Barihawk Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Satenza? Where in the hell does it say that God condones rape? There are stories of rape on the Bible, but they generally lead to God smiting the hell out of the guilty parties and their familes (or in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the entire civilization). PS: God corrected himself on the whole "killing thing" by telling Isiah that the laws of the land should be obeyed. In the Middle East, is it not customary for thieves to have their hands cut off, or for women to be stoned for adultery (or in sad cases for being raped)? Israel changed it's laws, and Greek and Roman laws prevented the murdering of criminals without due process. Therefore since the Church or Sanhedrin is obligated to follow the laws of their nation, they halted the "cruel justice" advocated in the Torah. PPS: It's not our Bible, it's the Torah, that is included in the Old Testament. Go ahead and say "Jewish" people too, instead of just putting the spotlight on Christianity. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Yea, I didn't quite remember the part where God said it was cool to rape someone. Don't think even the Qu'ran - in all it's violent stupidity - says that one. :lol: The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Satenza? Where in the hell does it say that God condones [assault]? There are stories of [assault] on the Bible, but they generally lead to God smiting the hell out of the guilty parties and their familes (or in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the entire civilization). Numbers 31:7-18, Moses tells his men "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." Deuteronomy 20:10-14, 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. PS: God corrected himself on the whole "killing thing" by telling Isiah that the laws of the land should be obeyed. Thats makes it all better. In the Middle East, is it not customary for thieves to have their hands cut off, or for women to be stoned for adultery (or in sad cases for being raped)? Yes, this is expressed here; Deuteronomy 22:23-24 , If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. I hate Bible quoting sessions. And laws of the land should be obeyed, so by that toekn all the christian fundementalists that live in a state which advocates immoral acts should do them? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman089 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Satenza, you're only quoting Old Testament books. If you're going to attack christianity do it from the New Testament at least :? Gamertag: King Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknownmasterofnothing Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 God is a bad role model, he's a ruthless killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Yes, Jesus was a lot less cruel and unjust than God but he still had his moments; Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows" Matthew 15:4-7 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" Revelation 2:22-23 "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. " "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)" If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)" And anyway, Jesus advocates the Old Testament Matthew 5:17, Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Sooo...Is the Old Testament completely worthless, then? Or just the parts that sound bad? Not trying to insult anyone, but it's the word of God, and I don't understand how people claim he's all-knowing, all-powerful and never wrong, yet the whole Old Testament is apparently "wrong" because God "corrected" himself...I don't understand that. Why did he say it in the first place? Anyone care to explain? The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Yes, Jesus was a lot less cruel and unjust than God but he still had his moments; Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows" Matthew 15:4-7 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" Revelation 2:22-23 "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. " "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)" If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)" And anyway, Jesus advocates the Old Testament Matthew 5:17, Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. There needs to be a rule on these boards, that when you quote the Bible, you must quote the surrounding Chapter for context. For example, the Revelation quote. The "she" is Babylon, it's entirely in figurative language. If you take it into the context of Revelation, it's referring to Babylon (The AntiChrist) and his/her followers. Practically ALL of those quotes are not to be taken literally. They are moral plays and lessons. Good Gravy, Sat. I thought you were better than that. And about the "rape" quotes. You are taking a 4000-6000 year old quote, and giving it modern meanings. Those quotes do not mean "rape the women mercilessly!" My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Practically ALL of those quotes are not to be taken literally. They are moral plays and lessons. Why are they not to be taken literally, because you said so? Are you interpreting the Bible to not take these literally. So you, a fundementalist falliable being is interpreting the Bible and then living your life to the degree's in which you interpret it by. You have just shown how you don't follow the Bible you follow your interpretation of it, because you don't like some parts of it, and choose to palm them off as moral plays. Good Gravy, Sat. I thought you were better than that. I am better than stooping to annoying Bible passage recitals, however in this case it was needed to show a point. And about the "[assault]" quotes. You are taking a 4000-6000 year old quote, and giving it modern meanings. Those quotes do not mean "[assault] the women mercilessly!" And you don't take 4000-6000 year old quotes and shape them into your meanings? Thats what fundemantalism is all about. How can you say "Oh, those are moral plays" then at the same time say your fundementalist, and then at the same time as that say you can't apply old quotes to modern day. Thats ridiculous. Can you Bari, tell my why Homosexuality, Abortion and every act you deem to be immoral is wrong? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britonlongbow Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Can you Bari, tell my why Homosexuality, Abortion and every act you deem to be immoral is wrong? Abortion: Well murder is frowned upon in most societies, Look at it this way they have a choice that they made to have unprotected sex in the first place Your killing a person because you were irresponsible and don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions And for assault victims the percentage of abortions from assault victims is very small, so to say because some people are assaulted then everyone can kill their babies doesn't make very much sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Can you Bari, tell my why Homosexuality, Abortion and every act you deem to be immoral is wrong? Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Abortion: All are created through God through conception. That means the Zygote is a living creature in God's eyes from the moment of gestation. List some more. PS: You are starting to generalize again. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Doesn't answer the question at all, but hey, nice homophobic metaphor. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Doesn't answer the question at all, but hey, nice homophobic metaphor. Ok, want it technical? The point of genitalia is for reproduction and child rearing. Their function in a homosexual relationship is useless aside from pleasure. They can not be fruitful and multiply. And just because I do not condone homosexuality does not make me a "homophobe." I have several gay friends. Do I mind them? No. Will it murder me inside if they engage in relations with the same sex? Not really, considering they know not to discuss such things around me. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Doesn't answer the question at all, but hey, nice homophobic metaphor. Ok, want it technical? The point of genitalia is for reproduction and child rearing. Their function in a homosexual relationship is useless aside from pleasure. They can not be fruitful and multiply. Then what about God's 'creations' capable of a virgin birth? Example What purpose does their genitalia serve if not all of it is not required? This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Humans are not capable of self-reproduction under natural means, Bubsa. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl_Sabre Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Humans are not capable of self-reproduction under natural means, Bubsa. And this makes it "morally wrong" to be homosexual? I always defined morally wrong as doing something that negatively affected someone... I don't see how being gay or lesbian fits that category. The only real argument I've seen, if you can call it that, is that the bible says so. But hey, I'm an agnostic, so I don't really think that works. And yes, 4737_Carlin, you may now tell me that I'm going to hell. :wink: I'm more than willing to have that debate, but preferably not on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Humans are not capable of self-reproduction under natural means, Bubsa. And this makes it "morally wrong" to be homosexual? I always defined morally wrong as doing something that negatively affected someone... I don't see how being gay or [bleep] fits that category. The only real argument I've seen, if you can call it that, is that the bible says so. But hey, I'm an agnostic, so I don't really think that works. And yes, 4737_Carlin, you may now tell me that I'm going to hell. :wink: I'm more than willing to have that debate, but preferably not on this thread. Actually, that quote was directed towards Bubsa's lizard. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl_Sabre Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Alright, but my point remains the same. Your argument, and feel free to correct me, is that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't "work" biologically. Like I said, to me, that isn't "wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam007 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I always defined morally wrong as doing something that negatively affected someone... I don't see how being gay or [bleep] fits that category. thread. That's how we define our morals, but other people go by morals based off of what they're told to be 'universal truths.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intarweb Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I always defined morally wrong as doing something that negatively affected someone... I don't see how being gay or [bleep] fits that category. thread. That's how we define our morals, but other people go by morals based off of what they're told to be 'universal truths.' And since those universal truths don't exist, everyone is just as right as everybody else! I don't see a problem here. You crampin' my style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Humans are not capable of self-reproduction under natural means, Bubsa. And this makes it "morally wrong" to be homosexual? I always defined morally wrong as doing something that negatively affected someone... I don't see how being gay or [bleep] fits that category. The only real argument I've seen, if you can call it that, is that the bible says so. But hey, I'm an agnostic, so I don't really think that works. And yes, 4737_Carlin, you may now tell me that I'm going to hell. :wink: I'm more than willing to have that debate, but preferably not on this thread. Actually, that quote was directed towards Bubsa's lizard. Your point? In your eyes, they're still a creation of God. And while I'm not a man big enough to question or challenge your faith, if you do believe in God creating animals with 'defunk' (by your definition) genitalia, then what's to say that it makes it immoral to be so, if God created it that way for some of his other creatures? This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Read Genesis, Bubsa. Man was created in the image of God through God. Our conception is special in regards to other creatures (and sexual reproduction was not even an issue until the expelling from Eden). My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intarweb Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Your point? In your eyes, they're still a creation of God. And while I'm not a man big enough to question or challenge your faith, if you do believe in God creating animals with 'defunk' (by your definition) genitalia, then what's to say that it makes it immoral to be so, if God created it that way for some of his other creatures? Read the Bible. Particularly the first three chapter of Genesis. You'll notice some pretty big changes that happen after the initial Creation. You crampin' my style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitramosma Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Another thing I've never understood is how homosexual actions (not homosexuality in itself) can be considered immoral, when most evidence we have suggests that it is caused by a physical difference in the brain. The study shows that in homosexual males a section of the brain relation to sexual thought/actions was the size of the average female as opposed to the same section of the brain being much larger in heterosexual males. I know this is not conclusive proof of anything, but it begs the question of wether or not homosexuality is a genetic condition. On the flip side, most Churches don't say that homosexuality is immoral, but rather homosexual actions. So I suppose that even if it was a genetic condition you could resist your natural urges, but that still doesn't answer the question of why it is immoral in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Your point? In your eyes, they're still a creation of God. And while I'm not a man big enough to question or challenge your faith, if you do believe in God creating animals with 'defunk' (by your definition) genitalia, then what's to say that it makes it immoral to be so, if God created it that way for some of his other creatures? Read the Bible. Particularly the first three chapter of Genesis. You'll notice some pretty big changes that happen after the initial Creation. Read Genesis, Bubsa. Man was created in the image of God through God. Our conception is special in regards to other creatures (and sexual reproduction was not even an issue until the expelling from Eden). Well, I can't argue with either of you, seeing as I've never read the book. I'll take your word it says that, no doubt about that. This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now