- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 14 2012,05:21) Quote They were very stubborne people,a stiff necked people.
They were prophet killers,and they also killed the son of God.They had no choice. The only thing that God would accept,
and thus part of God's plan, was the torture and human sacrifice of his only begotten son.Tim
Timothy.Are you a believer or are you not?
The last and most important sacrifice has to be a human,not an animal.And it had to be totally pure,It could only be his only begotten son.Then his reward is great: He is worshipped even by the angels.And he has a place on the right hand of God his father, and will have his own kingdom.
Did you say that God tortures?Is he a sadist in your eyes?
How did you come to that conclusion.wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 13 2012,00:13) Hi whatistrue. There was a time when israel is in the early stages of becoming a nation,and strict laws are necessary,because they are amongst nations that do those things.
In those early days the laws has to be strict
So you agree that practicing slavery is moral and making a woman marry her rapist is both moral and reasonable?Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 14 2012,08:22) Quote (Wakeup @ April 13 2012,00:13) Hi whatistrue. There was a time when israel is in the early stages of becoming a nation,and strict laws are necessary,because they are amongst nations that do those things.
In those early days the laws has to be strict
So you agree that practicing slavery is moral and making a woman marry her rapist is both moral and reasonable?
Whatistrue.They do have slaves those days, but they are well looked after,for God has laws also to protect slaves.
These people need a job,and they are glad to have a permanent job.Those slaves are not forced to work for their master,it is voluntary.These are the poor of the poor.Dont compare them with the american slaves,that were abused,there were no laws to protect them.
My parents used to have slaves as they call it,but they are not realy slaves,they can leave anytime they like.
They are on duty 12 hours or more,they live in their own compartment in the back of the house.They have their wages,food,and clothings all supplied. They cried when they are sacked for wrong doing.They feel secure,working for the boss,they have all they need.So it was for their benefit as well.
Re,a woman forced to marry her rapist:Scripture please.
You realy must be in that era to understand why?
You can not compare it with our times.For we live in a different society.Women back then stay home and looks after the hosehold;but not today.wakeup
Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,04:44) Whatistrue. They do have slaves those days, but they are well looked after,for God has laws also to protect slaves.
These people need a job,and they are glad to have a permanent job.Those slaves are not forced to work for their master,it is voluntary.These are the poor of the poor.Dont compare them with the american slaves,that were abused,there were no laws to protect them.
My parents used to have slaves as they call it,but they are not realy slaves,they can leave anytime they like.
They are on duty 12 hours or more,they live in their own compartment in the back of the house.They have their wages,food,and clothings all supplied. They cried when they are sacked for wrong doing.They feel secure,working for the boss,they have all they need.So it was for their benefit as well.
Actually, you are confusing servanthood with slavery. The bible advocates both. Servanthood did provide survival opportunities for the poorest, and the servants could leave when they wanted (though in some cases they had to leave their wife and children behind to do so – see Exodus 21:1-6). Slaves, on the other hand, were treated as property, passed down from generation to generation, and could be abused. In short, it was very much like American slavery.Leviticus 25:44-46:
Quote And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor. (Note the last sentence where the distinction is made between what can be done to fellow Israelites versus non-Israelites – very much like the difference in America between what could be done to whites versus blacks.)
Exodus 21:20-21:
Quote And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,04:44) Re,a woman forced to marry her rapist:Scripture please.
You realy must be in that era to understand why?
You can not compare it with our times.For we live in a different society.Women back then stay home and looks after the hosehold;but not today.I have no idea what women staying at home has to do with making a woman marry her rapist. There's nothing about the concept that seems reasonable or humane in any way. In any case, here is the passage in question.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
Quote If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 14 2012,14:06) Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,04:44) Whatistrue. They do have slaves those days, but they are well looked after,for God has laws also to protect slaves.
These people need a job,and they are glad to have a permanent job.Those slaves are not forced to work for their master,it is voluntary.These are the poor of the poor.Dont compare them with the american slaves,that were abused,there were no laws to protect them.
My parents used to have slaves as they call it,but they are not realy slaves,they can leave anytime they like.
They are on duty 12 hours or more,they live in their own compartment in the back of the house.They have their wages,food,and clothings all supplied. They cried when they are sacked for wrong doing.They feel secure,working for the boss,they have all they need.So it was for their benefit as well.
