|
|
|
|
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/8/2008 9:07:06 PM | One could obviously criticize the actions and motives of the people in this religious community, but the point I was trying to make earlier was that practically any religious community has questionable motives and less than moral practices.
You could ask "How can any member of this group support a 15-year-old getting married to a 50-year-old. But I can also ask, how can any member of the Catholic church who donates money to its cause support pedophilia? While I am sure that the individuals doing the donating do necessarily agree with pedophilia, priests within the catholic church are constantly being relocated to conceal their sexually immoral acts. And for these individuals to give support to the church while voluntarily shutting their eyes to this fact is knowingly supporting corruption. The only difference is that it is more socially acceptable to be a member of the Catholic church. That's why I said it's all a matter of popular opinion.
The best way to prevent being convicted of the crime is to figure out a way to share the blame with 6 million other people. There is power in numbers. That's why George Bush is getting away with his war crimes. Every time someone tries to criticize him for promoting an immoral war, there is always someone there to remind them that it was the nation who not only elected him and gave him this power in the first place, but then reelected him. It's easy to convict a single serial killer, but it's damn near impossible to convict half a country of mass genocide.
The majority of the people in our nation find it appalling that the children of this polygamous commune have never seen a crayon. But then again, is a crayon essential to our survival? No. Is a crayon some kind of yardstick of modern day civilization? No. Just because these kids have never seen a crayon, does that mean that kids there can never have fun a frolic like the kids they are? No.
A crayon is symbolic of the luxuries that you are I take for granted every day. This community chooses not to take such luxuries for granted. They prefer to be self sufficient and teach their children what it means to survive. They prefer to convey the idea that nothing is "free" and hard work is essential for happiness. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that mentality. I wish more people truly thought this way.
While I many not agree with many of their practices, I can say that I wish more children today were raised in a fashion as to make them more self sufficient and harder workers and not to become dependent on television, credit cards, Wal-Mart and antidepressants. I think if we had more self sufficient communities like this one, there is a chance we might not be as deep as we are in a fossil fuel crisis.
We call them insane for wanting to live without modern luxuries. But in turn they can call us insane for our willingness to risk the health of our planet to obtain such luxuries. Is it really worth the risk? In our eyes, yes. In there eyes, no. Again, sanity is nothing more than popular opinion.
We have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn't want to take advantage of modern financial "benefits". But they choose to see these so called benefits as crutches. In the end, when the financial infrastructure crumbles, who do you think will be more prepared? Who are the crazy ones?
No, I do not agree with forced, arranged marriages in a society. But then again, that may be their way of preventing inbreeding. No, I don't find it moral from a social standpoint for a 15-year-old to have sex with a 50-year-old. But then again, I can't name a single 15-year-old who hasn't reached puberty and is not ready for procreation from a physiological standpoint. Only in the past hundred years or so has teenage marriage become taboo. In the mid 1800's, not only was it acceptable, but very common. In fact, if a woman reached her early twenties without being married, she was considered an "old maid". | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:19:30 PM | | Actually, what I'm calling insane is the baby waterboarding and the pedophilia. Yes, they practice it there too. I guess it's not enough they have 10 wives, they can't seem to keep their hands off their own daughters, either. And they do not prevent inbreeding, in fact, they share the same bloodline many times and there is a lot of inbreeding. You guys need to watch Dateline once in a while, I'm telling you. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:36:40 PM |
you might be right, at one point in time a group of adult women must have consented to this lifestyle.
Yes in 1830, when the church was formed. The Smith guy, founded the church in that year. It was all polygamy, and women joined with their husbands. Maybe not all willingly, but possibly some.
When the US government put pressure on the church later on they removed polygamy from their practice, because it was breaking the law.
The fundalmentalist "broke away" from the church, to continue the lifestyle.
So basically for most of them its all they have known.
As for baptizing dead in name.......... I have heard that for everyone that dies, in this country, since they do all the genology stuff.......... A member of the church is baptized in that persons name, and then they are in essence part of the church...... wonder if they saves Jeffery Dahmer too
I dont wanna be mormon, now or after I'm dead......... LOL
Dreams | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 12:49:18 AM | Clearly... you are reading one of the latest commercialized versions of The Bible.
The fact of the matter is, I quoted from the King James Version - not from some "latest edition" watered-down Bible with the word "NEW" in the title. Go ahead and read your "children-version" of The Bible that your church put out because they didn't think you were smart enough to understand the KJV. Or that they put out... because they didn't like what The Bible really said... and wanted to change certain scriptures to their liking. That is what's really happening with these "new" versions of The Bible being dumbed-down and changed so you won't object to anything it says...
Don't believe me??? Then you'll have no problem reading the good old fashioned KJV.
I'll have to post the wording from a not watered-down 1990's version of The Bible.
Leviticus 15: 19 - 28
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
(((Afraid of kooties much???)))
It clearly says that a woman having her period should be PUT AWAY for the ENTIRETY of it.
Everything she touches has "kooties" and anyone who touches anything she touches has "kooties" too.
They are to bathe themselves... and be unclean until nightfall... apperantly that's when "kooties" die.
COMPARISON
You want to see how the "NEW" versions of The Bible change the wording around???
Whatever the hell version you are reading from biblegateway.com:
19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. What I'm reading from the King James Version:
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
Notice the difference?????
"New" Christianity doesn't accept or have room for many of the things that the "old" versions of the Bible say... as is very, very apperant by the over 30 "New" versions of The Bible represented on biblegateway.com -- and more are being written every year. With each "new" version, "new" changes are being made. The funniest version I've bumped into is the so-called "clear word" version.
Pertaining to the selling of one's daughter into slavery... you're a real hypocrite.
