Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > God loves gay people ????      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 26
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????Page 2 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

^^Ah you disappoint me; you are quoting the bible as most Christians do, to prove something you need proven and I assure you, you went to the right source.

What I won't let you do is say that it is possible for any Christian to interpret the bible in the manner you are quoting it.
Because a Christian would know that Christ, you know the guy I keep talking about, yeah the one that walked this earth without ever committing a sin, the one that was tortured and crucified to pay for all of our sins yours included.
Yes honey in my opinion (The fact that you don't believe He exists doesn't deny his existence period)
Anyway, That Guy, Christ, he was the ultimate sacrifice for any and all of the sins ever committed or to be done forever and ever.


no, originally you said: there is no way that "YOU" ( i.e. 'you', not a "christian") could interpret the scriptures as saying that killing is right.

no doubt hundreds, maybe thousands, of people were stoned to death over the years by 'god's children'.,,for these very 'sins' as enumerated in the bible

these were your exact words, I'm not making it up, check your own post above..


Also for the one that says that each sect has a right to its own interpretation, you are quite correct sir, where I beg to differ is that, there is no possible way that you could interpret from Scripture that it is okay to hang people or kill them regardless of the sin of choice.


now you are crayfishing and crawling backwards and saying that these passages do NOT mean, what they clearly DO mean, and are very clearly stating that the punishment for many 'offenses' as prescribed by god, is to be stoned to death

how can you reconcile these statements? you can't so you crawfish away with something about 'jesus' i thought god & 'jesus' were the same person? god is jesus, jesus is god, the father the son & the holy spirit? or am I just 'not understanding' in some mysterious way that you can't explain to a non-believer? handy device to be able to hide behind..
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 27
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 8:06:02 AM

Remember that episode, where there are about to stone Mary Magdalene, and He stops them, yeah that was Christ, I am telling you He is all that!
Anyway, as I was saying, none of what you quoted above applies anymore, there are verses that I could quote verbatim to prove that an eye for an eye isn’t longer the thing to do, instead we are not to take matters into our own hands. In fact, you are to do nothing but good, to whomever is offending you or your Lord, He says, mine is the vengeance I will pay you…
We are living in the period of grace; thanks to Christ, He was the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer have to die for our transgressions…

Once again, a Christian would have known that, of course I understand why you didn’t…



If you aren't a Christian you can misinterpret, obviously you did. Does quoting the bible make you a Christian though? Yeah, I didn't think so.[/quoet]

ah, I see, so the arrogance and ego rears their ugly heads once again.

only you, and people who think like you, agree exactly with what you think & say, are 'right' and are "true christians".?

no wonder religions & 'religious' people make normal people puke
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 28
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 8:06:19 AM

Remember that episode, where there are about to stone Mary Magdalene, and He stops them, yeah that was Christ, I am telling you He is all that!
Anyway, as I was saying, none of what you quoted above applies anymore, there are verses that I could quote verbatim to prove that an eye for an eye isn’t longer the thing to do, instead we are not to take matters into our own hands. In fact, you are to do nothing but good, to whomever is offending you or your Lord, He says, mine is the vengeance I will pay you…
We are living in the period of grace; thanks to Christ, He was the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer have to die for our transgressions…

Once again, a Christian would have known that, of course I understand why you didn’t…



If you aren't a Christian you can misinterpret, obviously you did. Does quoting the bible make you a Christian though? Yeah, I didn't think so.


ah, I see, so the arrogance and ego rears their ugly heads once again.

only you, and people who think like you, agree exactly with what you think & say, are 'right' and are "true christians".?

no wonder religions & 'religious' people make normal people puke
 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 29
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 11:55:14 AM
ah, I see, so the arrogance and ego rears their ugly heads once again.

only you, and people who think like you, agree exactly with what you think & say, are 'right' and are "true christians".?

no wonder religions & 'religious' people make normal people puke


I didn’t say anything of the sort; but I wasn’t about to let you continue with your so called claims about the way Scripture could be interpreted as you said it was.