Actually, you are confusing servanthood with slavery. The bible advocates both. Servanthood did provide survival opportunities for the poorest, and the servants could leave when they wanted (though in some cases they had to leave their wife and children behind to do so – see Exodus 21:1-6). Slaves, on the other hand, were treated as property, passed down from generation to generation, and could be abused. In short, it was very much like American slavery.Leviticus 25:44-46:
Quote And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor. (Note the last sentence where the distinction is made between what can be done to fellow Israelites versus non-Israelites – very much like the difference in America between what could be done to whites versus blacks.)
Exodus 21:20-21:
Quote And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,04:44) Re,a woman forced to marry her rapist:Scripture please.
You realy must be in that era to understand why?
You can not compare it with our times.For we live in a different society.Women back then stay home and looks after the hosehold;but not today.I have no idea what women staying at home has to do with making a woman marry her rapist. There's nothing about the concept that seems reasonable or humane in any way. In any case, here is the passage in question.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
Quote If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Hi What is trueWhat bible version are you quoting?
The King James words it like this
Duet 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found.
Duet 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife: because he has humber her, he may not put her away all his days.
It doesn't mention anything about rape here. Just sex before marriage. It's quite logical, if the man left the woman, and she became pregnant, then her name would be dishonoured, and a fatherless child would be born. This way, the man has to suffer the consequences if he cannot contain control, and look after her the rest of his days.
Newer bible versions distort the truth, and in this particular case, it is proven.
Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her.
'V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of. ' Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 22
Quote It's quite logical
No, it is quite illogical and inhumane.Quote (princess @ April 15 2012,00:14) Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her. 'V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of. ' Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 22
Quote It's quite logical
No, it is quite illogical and inhumane.
Hi princess.What do you think is the right thing to do,in those circumstances?
wakeup.
Quote (princess @ April 15 2012,00:14) Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her. 'V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of. ' Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 22
Quote It's quite logical
No, it is quite illogical and inhumane.
Hi PrincessI didn't know what Matthew Henry's commentary meant, because I do not have it in my bible, so I looked it up to see what you were concentrating on. Man shouldn't interpret the bible and print it in there. We should be just reading God's word alone, because man makes mistakes. I know I have, and I am not a scholar, but study because I want to know God better, and not get a degree by man that says “you are approved” We are always going to make mistakes along the way, because our understanding is limited. It has to grow.
There are different punishments for different offences.
Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, then the man only that lay with her shall die.
Duet 22:26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing: there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Duet 22:27 For if he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
The above is definitely speaking of rape. No doubt about that. Not only is it an offence to take a woman against her will, but a woman engaged to another man is a bigger sin by the look of it, for he has defiled her for her husband to be. But the woman is blameless, because she cried out for help, and no-one around to save her. She did not do it willingly.
Now, the next verse is a different circumstance.
Duet 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is NOT BETROTHED, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Duet 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
I don't think this is suggesting rape. For one, the woman is not engaged to another. “and lay hold on her” simply means laid his hands on her. Touched her. It does not say anything about force here. “and they be found” THEY. Not him, but they together. Looks like a little hanky panky here between them both….then he has to marry her.
It's a different situation here, not rape. The punishment for the man is marriage! Now he has to provide for her for the rest of his life, whether he loves her or not.I hope you can see the difference now, and how people like to twist the scriptures to make God look like he is full of injustice. He is actually quite the opposite when we understand him better.
Hi Journey,
The Hebrew word translated as take hold was taphas.
In almost every time this word was used in the bible in relation to people, it meant to take against their will, or sieze.
I see no reason to believe that it meant anything different in this particular case.It most certainly suggests rape or force.
Tim
Quote (journey42 @ April 14 2012,11:13) Hi What is true What bible version are you quoting?
The King James words it like this
Duet 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found.
Duet 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife: because he has humber her, he may not put her away all his days.
It doesn't mention anything about rape here. Just sex before marriage. It's quite logical, if the man left the woman, and she became pregnant, then her name would be dishonoured, and a fatherless child would be born. This way, the man has to suffer the consequences if he cannot contain control, and look after her the rest of his days.
Newer bible versions distort the truth, and in this particular case, it is proven.