You say the following:
No question that it seems that if a man is really hard up, that he can sell his daughter. Good thing too And then you pull out of your ass the following:
All this shows is that if you want to marry a girl from a poor background, you have to treat her as if she's the most beloved princess on Earth, and let her live out her happiest romantic fantasies.
Please, explain to me again where this is against women.
You said yourself that it tells one how to sell their daughter into slavery - and then praised it!!!
Then you went back... forgot what you said... and then asked me to explain again.
If you're too stupid to remember what you wrote yourself... I can't help you.
I said extremists use off-scriptures to justify their actions. You said:
That just isn't true. Most terrorist reports involve Muslims, but even extremely patriotic Americans don't go around stringing up every Muslim in sight.
WOW... you just called and compared patriotic Americans to extremists...
Where the hell does any religion connect to American patriotism in any way???
So... for you to compare American patriotism to religious extremism is absolutely asinine.
You're p*ssed off because men have to wear a form of veil, and women DON'T? Way to go, man. Guess what you're really p*ssed off at, is that men don't have to wear The Veil, or the Burka.
Yes, I'm pissed off that men don't have to wear the veil or the burka; I said so quite clearly.
If men and women were required to wear the same thing by religious law... I'd have no problem with it.
But even if a woman isn't of their religion... they have to wear it in countries like Saudi Arabia. It's not freedom-friendly.
Actually, millions of religious people think like that. Way to confuse YOUR beliefs about the Bible with everyone in the world's.
Suddenly the world only has "millions" of people in it... and they all read The Bible??? Wow... I didn't know... lol.:laugh:
The fact of the matter is... The Bible is a "buffet line" to most modern Christian faiths/churches. They take what they like... they leave what they hate... and promise to come back later when they write a "new" Bible of their own and change those things that they hate. The Mormons created their Church off of "additional scriptures" and supposedly there are more "Yet to be found"; and they leave room for more in the "words" of their President - and in the FLDS' case specifically the words of their "Prophet" Warren Jeffs. Also, both Mormons and many other "modern" Christian faiths have created their own versions of The Bible, edited to their specifications, because they disliked certain things it said. I have two versions of the LDS' KJV version with different wording in quite a few places; and I spent a lot of time when I was a teen in the library comparing the wording in the "old" and "New" versions of The Bible.
All of this comes back to people being dissatisfied with The Bible because it either doesn't say enough OR because it says too much. Either way... it doesn't say what certain Christian faiths want, so they ignore certain parts of it and change the words of other parts... or make up "additional" scriptures to go with it. It's what the LDS and the FLDS have done, and to a lesser extent is what is done every time a "new" edited version of The Bible is released.
Changing, altering, and adding to scriptures by either FLDS or "new" Churches are two sides of the same evil coin.
What I said in this post and my previous post is nothing more than my opinion and you can take it... or leave it.
--Brandon | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:41:48 AM | | yes, well,we all know how men faint at the sight of blood...lol....anyway folks,times have changed,lots,so why are we even talking about the old testament?..it's a story book to scare us into being nice people...it's not relevant to what is going on now even tho some religious fanatics still quote it...women don't go out in the bush and have babies either....and there are a lot of things men don't do anymore either...unfortunately...lol | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:22:51 AM | Whats with Texas and stand offs with religious compounds?
Texas is very big with a lot a screaming mega-churches, born-again bible thumpers and a few mentally defective units running around with guns and oil wells like the President of the USA. Texas contains the extremes of everything intellectual and financial with mutliple beauty pagents every year and extensive breast implants for the participants.
The problem with Texas is that the state does not benefit from the influence of culturally and intellectually superior people who are born in places like Massachusetts and Canada.
Also stories like this just seem better when the headline has Texas in it.
Imagine if the headline read "polygamist compound in Florida" How boring! | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 10:23:37 AM | Not sure how to quote so here are Pegans above words, "The fact of the matter is, I quoted from the King James Version - not from some "latest edition" watered-down Bible with the word "NEW" in the title. Go ahead and read your "children-version" of The Bible that your church put out because they didn't think you were smart enough to understand the KJV. Or that they put out... because they didn't like what The Bible really said... and wanted to change certain scriptures to their liking. That is what's really happening with these "new" versions of The Bible being dumbed-down and changed so you won't object to anything it says..."
Wow Pagan, up until now I liked what you had to say...Now you seem to be on your arrogant religious horse headed for your own cult. The KJV of the bible is no way the earliest or best translation. You can go to the library all you want researching different english versions. Even if you learn fluent greek, hebrew and latin you will find discrepancies in the texts. Not to mention no texts are from originals so who knows what scribes changed along the way. Check out the book "misquoting Jesus". and please, none of that crap about "needing faith" to believe its the word of God- Ya ever been to a book/bible factory. PEOPLE have a job printing words. My above example of using your exact words but not knowing how to put them in yellow frame shows how words and phrases get changed.
That's the same "faith "this 15 year old was born into. Everyone has the opportunity to be good or evil. Some take it a step farther trying to look good while doing evil | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 2:28:37 PM | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24014376/
There's an actual news article about this ranch.
And this is from the interview Matt Lauer did with Carolyn Jessup that Enigma posted some of earlier:
“It was getting worse every year,” she said of the level of control and abuse. “That’s one of the things for me where I felt so urgent to get out was that my daughter was turning 14, and Warren was resetting the marrying age at that point to 14. This was in 2003.”
She said her husband controlled his wives through their children. “The way he controlled me was by being violent to my children,” she told Lauer. “If I did something that he didn’t like, my children paid, and they paid a big price. He would hurt them. If he would have been hurting me, I probably would not have conformed. But when you go after a woman’s child, that’s one thing that will put a woman on her knees quickly.”
