:23 - "I am the LORD, who sanctifies them; or who sets them apart as holy "
Sanctified means:
-To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.
-To make holy; purify.
-To give social or moral sanction to.
-To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

--To be crippled was almost a blessing.

"Cursers and blasphemers must be stoned to death. 24:16, 24"
--Sure must, as goes for God's people too, you make it sound so bad, luckly we don't live in that day and age, we have Jesus.

"God places a dollar value on human life; with women worth less than men. 27:3-7"
--How is this bad, Eve picked the apple and gave it to adam, it wasn't the other way around, if you are to assume that any of these quotes make relevance, you must assume the adam and eve 'myth' is true.

"11:10-12 Clams, oysters, crabs and lobsters are abominations to God."
--I believe such crustaceans can carry many diseases harmful to us, in that day, it would have been a safty rule, such as God sure didn't want them to eat them.

"18:29, 19:8 "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be cut off from among their people."
--Yup, pretty smart of God, otherwize plagues and diseases would run rampent.

"19:18 "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This is by far the best verse in Leviticus, and one of the best in the entire bible. It
seems out of place here, however, since in the next chapter God orders us to kill wizards (20:6), children who are
disrespectful toward their parents (20:9), adulterers (20:10), and homosexuals (20:13). And throughout the Old Testament,
God encourages the Israelites to kill their neighbors every chance they get. (See Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15 for just two
of many examples.) "
19:15 "`Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."
--It states that your neighbor isn't allways the nicest person or the following Gods commands. The Old testement was pretty strict.

"20:10 Both parties in adultery shall be executed."
--Were you just expecting the woman to be executed?

"20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife ... both of them shall be put to death." Which? The man and his father?
The father and his wife? Or the man and his father's wife? Oh heck, just kill all three."
--Hm.. I think this is where we pick up a little common sence, ok so..Who sinned? Was it his daddy? Nope, was it mabye, the adulterer and the adultress? Yup, I think thats using a bit of logic.

"20:12 If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed."
--Sure, yup. Were you still expecing the dauter in law to be exicuted because God is favorable to the woman to such a degree?

"20:14 If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of your must be burned to
death."
--Sounds fun? Oh my, well, still, Gods rules, (this is pretty sick anyways I think!)

"20:15-16 If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed."
--Yup, and the problem?

"20:27 People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death."
--Yup.

"21:18 Anyone with a "flat nose, or any thing superfluous" must stay away from the altar of God."
21:20 A man with damaged testicles must not "come nigh to offer the bread of his God."
--Again, I quote from above:

quote:

--You make it sound so bad, I would like a defect in those days, it basically says that they don't have to do this, so they are not to go near the alter,

21:22 - "He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food;"

21:23 - "I am the LORD, who sanctifies them; or who sets them apart as holy "
Sanctified means:
-To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.
-To make holy; purify.
-To give social or moral sanction to.
-To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

--To be crippled was almost a blessing.


"22:3-5 A man who is unclean, or is a leper, or has a "running issue", or "whose seed goeth from him", or who touches any
dead or "creeping thing" ... "shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean."
--Yes it does say that, why is that bad, again, a sanitation law.

"23:29-30 Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you."
"24:14-23 Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community."
--Pretty strict in that day, huh.

"19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with a mingled seed: neither shall
a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." I'm glad God told me about this, I was just about to do some of
these awful things."
--Really you were? In other words, God is saying, don't mate your dogs with your sheep, or hour horse with your goats. And don't where the linen material the offspring may produce.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 02-03-2002 4:51 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by LudvanB, posted 02-05-2002 12:45 AM TrueCreation has responded

JClarke
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 101 (3427)
02-04-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by TrueCreation
02-02-2002 8:36 PM


"--Mabye not but thats what they did, and that is what it is traced to, sex with the green monkeys, besides, I am not sure about the monkeys but, the HIV virus isn't present in saliva. "
--While you are right about HIV not being present in saliva, the rest has little scientific backing. First of all, green monkeys are from Africa not South America. Next, the green monkey theory is no longer supported as the origin of HIV. It was proposed by Robert Gallo in the early 80's and later discredited. Most scientists studying HIV believe it came from SIV from a sooty mangabey or chimpanze or both. In Western Africa chimps were commonly kept for food and as pets. The process of butchering monkeys for food provides an easy way for HIV to infect humans. Much more likely then monkey sex, which in my opinion is most likely fictional or a exageration of certain practices based on cultural bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 02-02-2002 8:36 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by TrueCreation, posted 02-04-2002 10:47 PM JClarke has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022