The KJV uses archaic language that is sometimes hard to understand in contemporary English. (The verse is Leviticus is a perfect example of this.) If you are a KJV only person, then you have a whole different set of problems, not the least of which is why there are verses in the KJV that don't show up in any Greek manuscript until the 14th century, (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8).Your worship of the KJV is unwarranted.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 15 2012,06:00) The KJV uses archaic language that is sometimes hard to understand in contemporary English. (The verse is Leviticus is a perfect example of this.) If you are a KJV only person, then you have a whole different set of problems, not the least of which is why there are verses in the KJV that don't show up in any Greek manuscript until the 14th century, (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8). Your worship of the KJV is unwarranted.
Hi WIT,Do you purposefully misappropriate the truth or out of ignorance?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote The above is definitely speaking of rape. No doubt about that. Not only is it an offense to take a woman against her will, but a woman engaged to another man is a bigger sin by the look of it, for he has defiled her for her husband to be. But the woman is blameless, because she cried out for help, and no-one around to save her. She did not do it willingly. Great now rape has categories and standards and levels of sinfulness. So if his daughter was raped it wouldn't be as bad as if you raped his wife. And no then to say no worries, just give me some money and all will be right with in the eyes of God, don't worry about the women, just show me the money. Ha!
Quote I don't think this is suggesting rape. For one, the woman is not engaged to another. “and lay hold on her” simply means laid his hands on her. Touched her. It does not say anything about force here. “and they be found” THEY. Not him, but they together. Looks like a little hanky panky here between them both….then he has to marry her. When rape happens there is a human being and a waste of humanity involved, the passage would read most likely if it were consensual that ….and lay with her, not lay hold of her.
Gen 19.32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Using the two verses as reference. Technically Lot's daughter raped their father, however different wording is used to deflect the matter why, could be cause of generation lineage I am not fully sure. However, when it is for God's purpose one lays with another, when it is not so much for God, but for humainty, then it is lays hold, strange concept as it is, that is the word of God and should not be questioned.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 15 2012,00:29) Quote (princess @ April 15 2012,00:14) Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, [and] the betrothed damsel cried, and [there was] none to save her. 'V. If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of. ' Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 22
Quote It's quite logical
No, it is quite illogical and inhumane.
Hi princess.What do you think is the right thing to do,in those circumstances?
wakeup.
WU,Let the one he rape decide his fate.
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 15 2012,04:26) Hi Journey, The Hebrew word translated as take hold was taphas.
In almost every time this word was used in the bible in relation to people, it meant to take against their will, or sieze.
I see no reason to believe that it meant anything different in this particular case.It most certainly suggests rape or force.
Tim
Hi TimThank you for that. I don't see it that way, as it says ….and if “they” be found. It looks like clear messing around to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.
In the other case, the man who raped the betrothed woman, was put to death.
The NT however, does not follow all these old rules and traditions. The old law was there to serve a purpose for the Israelites only, not the world. They had strict laws to obey because they had to be a separate nation, and God made them an example. Their punishments were dished out straight away, for the sake of the good. Whereas now, there is mercy, if one want to repent,…… and for the others who wish to continue in these bad acts, judgement will be reserved for the time appointed.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 15 2012,06:00) Quote (journey42 @ April 14 2012,11:13) Hi What is true What bible version are you quoting?
The King James words it like this
Duet 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found.
Duet 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife: because he has humber her, he may not put her away all his days.
It doesn't mention anything about rape here. Just sex before marriage. It's quite logical, if the man left the woman, and she became pregnant, then her name would be dishonoured, and a fatherless child would be born. This way, the man has to suffer the consequences if he cannot contain control, and look after her the rest of his days.
Newer bible versions distort the truth, and in this particular case, it is proven.
The KJV uses archaic language that is sometimes hard to understand in contemporary English. (The verse is Leviticus is a perfect example of this.) If you are a KJV only person, then you have a whole different set of problems, not the least of which is why there are verses in the KJV that don't show up in any Greek manuscript until the 14th century, (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8).Your worship of the KJV is unwarranted.
HiI believe that the first KJV delivered to the world was the one God intended. We can either accept or reject. It's our choice.
Man has been making money out of these newer versions for their own selfish purposes, and corrupting the words.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,06:02) he only thing that God would accept,
and thus part of God's plan, was the torture and human sacrifice of his only begotten son.The last and most important sacrifice has to be a human,not an animal.