The fundamentalist group claims to hold to the original teachings of Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon religion in rural upstate New York in 1830. It is not recognized by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which renounced plural marriage in 1904 under pressure from the federal government.
There are a number of fundamentalist branches with compounds in Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Mexico and Texas, according to Jon Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith.”
There is so much more that isn't even touched on in these two sources. Apparently they work the boys like slaves, deprive them of food, and sometimes kick them off the compound because they can't have equal boys to girls. The fathers rape their daughters, sometimes impregnante their own daughters, and children are punished by being locked in closets. Sometimes the husband will beat one of his wives while the other wives watch her children if the wife did something disobedient, like not sleep with the husband on her scheduled night and probably less. They tell these people that if they breathe a word to the 'outside', they'll never see their families again and will be shunned by the outside part of the sect. They do have 'outside' families, people that practice this but do not live on the compound, and quite often those fathers 'sell' their daughters to the compound. And apparenlty Warren Jeffs lived like a king and many of his followers were living in poverty, because they give everything to him.
And I don't even know all of it!! I'm sure there's more, but I hope we can all agree now that it's not just a silly parlor trick like palm reading and that women are just more vulnerable because their minds are weaker......per the OP's opinion. | |
|
| |
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 3:29:33 PM | Watch some 20/20 and Dateline.
Well, I have. All the women love their way of life. Details about the first wife picking out the second wife for her husband and so on.
Some do leave the sect only to return. They enjoy their lives despite feminists efforts to belittled them during many of these 20/20 and Dateline segments interviews.
Every one if these sect women gave great answers. Many times 20/20 and Dateline couldn't refute the questions thrown back at them. Particularly in the areas of divorce rates, teenage sex and suicides that occurs in our great society. They raise their children well. The girls do not become cheap whores like in our society. Feminists want to taint these girls. They are not happy that some girls have morals.
These woman know of the trash in our society. It's believed that a feminist disguising herself as a teenager was behind the call to authorities (made up liberal feminists) about the compound. I've seen the news, and the women in the agency sure look like your typical man-hating, feministic and menopausal divorcees. Like Hillary Clinton, no estrogen, except she as a deal with Bill, separate bedrooms, no divorce after the whole world learned about his hobbies. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:20:53 PM | | You think little girls like sleeping with their fathers? It's all they know, of course they're going to say they're happy...what do you think they're going to say? GET US OUT!! If they were to do that after an interview like that, they'd get beaten severely or even find themselves dead, not to mention they would be threatened that they'd never see their children and families again. Just read some of the things put out by the women who did get out why don't you. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:42:42 PM | ^^^^
That's in Australia not in these polygamy sects. I also have seen Dateline and no way is incest practiced. It's appalling to these people. Women, the few that have left their religion's organizations always lie to justify their abandonment of their families for drinking and partying. Dateline has also covered that. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:59:32 PM | Well, that's not what I saw on Anderson Cooper last night. There were a couple of different women talking about laying awake at night until they heard the dreaded footsteps coming down the hall, which meant your father was coming to your bed.
And Jeffs was convicted of forcing cousins to marry, and the rape of the girl in that union to paraphrase.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21903520/
I was immoral with a sister and a daughter when I was younger, so the Lord showed me I’m one of the most wicked men on the face of the Earth since father Adam’s time,” Jeffs said
Another article: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13820/flds-woman-who-escaped-polygamous-sect-revisits-her-past
Laurene said she was taken by force to a mental institution three times for disobeying her husband. She finally got away with the help of an anti-polygamy activist, and won custody of her five children.
Laurene returned to Colorado City several months ago to prove to herself that the polygamist sect that runs this town no longer has power over her, and to confront the demons from her past, including sexual abuse by her father.
At 19, she married Val Jessop, an older man the sect chose for her. Her sister, Marie, was already married to Jessop. Laurene and her sister have eight children with Val Jessop –five by Laurene and three by her older sister.
But Laurene says Marie was bitterly jealous from day one, beginning from the time she and Val consummated the marriage. She said her sister was even present when they had sex.
I was trapped,” she said. “I felt like I had done my very best in trying to live my religion. I was taught that the only rights a woman has is to be obedient to her husband.”
That’s the prevalent attitude of the community, captured by a frequently used slogan: “Keep sweet.”
“That means … don’t show any emotion. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t make any trouble,” Laurene said.
Laurene was desperate to escape, but there seemed to be no way to take her children with her — until she met anti-polygamist activist Flora Jessop.
In Colorado City, Laurene says men wield absolute power over both wives and children. For Laurene, a much harsher indoctrination into the male-dominated culture began before she was even married. She said she was sexually abused by her father. “The sexual abuse started about the time I started developing,” she said. “There was no safe place to go. There would be several of us girls in the room, and he would come into the house and go around and put — kiss each one of the girls — put his hand down your blouse, say, ‘Oh, looks like you’re getting bigger, you know, you’re developing, you’re coming along very well here.’”
Laurene and 12 of her sisters reported being molested, though they say the abuse stopped short of actual intercourse. In 1983 their father, Jack Cooke, pleaded guilty to sexual assault and went to prison for five years.
She now believes that sexual abuse of children was accepted — and rampant — in Colorado City, and that her father was made a scapegoat by the polygamous sect.
“He’s the only one that was really held accountable for what he did. And other men were doing the same thing,” she said. “But what it did was shut the women up, the girls up, from telling. … And I think he, he’s paid the price for what he did.”