As for the true Christian remark; I never claimed myself as a true Christian; I am as Christian as any other person who has acknowledged Christ as their Lord and Savior. However, I can see why normal people like you, would find my views offensive, you know, considering…

Furthermore, I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me about the way I understand Scripture which is why I don’t go to Church, or belong to a particular denomination. Quite frankly, I think that all of us have it wrong, so there goes your claim on religious and religion…

I am sorry you find my existence offensive and I am rather saddened by the fact that you misunderstood my responses. I assure you, you misunderstood, or else I don’t see how anything I said would have bothered you in any way, particularly when, I didn’t take any offense to you stating your opinion on the subject at hand.

I am a bit disappointed that all it takes for you to become physically ill is listening to someone else’s views simply because these differ from yours. I guess the agree-to-disagree approach is just out of the question huh?

Well, a couple of shots of pepto bismol should take care of the inconvenience I have caused…

 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 30
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 11:59:54 AM

I didn’t say anything of the sort; but I wasn’t about to let you continue with your so called claims about the way Scripture could be interpreted as you said it was.

As for the true Christian remark; I never claimed myself as a true Christian; I am as Christian as any other person who has acknowledged Christ as their Lord and Savior. However, I can see why normal people like you, would find my views offensive, you know, considering…

Furthermore, I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me about the way I understand Scripture which is why I don’t go to Church, or belong to a particular denomination. Quite frankly, I think that all of us have it wrong, so there goes your claim on religious and religion…

I am sorry you find my existence offensive and I am rather saddened by the fact that you misunderstood my responses. I assure you, you misunderstood, or else I don’t see how anything I said would have bothered you in any way, particularly when, I didn’t take any offense to you stating your opinion on the subject at hand.

I am a bit disappointed that all it takes for you to become physically ill is listening to someone else’s views simply because these differ from yours.


hmm, guess I just "interpreted" your words that way, the same way you 'interpreted' words of the bible saying "he shall be stoned to death" to mean something other than 'kill him'

have you explained how you could NOT "interpret" words saying "she shall be stoned to death" to mean that killing is advised and required by 'scriptures" ?

I mean there is no deep thinking or analysis or translation required.

the words say, in black & white, in several books of the bible, "if someone does this, she/he SHALL BE STONED (to death) ".

how can one "interpret" that in another way?

where it says "stone her to death" it REALLY means, "give her a hug and a kiss" ?

that is really CREATIVE "interpreting" going on there, if so

sorry I can't figure that one out..


For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... Stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10


"shall be surely put to death.", "And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.","he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him", "ye shall stone them with stones that they die", "and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.", "Then shalt thou ... Stone them with stones, till they die. ", " thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.", etc, etc,

how can these words be 'interpreted' to not mean that god is down with killing?
 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 31
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 12:13:15 PM
have you explained how you could NOT "interpret" words saying "she shall be stoned to death" to mean that killing is advised and required by 'scriptures" ?

I mean there is no deep thinking or analysis or translation required.

the words say, in black & white, in several books of the bible, "if someone does this, she/he SHALL BE STONED (to death) ".

how can one "interpret" that in another way?

where it says "stone her to death" it REALLY means, "give her a hug and a kiss" ?

that is really CREATIVE "interpreting" going on there, if so

sorry I can't figure that one out..


I didn’t say it does not read as you are quoting it; it does say that. However, it isn’t what we are supposed to do anymore, according to the gospel of Christ, which is what defines Christianity. The following were Jesus’s very words:

Luke 6:27-36

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
In my opinion, the following is what pretty much voids your verses as quoted:

Luke 6:37-42
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Any other questions?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 32
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/21/2010 12:22:29 PM

attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Any other questions?


yes, actually

why are all those Old Testament verses still in the bible then, which is supposedly god' s eternal, never-changing "word" for all time?

just wasted space?

the old testaments form the majority of the wrords in the bible -it's just all to be ignored according to you?

what a waste over the years then, hundreds of millions of copies printed, billions of pages, to be ignored.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/22/2010 4:38:49 AM
RE Msg: 77 by sarniafairyboy:
hmm, guess I just "interpreted" your words that way, the same way you 'interpreted' words of the bible saying "he shall be stoned to death" to mean something other than 'kill him'

have you explained how you could NOT "interpret" words saying "she shall be stoned to death" to mean that killing is advised and required by 'scriptures" ?