And if the Romans had decided not to execute Jesus, then a different story would have been invented. Or a different martyr would have been chosen to write about.In believing this all to be actually true, I can't decide if it's your immorality or your inability to do joined-up-thinking that is the greater betrayal of your basic humanity.
The mythology of Adam and Eve has been shown independently by different scientific disciplines to be a fiction, and so the christian claim of some original rebellion is based on a made-up story. That counts as a lie, given how often it is repeated in earnestness. So the disease that your scripture tells you needs atonement doesn't exist. And yet the cure for this non-disease is prescribed nonetheless, and you have to do the supremely immoral act of believing in a human sacrifice.
You desire to be the slave of a bloodthirsty tyrant, one that also simultaneously requires that you both fear it and love it, and that anyway apparently doesn't exist. Why do you torture yourself unnecessarily? Does that masochism make the christian hobby more interesting?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 15 2012,22:16) Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,06:02) he only thing that God would accept,
and thus part of God's plan, was the torture and human sacrifice of his only begotten son.The last and most important sacrifice has to be a human,not an animal.
And if the Romans had decided not to execute Jesus, then a different story would have been invented. Or a different martyr would have been chosen to write about.In believing this all to be actually true, I can't decide if it's your immorality or your inability to do joined-up-thinking that is the greater betrayal of your basic humanity.
The mythology of Adam and Eve has been shown independently by different scientific disciplines to be a fiction, and so the christian claim of some original rebellion is based on a made-up story. That counts as a lie, given how often it is repeated in earnestness. So the disease that your scripture tells you needs atonement doesn't exist. And yet the cure for this non-disease is prescribed nonetheless, and you have to do the supremely immoral act of believing in a human sacrifice.
You desire to be the slave of a bloodthirsty tyrant, one that also simultaneously requires that you both fear it and love it, and that anyway apparently doesn't exist. Why do you torture yourself unnecessarily? Does that masochism make the christian hobby more interesting?
Stuart
Hi Stu.May I ask you a question?
What is the purpose of life, and What do you live for?
wakeup.
Quote (Ed J @ April 15 2012,02:25) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 15 2012,06:00) The KJV uses archaic language that is sometimes hard to understand in contemporary English. (The verse is Leviticus is a perfect example of this.) If you are a KJV only person, then you have a whole different set of problems, not the least of which is why there are verses in the KJV that don't show up in any Greek manuscript until the 14th century, (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8). Your worship of the KJV is unwarranted.
Hi WIT,Do you purposefully misappropriate the truth or out of ignorance?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Please do correct the record. What did I get wrong, and what is the actual truth?Quote (Wakeup @ April 16 2012,02:03) Quote (Stu @ April 15 2012,22:16) Quote (Wakeup @ April 14 2012,06:02) he only thing that God would accept,
and thus part of God's plan, was the torture and human sacrifice of his only begotten son.The last and most important sacrifice has to be a human,not an animal.
And if the Romans had decided not to execute Jesus, then a different story would have been invented. Or a different martyr would have been chosen to write about.In believing this all to be actually true, I can't decide if it's your immorality or your inability to do joined-up-thinking that is the greater betrayal of your basic humanity.
The mythology of Adam and Eve has been shown independently by different scientific disciplines to be a fiction, and so the christian claim of some original rebellion is based on a made-up story. That counts as a lie, given how often it is repeated in earnestness. So the disease that your scripture tells you needs atonement doesn't exist. And yet the cure for this non-disease is prescribed nonetheless, and you have to do the supremely immoral act of believing in a human sacrifice.
You desire to be the slave of a bloodthirsty tyrant, one that also simultaneously requires that you both fear it and love it, and that anyway apparently doesn't exist. Why do you torture yourself unnecessarily? Does that masochism make the christian hobby more interesting?
Stuart
Hi Stu.May I ask you a question?
What is the purpose of life, and What do you live for?
wakeup.
Before I bang on about that (the brief answers to your questions are 42, and and new learning, respectively), perhaps you could address some of the points I raised in my post.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 12 2012,04:50) Quote (t8 @ April 11 2012,22:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 11 2012,13:10) Please define the terms 'nothing' and 'something'. Stuart
Go and ask any 5 year old.
I daresay that would result in a better answer.Stuart
They would agree with me that nothing is the absence of something.What it is to you no one knows because you can't define such simple terms by reason of digging yourself into a hole.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