That's just part of the article, which goes on to say that that woman married her husband again after he was ex-communicated and she is sure he won't be taking other wives....insanity, all of it.
| |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 5:18:28 PM | Polygamist community.....young girls wedded to older men, knocked up, have kids. Kids taken care of by the community. Physical abuse happens. Sexual abuse happens. mental abuse happens. Spiritual abuse happens. But minus from the polygamist community are criminal acts like robbery, murder, forced rapes (outside of marriage setting) beatings, theft, gangs, drug dealers, drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, etc. Inside the polygamist community everyone has something to do to be productive and responsible to the community itself.
Outside communities.....young girls allowed to dress like an older women on the prowl for a night of great sex, young boys encouraged to "do their thing" with any girl thats ready to spread their thighs for them, media of all types teaching young kids that sex-alcohol and tobacco is where it is at to show your level of maturity, young girls go with young boys, get knocked up, choose either to kill the egg or give birth and if they choose (or are forced) to keep it and later due to the stress of parenthood at teenage years they become sexual/mental/physical/spiritual abusers of that child. Not minus from this outside community are criminal acts like murder,robbery, forced rapes in marriages and out of marriages, beatings, theft, gangs, drug dealers, drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, etc. Inside this outside community it is all about survival for oneself minus the community. It is about doing for yourself and no one else less someone takes advantage of your good heartedness and makes you a victim of their greed-selfishness, etc. It's about being responsible and productive to your ownself and no one else. When you have done for you, then MAYBE you might do for your community.
I believe Christ taught some men a lesson about he who is without sin let him throw the first stone. I am sure that if the people in this community thought their lives were so bad off like those believing it was who are outside looking in, they would have left it. Unless your under the impression that everyone should be subjecting themselves to our type of life style because it APPEARS to be so much better.
Anyone note that the original caller of all the abuse has not been identifyed or found among all the rest? If the person does not really exist and this was a false phone call, is anyone aware of all the laws the various police agencies have broke to penetrate this religious group that we would have went to jail for had a vigilanty group did it under the same pretenses? Even if something good was done here, is it sinking in that the police agencies will now break any laws they can to get at a law breaker? Ever heard on the tv shows "Cops" where the police tell the perps to "be honest with me" and yet they don't follow their own words?
There is a whole lot more happening here then the arrest of some old pervs marrying minors to have as wives/sex toys. | |
|
| |
timj82
|
Joined: 11/16/2007
Msg: 66 | |
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:00:32 PM | for the sake of argument if there is a population of polygamists reproducing like rabbits and there is another population of monagomists that are only having maybe 1.95 kids per couple, who do you think is going to inherit the earth?
Kind of sounds like Europe with the Muslims.
In evolutionary terms all that matters is that babies are born, not how they were conceived, and it doesn't necessarily take love and romance and being a soulmate and all that good stuff to produce a baby (might makes right)
and that's why I think some of the behavior of men and women are the way they are. Also attractiveness probably evolved this way too | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:07:49 PM | REALITY! this is NOT practicing a religion. it is simply a vehicle for pedophiles who like to beat women.
the sad thing is that, they should have taken the women and children out, then turned the place into waco two. that would have been a happy ending | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:45:29 PM |
Wow Pagan, up until now I liked what you had to say...
Well, I knew that was bound to happen... not like I was going to make friends by posting what I did.
Now you seem to be on your arrogant religious horse headed for your own cult.
Actually, I'm not a member of any cult... or religion.
The KJV of the bible is no way the earliest or best translation.
True, but it was the most popular version of The Bible in the area in which I grew up.
Also, I was a member of a youth group which used that version for Christian members.
Also, I spent 6 years going to the Mormon Church (to learn about it) and they used a KJV version.
So it's what I prefer to read first.
When I noticed Churches turning to the NIV, I wondered how it was possible they needed/wanted a "different" Bible. The first time I saw a friend's Church change to the NIV and he said "It's the word of God, no version is better" and then they turned to another version (partial at the time) the TNIV and said the same thing... all I could think of was that they are such hypocrites that they'd turn their backs on the scriptures they began with. You know what??? His church now has both in the pews... now that the TNIV is complete. HOW?!? Is nothing sacred anymore, or is this ecclectic Christianity going to be the norm from now on???
Not to mention no texts are from originals so who knows what scribes changed along the way.
For the hundreds of years it was written and re-written by hand in monasteries... it was inevitable that it changed, and for each time it was translated into another language it was changed out of necessity because certain words don't translate well. I am very well aware of this, and also know that no original text exists... though some come close.
One day in the near future I'm going to find as old a version as I can afford to get my hands on and read through it. This is an area of study that I've been in since I began reading The Bible. In reading the KJV, I wrote down all the things I found offensive or disagreed with; mainly to see if I might be able to change my mind about them if I pondered them long enough. However, I also wondered why "other" Bibles existed... and why "new" ones were being created. The first Bible other than the KJV that I picked up was the NIV, then I found a box of old Bibles with the word "American" in the title... which was good because one day some jerk sat next to me at a cafe I used to frequent and decided to try to convert me to his church using the "New American Standard" 1995 version of The Bible. I couldn't stand some of the changes as he was reciting it to me... Those same scriptures I wrote down when I first started reading are among the first I check, to see what changes have been made; and boy are they changed...
It pisses me off... and it pisses me off for a good reason. These scriptures are changed, and not in subtle ways. Entire passages, entire messages, entire meanings are wiped clean and re-programed to say what a certain modernized group with enough time and money wants it to say. If this is supposedly the word of God, why the changes??? That proof is in the pudding, it can be seen with the drastic changes in the scriptures that hide (by changing) what older versions said that "new outlook" Christianity dislikes.