I mean there is no deep thinking or analysis or translation required.

the words say, in black & white, in several books of the bible, "if someone does this, she/he SHALL BE STONED (to death) ".

how can one "interpret" that in another way?
There is a very good reason. This is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament was NOT written in English. If you read an English translation, you're not reading the Old Testament. You're reading someone else's book, who re-wrote the words of the Old Testament to say something other than what the actual Hebrew text says.

There is another good reason. The Old Testament was written to the Jews, and with it, came an Oral Law, that is part and parcel of it. Unless you know the Oral Law as well as the Written word of the Old Testament, you simply don't understand what the Old Testament is putting across.

Here are a few examples:
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Read it again. It doesn't say that she didn't scream loudly enough. It says that "because she cried not, being in the city". In those days, cities were not as today. Houses had open holes for windows, and houses were built close to each other, close enough that you could hear anyone cry out. If she had cried out, and you were there, you would have heard her.

The Bible is teaching us an important lesson, that very often, a woman who is cheating on her boyfriend, will accuse the man she slept with of raping her, so that her boyfriend won't ditch her, and that the only way to tell if she is lying or not, is how you construct your cities, and how you behave in those cities.

If you construct your cities in fashion that makes it easy to hear if someone cries out, and if the men and women of that city listen out for calls of help, and if they respond immediately to those cries for help, then it becomes easy to catch rapists in the act. Then there is no chance of getting away with rape, and with no incentive to rape, rape doesn't happen.

We have not yet learned that lesson. As a result, close to 1 in every 4 women are sexually assaulted, many, many of them in cities.

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
The people of Western countries used to be much more familiar with handling animals, up until the 70s. There was a very well-known fact about animals, particularly wild animals, that until they had killed a human, they would usually be nice to humans. But once they had killed a human, they would continue to do so. So if an animal killed a human, we'd used to kill it.

Nowadays, the people of Western countries have very little experience of handling animals. So a lot of people really don't realise this.

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Let's not skip the most important bits, shall we?
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
If you read the whole thing, you can see clearly, that if he hates her, and makes a false claim against her, then he is the one who is punished. She is only punished for deliberately cheating on her husband.

The Bible is teaching us an important lesson, that a man will make many promises to a woman in order to sleep with her, but that once he has slept with her, very often, he will try to renege on his promises, claiming "she's a slut". It is the duty of every man and woman to ensure that their relationship is conducted in such a way, that it can easily be confirmed that she has lived up to her vows in the relationship, so that he cannot take advantage of women.

In those days, men and women from different towns would get married, but then would go back to their home towns, and spend a year saving up for their marriage, and then they would live together as man and wife.

However, sometimes, the man would claim that when he married the girl, she was a virgin, but that when they moved in together, she wasn't, so that he could claim "She's a slut, she cheated on me", so that he could get to have sex with her, but not fulfil his promises to the woman.

So the people of the time had the couple sleep on white linen sheets on the night, to make it easy to determine if she was a virgin or not, so that when the man claimed that she had cheated on him, the woman could be vindicated, and the man could be properly punished for accusing an innocent woman of such horrible lies and for crushing the respect others have for her, and to make him live up to his responsibilities.

It's the other side of the woman who cheats and cries rape, only this time, it's the man trying to abuse the trust of his wife.

how can these words be 'interpreted' to not mean that god is down with killing?
Because this comes from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament was written to the Jews, and with it, came an Oral Law, which is part and parcel of the Old Testament, that is very clear, that no-one can be killed unless they were made aware by 2 witnesses that what they were doing was wrong, and that what they were doing is a capital punishment, and that those 2 witnesses can see what those people are doing, so there is no way that those people won't get caught, and no way that those people won't convicted of capital punishment by their crimes.

Say you live in a state that practises capital punishment for murder. Say you and a friend see a guy with a gun, about to shoot another person, but you don't have a gun, and you don't want to rush the guy because he might shoot you. But you call out to him "Hey! We see you! You can't kill that guy! It's wrong! If you shoot that guy and kill him, you'll get convicted of murder, and you'll get the chair!" You really think he's going to shoot that guy?

If he does shoot the guy anyway, knowing that he knew it was wrong, and that it would result in his death, and doesn't care, then would you refuse to testify, on the basis that it's not fair?