My problem is... that this is "supposed" to be the word of God that Christians swear by, and yet with each new "edition" where things are changed it becomes less the "word of God" and more the word of man. The more that the scriptures are changed to suit specific means... the more you'll see churches appear with their own doctrine, their own"subtly different" scriptures, their own "commandments" and possibly even their own fanatic/extremist ways. That someone might smack me upside the face with one version one day saying I should "read the word of God" and the next day the same person might smack me upside the face with a "new" version saying I should "read the word of God", I find that to be an absolute hypocrisy. Now, nobody has actually slapped me in the face with a Bible and I'm not saying it'll happen in my lifetime... but I sure hope you get my point.
--Brandon | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:52:19 PM | I don't think it matters what version you use, someone somewhere is going to find a way to twist it into what they want. David Koresch, Jim Jones, James Dobson, Oral Roberts...they all read the Bible and their teachings come from it. (I'm not comparing these people in what they teach, don't go all crazy on me, thread people!)
I don't see how taking words written 2000 years ago as a way to live today is in any way appropriate, and I think that's why the NIV was written. Heck they even updated the Kama Sutra.
**edit** Anderson Cooper is on behind me, and they are interviewing a woman who has gotten out of a compound like this. She just said that they are taught that if they escape to the outside, they are told the men out there will turn them into whores on the street, and that anyone who smiles at you on the outside wants to lead you to the devil. She also said they are taught that black people were born white, and that God changed their skin color because they are sinners, and that if they have any dealings with black people they too will become black because the sins will rub off on them. Anyone still think this is a happy go lucky kinda joint? | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:23:50 PM | RE msg 54 by thebasicpagan:
Clearly... you are reading one of the latest commercialized versions of The Bible. Nope. I read it in the ORIGINAL. I just quoted an English source for YOU.
The fact of the matter is, I quoted from the King James Version - not from some "latest edition" watered-down Bible with the word "NEW" in the title. I quoted the King James Version too. Shame that yours doesn't seem to match it.
Go ahead and read your "children-version" of The Bible that your church put out because they didn't think you were smart enough to understand the KJV. Nope again. I read it in the ORIGINAL. You read the watered-down translations.
Or that they put out... because they didn't like what The Bible really said... and wanted to change certain scriptures to their liking. That is what's really happening with these "new" versions of The Bible being dumbed-down and changed so you won't object to anything it says... Again, something YOU are reading, because I read it in the ORIGINAL.
(((Afraid of kooties much???)))
It clearly says that a woman having her period should be PUT AWAY for the ENTIRETY of it.
Everything she touches has "kooties" and anyone who touches anything she touches has "kooties" too.
They are to bathe themselves... and be unclean until nightfall... apperantly that's when "kooties" die. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT AT ALL. IN NO PLACE DOES THIS APPEAR IN THE ACTUAL HEBREW TEXT! What you are reading is a translation, that is more of an adaptation. Further, there are multiple translations, and yet you pick the one that offends you most. Biased much?
I am now going to give you a proper translation from the Hebrew, BECAUSE I READ CLASSICAL HEBREW, and unless you read Classical Hebrew too, with all of its nuances, you cannot argue with someone who reads the actual text, as opposed to someone who reads a watered-down translation:
Leviticus 15:19 And a woman, when she will be (having) an emission, blood will be her emission in her flesh, seven days she will be in her illness (period), and all (who) touch (in) her, will be tamei (spiritually unable to touch holy things) until the evening (dusk).
Leviticus 15:25 And a woman, when she will be emit, an emission of her blood, many days, (that is) with no regular time of her illness (period), or, when she will emit on her illness (period), all the days (of) the emission of her tamei-ness (spiritually unable-ness to touch holy things), like the days of her illness (period) she will be, tamei (spiritually unable to touch holy things) she is. That is an accurate translation of those 2 verses. Notice that at no point, does it say she is put apart, or separated, because the word to be put apart or separated, would be "Huvdal", and that word all words like it, don't appear in the text anywhere. Nor does it mention "Cooties", anywhere in the text.
Ask any other Classical Hebrew scholar if your translation is more accurate to the ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT, than mine, because I am a Classical Hebrew scholar.
"New" Christianity doesn't accept or have room for many of the things that the "old" versions of the Bible say... as is very, very apperant by the over 30 "New" versions of The Bible represented on biblegateway.com -- and more are being written every year. With each "new" version, "new" changes are being made. The funniest version I've bumped into is the so-called "clear word" version. A lot of that is because the "old" versions of the Bible were translations from the Vulgate (Latin), which were translations from the Septuagint (Koine Greek), which were translations from the Original (Classical Hebrew). A classic example is that one such "old" translation ended up with the claim that Moses had horns (karnaim) growing on his head, when the original text says that his face shone (karan) like rays of the sun. As a result, a lot of your ancestors went around saying Jews had horns, when there were no horns on any Jews' head. So a lot of "new" versions of the Bible tend to come from people who've bothered to learn some Classical Hebrew and translated it from the original. They don't always do a good job, but it's a whole lot better than some "old" versions.
Pertaining to the selling of one's daughter into slavery... you're a real hypocrite. You say the following: No question that it seems that if a man is really hard up, that he can sell his daughter. Good thing too And then you pull out of your ass the following: All this shows is that if you want to marry a girl from a poor background, you have to treat her as if she's the most beloved princess on Earth, and let her live out her happiest romantic fantasies.
Please, explain to me again where this is against women. You said yourself that it tells one how to sell their daughter into slavery - and then praised it!!! Then you went back... forgot what you said... and then asked me to explain again. If you're too stupid to remember what you wrote yourself... I can't help you.
I quote my WHOLE statement, WHICH YOU DELIBERATELY OMITTED:
No question that it seems that if a man is really hard up, that he can sell his daughter. Good thing too, because this is what the Chinese used to do, and they never had anything to do with the Bible. So the Bible is covering a known practice, that would probably have been abused otherwise. So let's look at what's said:
Verse 7: You cannot treat her like a servant. Well, there are only servants and free people. Guess you have to treat her like a free person.
Verse 8: If she doesn't please her master, who has betrothed her? Who mentioned marriage? Ohhh, that's why her dad sold her. Her dad didn't sell her into slavery. Her dad sold her as a "maidservant", with the agreement from the man of the house, that she would marry into one of the family. It's like a Mills and Boon story, your slushy romantic stuff. I guess the Bible really does like women after all, if it's even trying to find a way for a woman who's had it hard, to have her live out her fantasies of being rescued and marrying the prince.
Verse 8: What's this deal about "letting her be redeemed"? What's wrong with selling her to a strange nation? The only deal with a strange nation, is that the dad knew the guy he was selling to. But if the buyer was such a scumbag, then what difference does it make which scumbag has her? The only explanation is that the dad can't just sell her to anyone. The buyer was picked as a good guy, and it's ONLY because he's a good guy, that the dad could sell her to him. But selling her on, is out, because the dad doesn't know the new buyer, and he might be a scumbag, and that's not on.
Verse 8: Why's it deceitful if the "master" betrothed her, and then didn't find her pleasing, seeing as he bought her? Only reason I can find, is that it's a deal. You love a girl, but her dad's in trouble. What you gonna do? If you marry her, he can't pay for the wedding. If you pay for it, you humiliate her dad. How can she marry you then? Even if she goes through with it, she'll be up every night worrying about him? So you make a deal: you "buy" her, for the amount that will pay off the dad's debts, he doesn't lose everything, still keeps his home, his life, and you add on enough to pay for the wedding, in return for "buying" her, as a "maid", when really you're going to marry her 3 months later, and that means she's no longer you're maid, and if you're willing to marry your "maid", you're not going to put her to work in the first place. So it's all a farce, a comedy of errors, a ruse, so that if you are rich and marrying a poor girl, whose dad is in debt, and she could be looking at being homeless or who knows what else, and the dad won't take charity, and you can't marry her because she won't get married unless her dad gives her away, and he won't give her away unless he can pay for the wedding, and he can't. So he keeps making excuses that she can't get married yet, and you're all miserable. Him, because he's about to be put on the street. You because you can't marry the love of your life. Her, because she's about to be put on the street and be denied being married to the love of her life, and all because her dad is too proud to accept charity.
Sounds like a novel like Romeo and Juliet, but where someone suggests a way out, and everyone has a happy ending. Only this time, the Bible suggests it. Looks like the Bible has a lot in common with Hollywood, except that Hollywood shows the Happy Ever After, and the Bible makes it happen.
Verse 9: Why should the Bible need to tell him to deal with her after the manner of daughters if he passes her onto his son? Well, if I fancy a girl, I'd treat her nice, but if I don't want her, I know that I'm not that perfect, that I will always look out for her. I might turn a blind eye if my (fictional) 19-year-old son is interested in her, but really just fancies a sh*g. I have to treat her like "after the manner of daughters", and when I grew up, that meant that if anyone took advantage of your daughter, you'd put him in hospital. Guess I have to let my son know, that if he doesn't treat her like a princess, he's going to be spending the next 6 months in hospital, no matter that he's my child. She comes first.
Verse 10: Why does it say that he has to not diminish her food, her raiment (clothing), and her "duty of marriage" (sex)? What does that have to do with if he takes another wife? Well, on the first hand, we are talking about a polygamous society. We aren't living in one, but we have to consider one that's fair. So let's say we're talking about an Alpha Male, who women are willing to share. If he does this ruse, and then he marries a second wife, he cannot just throw her aside. He has to treat her just the same as he did before. But what if he doesn't have the money to keep both? Sorry, mate, not on. First earn enough, then get married. You don't get to get a second wife if you cannot pay for both. Otherwise, the first wife might lose out, and the Bible says no. OK, that explains the food. But why mention the clothing? I mean, isn't that implied? If you cannot cut down on what she eats, which is every day, then clothing which you buy infrequently, should follow automatically. But if we're talking about non-essentials, like ball gowns and the like, that's just luxurious items. That's not his fault 'cause she likes nice things. If he had a bit of extra money before, she's not entitled to it. Comes along the Bible, yes she is. She's entitled to the necessities that she had before, and the luxuries that she had before. Alright, but why mention sex? It's men who enjoy sex the most. Yes, women love sex, but women only really love sex more than men when it's really good sex, like when they orgasm. So this implies 3 things:
1) that you have to have sex regularly with your wife, even if you're tired, or you're bored with her.
2) that she has to enjoy it so much that she wants it more than you.
3) that even if she doesn't come from a nice background, you cannot be selfish in bed with her.
All this shows is that if you want to marry a girl from a poor background, you have to treat her as if she's the most beloved princess on Earth, and let her live out her happiest romantic fantasies.
Please, explain to me again where this is against women.
Oh, and before you ask, you cannot get married in Biblical Law unless the woman heartily agrees. Doesn't matter who it is. Why are you deliberately trying to misquote me and make out I said something, when I said the exact opposite?
I said extremists use off-scriptures to justify their actions. You said: That just isn't true. Most terrorist reports involve Muslims, but even extremely patriotic Americans don't go around stringing up every Muslim in sight. WOW... you just called and compared patriotic Americans to extremists...
1) The word "Nazi" is short for "Nationalsozialiste", "National Socialist" in English, and Nationism is Patriotism. The Nazis were Patriots. So Patriots can do stuff like the Nazis did, massively extreme abuses of Human Rights.