Or would you say that any guy who knew it was wrong, and that it would result in his death, and shoots anyway, is a murderous sociopath, who has no compunctions about going on a killing spree, and that if he's that much of a danger to society, that society needs to be protected from such people?

The question you need to ask yourself is, why is it that you keep seeing things that others keep pointing out isn't there?
 Fishingthereef
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 34
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/22/2010 10:29:24 AM

the words say, in black & white, in several books of the bible, "if someone does this, she/he SHALL BE STONED (to death) ".

how can one "interpret" that in another way?


There is a very good reason. This is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament was NOT written in English. If you read an English translation, you're not reading the Old Testament. You're reading someone else's book, who re-wrote the words of the Old Testament to say something other than what the actual Hebrew text says.


Oh, you mean the NEW Testament was written in ENGLISH... thanks for clearing that up. It's the sad fall back position of many to claim 'bad translation'...

If the Christian God has lost control of what His Book says and how Its interpreted, then He is indeed a piss-poor excuse for a god, especially since he KNEW English would be the primary language in the world and didn't account for it. If biblical scholars still can't get it right after 2 or 3,000 years, why in the hell should we believe YOU?

Oh, and your apologetics are pitiful.

James, Seattle
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 35
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/22/2010 11:31:46 AM

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Read it again. It doesn't say that she didn't scream loudly enough. It says that "because she cried not, being in the city". In those days, cities were not as today. Houses had open holes for windows, and houses were built close to each other, close enough that you could hear anyone cry out. If she had cried out, and you were there, you would have heard her.

The Bible is teaching us an important lesson, that very often, a woman who is cheating on her boyfriend, will accuse the man she slept with of raping her, so that her boyfriend won't ditch her, and that the only way to tell if she is lying or not, is how you construct your cities, and how you behave in those cities.


LOL, so you agree that being stoned to death is an appropriate punishment for any woman who cheats on her boyfriend?

oh, well having 2 witnesses have to swear that they saw a person do the crime..that makes it soo much better..?

-stoned to death for touching a temple mount .

- or saying bad words about the king,

-for disobeying your parents,

-for worshiping 'other' gods - ( man this all powerful 'god' is a childish, jealous god indeed..flies into a murderous rage if he doesn't get ALL the attention)

-for adultery, getting jiggy with someone other than the one married to

-or not being a virgin on the wedding night (females only, not males because there are more obvious signs for females -bloody sheets after penetration for example) ?

yeah if god is "all powerful & "all-knowing" & supposedly his words form the bible, why didn't he make sure it was in a language all could understand??

you mean that all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient, all-wise 'god' didn't know that Aramaic wouldn't be an 'eternal' language for all time, that it might not be supplanted by more modern languages such as English & others?

I think that a much more credible explanation is that adherents of the bible realize that in the modern age if they stoned people to death for such 'crimes' or 'sins' they would in turn be charged, convicted an imprisoned for life or executed perhaps, by a modern secular government, so they have to find ways to 'explain' this through twists and turns of 'illogic'..
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 36
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/22/2010 1:50:46 PM
New Song for bible believers :

(to the tune of Bob Dylan's "Rainy Day Women # 12 & 35")

Well, they'll stone you if you touch the holy things.

They'll stone you if you take accursed things.

They'll stone you if you if you curse or blaspheme.

They'll stone you if you're raped and do not scream.

But I would not feel so all alone. Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone you if you're an ox and gore a human.

They'll stone you if you marry when not a virgin.

They'll stone you if you worship other gods.

They'll stone you if you disobey your Pa.

But I would not feel so all alone. Everybody must get stoned.

They'll stone you if you if you're a wizard or a witch.

They'll stone you if you give Molech your kids.

They'll stone you if you if you're a sabbath breaker.

They'll stone you if you curse the dictator.

But I would not feel so all alone. Every-body must get stoned!!

some whacked -out bible believers want to stone to death the WHALE that killed its trainer a while ago at Marine World citing the bible verses..lol

god also says that a man is worth about twice as much as a woman .not sure if that includes 'gay' men as well, but it appears so? : both the jewsih /xian 'god' and the muslim allah agree:


Here's what the Bible has to say.

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.... And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. -- Leviticus 27:3-7

So, depending on their age, females are worth 1/2 to 2/3 as much as males.

But what does the Quran say?