2) Americans, like the men under General Sherman, exterminated the Native Americans, men, women, children, babies, and old men, all alike, indiscriminately, as part of American history. So Americans can do massively extreme abuses of Human Rights too.
Patriots can easily be extremists, so can Americans. Patriotic Americans are just as capable of extremism as anyone else. However, extremists don't think they are being extreme. So if you are a Patriotic American who is an extremist, it is no wonder you find it impossible to believe that such people can be extremists. For you it would be the norm. But if you are a Patriotic American who is a moderate, then you know how easy it is to slip into extremism, and you always keep vigilance on yourself to never fall into the trap of extremism, precisely because you think it's impossible for it to happen to you.
Yes, I'm pissed off that men don't have to wear the veil or the burka; I said so quite clearly.
If men and women were required to wear the same thing by religious law... I'd have no problem with it. You may think men and women are exactly equal. They are not. Biology shows us so. Equality doesn't demand that we all have to wear the same clothing, or we all have to be treated exactly the same, even if it's physically impossible to offer a man the option to have an abortion. It means that where possible and practical, we get equality, and where it is impossible or impractical, we get an equivalent, that would be considered the equivalent for that other person. But if you really feel that way, you'd love the Druze. They go around in skirts. Actually, it's only Europeans that started the whole trend of wearing trousers. It's a modern invention for men to wear trousers in the first place.
But even if a woman isn't of their religion... they have to wear it in countries like Saudi Arabia. It's not freedom-friendly. In your country, it's legal and socially acceptable to go nude. The only requirement is that you do it in a place where it is officially recognised as a place where you can go nude, like a nudist camp. But in the rest of your country, you have this insane requirement that people wear clothes, even though the human body is quite well capable of going without clothes, and if you spend a few months without clothes, your skin toughens up a bit so you don't need them any more than you need clothes or shoes. My father grew up barefoot, and he used to walk over glass and all sorts, because his feet were like shoes.
You require people to wear a dress code in your country, and not go naked, and you look funny at people who walk the streets without shoes as well. In Saudi Arabia, they have a dress code too. Don't like it? Don't be a hypocrite. Get a bill passed that allows everyone to dress the way they want everywhere in your country, including going naked, and you might have a leg to stand on.
Actually, millions of religious people think like that. Way to confuse YOUR beliefs about the Bible with everyone in the world's. Suddenly the world only has "millions" of people in it... and they all read The Bible??? Wow... I didn't know... lol
The fact of the matter is... The Bible is a "buffet line" to most modern Christian faiths/churches. Unless you are an expert in all denominations of Christianity, I have no idea how you have the audacity to even claim that you know about all the beliefs of most denominations of Christianity, including the ones that are not even in your country, when actual Christians have to correct people about their own denominations all the time, because they keep getting it wrong, like Jacobus101 keeps having to correct people on Catholicism.
They take what they like... they leave what they hate... and promise to come back later when they write a "new" Bible of their own and change those things that they hate. The Mormons created their Church off of "additional scriptures" and supposedly there are more "Yet to be found"; and they leave room for more in the "words" of their President - and in the FLDS' case specifically the words of their "Prophet" Warren Jeffs. How is this different than the Apostles, or Confucius, or the Buddha, or Mohammed, who each came along and devised their own scriptures? IMHO, if they are acceptable to do this, then the Mormons are entitled to their POV too.
Also, both Mormons and many other "modern" Christian faiths have created their own versions of The Bible, edited to their specifications, because they disliked certain things it said. I have two versions of the LDS' KJV version with different wording in quite a few places; and I spent a lot of time when I was a teen in the library comparing the wording in the "old" and "New" versions of The Bible. That may be. But that's what comes of not having a single accurate translation in the first place. Why not ask the Jews to translate the Old Testament? We know the Original Hebrew text, because we've been speaking it and reading it and writing it for OVER 2000 YEARS! Before you point it out, I'm just keeping it to 2000 years, but our history goes back much longer than that. It's your own fault.
All of this comes back to people being dissatisfied with The Bible because it either doesn't say enough OR because it says too much. All this comes back to the fact that 99% of the time, people don't read what the Bible actually says, even in the English, and forget everything they've read, except for the ONE verse they are looking at. It's like reading the anti-terror laws, and forgetting about any of the clauses of the Amendments to the Constitution. The Bible says plenty. It just doesn't write it in a way that you imagine it should. I don't know what you imagine it should say, because if it looked like your law books, then there would be thousands of additions dated the last century, like "Rowe vs Wade".
Either way... it doesn't say what certain Christian faiths want, so they ignore certain parts of it and change the words of other parts... or make up "additional" scriptures to go with it. It's what the LDS and the FLDS have done, and to a lesser extent is what is done every time a "new" edited version of The Bible is released. This is all a case of Cognitive Dissonance, or "self-invalidation", basically a way of reading what you want into it, and most of the time, it's because people gloss over what is written there anyway. Does anyone you know actually make an effort to be nice to an Egyptian? 'Cause the Bible says you are supposed to. It also says that if someone does work for you in the day, you are supposed to pay someone on that day, and the same goes for the night. Do you know anyone who ever remembers that?
What I said in this post and my previous post is nothing more than my opinion and you can take it... or leave it. I can take it. However, that doesn't make it right. I see no benefit in allowing fallacies about the Bible to continue, because then you get the current state of affairs. I grew up in a middle-of-the-road, traditionalist religious community, where I saw most kids growing up with parents who kept the basics of their religion, but knew very little about it, and many of these kids started claiming that the Bible was sexist, because they knew precious little more than their parents, who knew very little anyway. So many of these boys and girls went out to live the secular lifestyle. Then I went and spent a few years in a fundamentalist faction of the same religion, and I saw the complete reverse. I met plenty of women in their 20s and 30s, who had lived the secular lifestyle but also grew up knowing very little about their religion, and they had rejected the secular lifestyle, because they were disgusted with the way they were treated as women in the secular lifestyle, and learned about their religion and chose to become fundamentalists, and now loved being fundamentalists, because they found they were treated very well, by their husbands, and by other men, and by other women.
You may see a lot of people becoming more and more dissatisfied with their religion, and I see that too. But mostly from people who grew up with parents who knew little about their religion in the first place, or from parents who did things that were completely banned by their religion.
You may not see a lot of people leaving the secular lifestyle and becoming fundamentalists, but that's because once they are part of the fundamentalists, they stay away from the secular lifestyle, because they don't like it, and so you hardly ever come into contact with them, because you probably don't talk to fundamentalists, and they often don't want to talk to you. But I'm a guy who will talk to almost anyone, black or white, rich or poor, fundamentalist, traditionalist, or atheist. So I get to meet everyone.
It's a silent growth, but the fundamentalist factions are growing at an unprecedented rate, something that has not been seen for many, many years, and more and more traditionalists and non-religious people are becoming fundamentalists. Of all the different variations, it's the extremists that are seeing the most growth in numbers and in conversions, and a lot of these people are converting by choice. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:24:13 PM | Montanan76 states:
"Outside communities.....young girls allowed to dress like an older women on the prowl for a night of great sex, young boys encouraged to "do their thing" with any girl thats ready to spread their thighs for them, media of all types teaching young kids that sex-alcohol and tobacco is where it is at to show your level of maturity, young girls go with young boys, get knocked up, choose either to kill the egg or give birth and if they choose (or are forced . . . . . .
believe Christ taught some men a lesson about he who is without sin let him throw the first stone. I am sure that if the people in this community thought their lives were so bad off like those believing it was who are outside looking in, they would have left it. Unless your under the impression that everyone should be subjecting themselves to our type of life style because it APPEARS to be so much better."
Sir, I think you have endured some brainwashing yourself . . . . I don't think that Jesus deserves any association with this mess, whether in a "camp in Texas" or a Catholic Church with sexual abuse amongst the priests. Either way people, such as yourself, are taught to "fear God", believe in original sin, and look for the devil everyday outside your door . . . . .
Being an "old hippy" and living a life style of sin in my younger years, I have nothing to be ashamed of. And, being a "mystic" if you will, I realized that the pathway to heaven is by our deeds, intent ,and our capacity to know, live, and feel unconditional love. I doubt that someone like you could express that fact in your life.
The pathway to the Godhead is a personal experience, not something that is forced upon a person. It needs to be approached with an open and loving heart.
The people in these compounds are raised as children to know fear, sexual abuse, abuse of their mothers, etc. They know no other life. Thus, it is the extraordinary human being that finds the strength to overcome this and break free of her prisoners.
This shames me greatly--that this is IN AMERICA. American, now a fundalmentalist nation according to some friends in Europe.
E | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:32:02 PM | Brandon,
The "Other Bibles" were thrown out in 325 AD by Constantine. The Nag Hamandi Script were the Gnostics. Everytime the Bible uses the work "heretics" it's talking about them. They didn't believe in priest but that everyone in the group could communicate with God. Also, the women had as much of a position as the men within the group. The best resource that I found is any and all books by Eileen Pagles of Princeton University.
They believed in "God the Father and God the Mother". Check it out!
E | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:48:40 PM |
i question the moms, not the youngsters How can you question the mom when a life like that is all they have ever known? That is the same as asking why an Aboriginal tribe in Africa lives the way it does when they have lived that way for generations. | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 9:01:59 PM | "Sir, I think you have endured some brainwashing yourself.."
Actually Enigma since this had become such a religious issue the statement I was making that you apparently missed was that before a person starts pointing the finger...remember three are pointing back at oneself.
Consider the society we live in here in the USA where crimes of all natures abound and not just in religious circles. I will use your own words with a bit of change to show a prime example of having a beam in one's eye while rallying the neighborhood to pull the sliver from someone else's eye.
'The people in the USA are raised as children to know fear, sexual abuse, mental abuse, spiritual abuse, physical abuse, abuse of their mothers, abuse of their fathers, abuse of their siblings and neighbors and strangers, violence, hatred, racism, discrimination, etc. They know no other life. Thus, it is the extraordinary human being that finds the strength to overcome this and break free of her prisoners.'
Who's gonna rush in and divide and conquer the on going problems of the US and other countries to save themselves from themselves? | |
|
| polygamist compound in texas - 200 people removed
Posted: 4/9/2008 9:19:27 PM | This makes my blood boil. Using 'religion' as an excuse to use and abuse women and children in my opinion. A lot of these kids have been born into this 'temple' and religion and don't know any other life. They are terrified to live outside those 4 walls because of the dreadful things they have been told. Where could these women go, what could they do?
How can any woman happily share her partner/husband with about 6 other wives? It's against all human natural feelings. Not so for the men of course, although I don't know too many blokes who WANT 6 wives - one is more than enough!
I have also heard that the boys in this sect get booted out for any old reason once they reach puberty and start to show natural instinctive attraction to the young girls. They then become competition for the old perverts who want the young girls all to themselves and get expelled for some obscure reason. There are a lot of these young men who are mentally screwed up, they have lost their families, never had to survive in the outside world. No support for them, a lot have turned to drugs, alcohol anything to blank out the pain.
Sad, sad, sad. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