Well it doesn't come right out, like the Good Book does, and place a monetary value on human life, male and female. But it does compare the value of men and women from a financial point of view.

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. -- Quran 4:11

... unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. -- Quran 4:176

And the Quran tells us just how much we should trust a woman's testimony: it's worth half that of a man's.

And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women. -- Quran 2:282

 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 37
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/23/2010 8:57:02 AM
RE Msg: 81 by SeattleRain11:


the words say, in black & white, in several books of the bible, "if someone does this, she/he SHALL BE STONED (to death) ".

how can one "interpret" that in another way?
There is a very good reason. This is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament was NOT written in English. If you read an English translation, you're not reading the Old Testament. You're reading someone else's book, who re-wrote the words of the Old Testament to say something other than what the actual Hebrew text says.
Oh, you mean the NEW Testament was written in ENGLISH... thanks for clearing that up.
Did I write that?

The Old Testament was written almost totally in Hebrew, except for a few words in Genesis, and a large part of the book of Daniel and the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, which were written in Aramaic.

The New Testament is questioned if it was written in Koine Greek or Aramaic.

But there is no question that nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament was written in English.

It's the sad fall back position of many to claim 'bad translation'...
I don't understand that. There are many, many cases when people get completely the wrong end of the stick if they are dealing with a language they aren't familiar with. It can get you killed. It can also mean you make claims that are totally unjustified and cause much hatred in the world, and that makes it a hate crime to start criticising without at least learning the language of the documents you are criticising.

Is it really that hard for you to learn Hebrew and Aramaic? If it really is so hard, then why is it so many people in the world can speak 5 or more languages? If you aren't stupider than all those other people, then it should be within your capability, so why have you not made the effort?

Laziness is a poor excuse for criticising others.

If the Christian God has lost control of what His Book says and how Its interpreted, then He is indeed a piss-poor excuse for a god, especially since he KNEW English would be the primary language in the world and didn't account for it.
What makes you think G-d has lost control of His Book?

Did you ever consider G-d is giving you a test of experience?

If you can learn to make the effort to really check things out properly before launching into criticism, then you will develop that as a habit, and then you will do that as well, before you go to war.

According to Robert S. McNamara in "The Fog of War", who was the secretary of state during much of the Vietnam War, the only reason why America went to war with Vietnam was that it didn't check things out. The Americans didn't try to understand what the Vietnamese point of view was. If they had, they would have discovered that the Vietnamese were in a civil war, that had nothing to do with communism. But instead, the Americans simply assumed that if a war was going on anywhere in the world, that it had to be fought for the only reasons that Americans were in a Cold War over, that of the potential threat to the American way of life of Soviet Communism.

America went to war, killed millions of Vietnamese, including women and children, blew up their forests and villages with Napalm and Agent Orange, caused the deaths of 50,000 of your own men, and caused countless others to suffer severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for decades, all because they didn't bother to think before they judged others.

You want to shoot first and ask questions later? Do it when your own people will die if you are wrong. But don't do it when other people's women and children will die if you are wrong.

G-d will give you the option to choose as free will. But in the end, those people will attack back, and you will pay for your desire to shoot before thinking, with the lives of your own people.

If biblical scholars still can't get it right after 2 or 3,000 years,
Who says they can't? Plenty do. They just didn't even consider giving a word-for-word translation, because the languages are just too dissimilar. They just write a scholarly lengthy translation with a large amount of commentary. However, it's up to you to reach for the huge multi-volume translation and read it in its entirety, and not just opt for the cheap idiot's version, which is only written for those who want to be told what to think.

why in the hell should we believe YOU?
You shouldn't. That's my whole point. Do the work. Read it for yourself, completely. Think about everything it says. Compare and contrast the different parts of the text, and compare the sentence structures of the different places, to see if each part isn't actually giving over a different point. Don't take anything for a given. USE your brain, to its maximum potential, and don't skimp on your thinking.

Oh, and your apologetics are pitiful.
I'm not apologising. I didn't write the Bible. I wasn't even born when it was written. So what have I got to apologise for?

One thing does confuse me, though. I understand if you don't want to really check things out, if you don't like science. But in my experience, people who don't like the Bible, seem to have a lot of personal trust in science. If there anything that science has shown us, it is that just because things look like one way, such as that the Sun appears to go around the Earth, we need to check things out very carefully before accepting that as the truth. So if you are a guy who has a lot of trust in science, as I suspect you are, then why are you doing the exact opposite of what science shows us?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 38
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/23/2010 8:58:40 AM
RE Msg: 82 by sarniafairyboy:
LOL, so you agree that being stoned to death is an appropriate punishment for any woman who cheats on her boyfriend?

oh, well having 2 witnesses have to swear that they saw a person do the crime..that makes it soo much better..?
I didn't say that you ONLY have to have 2 witnesses.

You have to have 2 witnesses approach you BEFORE you did the crime, and they HAVE to tell you that it's wrong, and that you will be killed for it if you do it, and then they have to watch you doing it, so clearly that you can pretty much see that they are witnessing you doing the act.

It would be suicide to not go away and do it when they have gone. But then there would be grounds for mental insanity, and then you still couldn't be put to death.

It's really a rejoinder to make you realise just how important these things are.

-stoned to death for touching a temple mount .
Why are you going into G-d's House without going through the process of making sure you are ritually impure?

Would you go into the White House covered in cholera-infected water?

It's important to get cleaned up, before you enter someone else's house, according to what they consider clean, not what you consider clean, or don't enter their house. It's a matter of respect for others, and respect for others forms the basis of any society.

- or saying bad words about the king,
When are you killed for insulting a king, according to the Bible? Where does it say that, anywhere? You can definitely say that according to the Bible, if you disobey the king's orders, then you are committing a treasonable act, as in a monarchy, the king is the government, and to refuse the orders of the king, just because you don't feel like going home when he tells you to, is basically ignoring the social contract, and that makes you someone who doesn't care about what harm you cause to society, as long as it accomplishes your aims. Such a person is capable of blowing up the World Trade Center, just to make a point.

-for disobeying your parents,
Where does it say that? The Bible says that if your parents are in total harmony, and you go and steal a huge amount of food and drink, and pig out on it, in such a way that it shows that you don't care about the social contract and you parents have absolutely no influence on you to even consider it, and so you are equally going down the road that you will as an adult, be a person capable of blowing up the World Trade Center, just to make a point.

-for worshiping 'other' gods -
How would any man feel, if his wife started treating another man EXACTLY as if he was her husband, and her husband as if he was a stranger? That's right. It's time for a divorce.

( man this all powerful 'god' is a childish, jealous god indeed..flies into a murderous rage if he doesn't get ALL the attention)
Dunno about you, but all the attention-seekers I ever met, got annoyed when I had to go to work, because they weren't getting all the attention. Now, if the Bible said "Thou shalt not work, as I am a jealous G-d", THEN G-d would be an attention-seeker. But what does the Bible say? "Six days do your work," (Exodus 23:12). An attention-seeker doesn't even like you talking to your wife. Does the Bible outlaw marriage? Far from it. Doesn't sound like any attention-seeker I ever met.

-for adultery, getting jiggy with someone other than the one married to
You know that if you break the terms of any business contract, then you have to pay for the consequences of breaking the contract, including paying the penalties specified in the contract? How is this any different?

If you didn't want to make a commitment, then why did you get married? If you wanted to leave your marriage, then why didn't you get a divorce?

But again, it requires such conditions, that to literally be killed for it, you've have to be suicidal. It's a reminder just how much you are screwing things up for everyone, when you cheat on your girlfriend.

-or not being a virgin on the wedding night (females only, not males because there are more obvious signs for females -bloody sheets after penetration for example) ?
Not a problem if you never said you were a virgin. Not a problem if you lied before you got married. It's only a problem if you were a virgin before you got married, but weren't by the time of the wedding night, because that means that you cheated even before you'd slept together.

I'd love to see what would happen if it turned out that BP had deliberately bought faulty blowout preventers before even beginning construction of the Deepwater Horizon, because that would be the equivalent. I have a funny feeling that Americans would be in overdrive calling for the heads of BP. Would they be wrong?

yeah if god is "all powerful & "all-knowing" & supposedly his words form the bible, why didn't he make sure it was in a language all could understand??
He DID. You can buy a Hebrew dictionary. You can buy books on Hebrew grammar. You can buy tapes on it. You can even get books on Aramaic and Koine Greek, although they are harder to come by. But you can learn all these things. I know, because I did.

But which language? English? The English of today wasn't spoken in Chaucer's time. That Olde English is almost unintelligible to an English-speaker. It reads like German. The most commonly spoken language in the world is Mandarin. You could ask why the Bible wasn't written in Mandarin. But that wouldn't help most English-speakers, would it? Anyway, it wouldn't help the people of Chaucer's time either. It wouldn't help the people of the time and place of the Bible, to put it in English, Olde English, Mandarin, French, German, Swahili, or almost any language spoken today.

You want a book that can be understood by everyone? Then everyone has to learn at least one language other than their mother tongue, that is the same language for everyone in the world.

But even if that wasn't Hebrew or Aramaic, or Koine Greek, that still wouldn't be a problem, because bi-linguals find it much, much easier to learn a third language, and it gets much easier with each subsequent language.

Have you ever considered that the reason that so many non-Hebrew speakers are shown the Bible, is to get you to actually bother to learn the language and the culture of other peoples, so that you actually try to understand other's reasons for doing what they do, BEFORE you go to war with them, so you don't slaughter millions of innocent people for nothing?

you mean that all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient, all-wise 'god' didn't know that Aramaic wouldn't be an 'eternal' language for all time, that it might not be supplanted by more modern languages such as English & others?
Aramaic wasn't the first language of history. It was preceded by Sumerian, and the people who spread Aramaic knew that, because they took over from the Sumerians, and so did everyone else. As I wrote, it might be to get you to start thinking about what's really going on with others, before calling for a war.

I think that a much more credible explanation is that adherents of the bible realize that in the modern age if they stoned people to death for such 'crimes' or 'sins' they would in turn be charged, convicted an imprisoned for life or executed perhaps, by a modern secular government, so they have to find ways to 'explain' this through twists and turns of 'illogic'..
Hang on, think about it.

If your point is that if the Bible was originally written in English, and you can't read it, then it could say anything, including "be nice to gays", and a priest could claim anything they wanted about it, because you can't read it, and if you could read it, then you'd know what it says anyway, so according to you, they would gain nothing by such deceptions.

If your point is that it's OK that the Bible wasn't originally written in English, but that you can't get a decent translation, then if no-one was able to learn Hebrew, then you'd have a point. But you do have the ability to learn Hebrew, and with the massive resources available to you through the internet, you could get it free, and with the great wealth your country affords you, you can buy any books and tapes on Hebrew you want.

The ONLY reason you can be deceived about the Bible, is if you are simply not bothered to make the effort to learn another language.

If anything, the fact that the Bible doesn't have good translations, is an indictment against people's lack of willingness to educate themselves. Let's face facts: that's a pretty big indictment, because if you aren't going to educate yourself to read the Bible properly, you won't bother to learn the legal terms to educate yourself about the small print in your mortgage and credit card contracts, or the actual terms of the law, and then it won't be just religious people who will be able to lie to you and screw you over. So will the bankers and the credit card companies, and the government and even the police.

Make the effort, or expect the bankers to take you to the cleaners, and the police to fit you up on false charges, all because you never bothered to educate yourself.

Ignorance, lack of knowledge, is an excuse. But lack of effort to increase your knowledge is not.

RE Msg: 83 by sarniafairyboy:
some whacked -out bible believers want to stone to death the WHALE that killed its trainer a while ago at Marine World citing the bible verses..lol
That's actually reasonable, because it was a killer whale, and they'll kill great white sharks for all sorts of reasons. Any animal that has done that once, could kill again, and from what I understand, I believe it wasn't the first time this happened with that killer whale:
In 1999, Tillikum was blamed for the death of a 27-year-old man whose body was found floating on his back in a tank at SeaWorld, the apparent victim of a whale's "horseplay," authorities said then.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/24/killer.whale.trainer.death/index.html

Remember, did I not tell you that the Bible says that they should be killed, and that a partial reason is that once they have killed, they are likely to kill again?

There have been other incidents of a similar nature, and the reasons are pretty clear:
But a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals called the death "a tragedy that didn't have to happen."

Jaime Zalac said the organization had called on SeaWorld "to stop confining oceangoing mammals to an area that to them is like the size of a bathtub, and we have also been asking the park to stop forcing the animals to perform silly tricks over and over again. It's not surprising when these huge, smart animals lash out."

In 2006, a trainer at the adventure park was hospitalized after a killer whale grabbed him and twice held him underwater during a show at Shamu Stadium.
Ibid.

Really, when you look at the facts, that the way these whales are treated, that it's an accident waiting to happen, and that the killer whale had killed before, and did so again, are they REALLY being that unreasonable?

god also says that a man is worth about twice as much as a woman .not sure if that includes 'gay' men as well, but it appears so? : both the jewsih /xian 'god' and the muslim allah agree:

Here's what the Bible has to say.

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver.... And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. -- Leviticus 27:3-7

So, depending on their age, females are worth 1/2 to 2/3 as much as males.
Hang on a minute. Would you estimate the value of Stephen Hawking to be the same as a bum? Yet, that's exactly what the Bible is implying. That doesn't make sense. But then, the Bible calls this "Erechin", when the normal word in Hebrew for evaluating something is called a "Shuma". In Hebrew, words are related to their root words, the 3-4 consonants that make up the concept behind the word. These words have different roots, and so mean entirely different concepts. "Shuma" comes from "La-Shum", "to place something", meaning that it refers to something's value within society. "Erech" comes from "La-Aroch", to arrange. This refers to a certain type of promise one can make to G-d, to say that you will give the value of yourself to G-d. In society's eyes, our value is based on our contributions to society. But to G-d, we are all equal. Our only difference comes from the type of actions that we can make in the service of G-d. However, priests can make a greater contribution to G-d, and yet, they aren't given a greater value. So it's not based on what you can do, but on how much effort you can make. A man is capable of making greater efforts in G-d's service, because a man isn't as elevated as a woman is. He starts off as more selfish and less naturally smart than a woman. So he has more he can achieve.

Ah, but surely this seems extraordinary. Can it really be that women are more highly regarded than men are by the G-d of the OT? Look at what it says about the building of the Mishkan, G-d's house:
He made the wash-basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors of the(C) ministering women who ministered in the entrance of the tent of meeting.
Exodus 38:8

Yet, it says at the end of the building of the Mishkan and the garments of the priests:
According to all that the LORD had commanded Moses, so the people of Israel had done all the work. 43 And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the LORD had commanded, so had they done it. And Moses blessed them.
Exodus 39:42-43.

So we know that everything that was built in the temple, was according to ALL that G-d ordered, and that meant that the fact that the wash-basin, and its stand, was built ONLY from the mirrors of the women, was also according to G-d's instructions.

What are the wash-basins used for? Well, they were used to wash the hands of the priests, so they could be cleansed from any ritual impurities, and they were used several times a day by each priest, but at least once a day for each priest. As you already pointed out, entering the Temple with ritual impurities was a death-sentence. So how could these women's mirrors, a thing used for "unclean" sex, be used to clean the priests from their spiritual impurities? Also, why single them out to be the only thing used? Surely even if it was OK for women's mirrors to be used there, then there would be better choices for cleaning spiritual impurities.

But what do women use mirrors for? Well, to make themselves look beautiful, of course, so men would want to have sex with them?

The answer is that G-d cherishes the actions of women to make themselves look beautiful, far more than any spiritual saint's actions. It is in the actions of women to have sex with their husbands, that brings about love between a man and his wife, that makes love in the home, and makes the home a wonderful place for kids. Moreover, a man who got laid last night, with the woman he cherishes, is in a really great mood, and is usually happy to make peace with everyone. The man may seem to bring peace with the sword. But really, it is the woman who "cleanses" the world, by bringing about peace and happiness in this world with her love.

However, what's really startling, is that if you wash your hands several times a day, is that you end up spending a lot of time looking at the wash-basin. So every time the priests washed their hands, they would be reminded that the real cleansers of the world, are not the priests, but women.

Jews go even farther. They say that the reason that G-d chose this, was actually relevant to the situation. The priests pray for the rest of the Jews to be forgiven the harm they cause others, and to be granted a good income, good health for their family and happiness. The priests are vital for the survival and happiness of the Jews.

However, during the Egyptian enslavement of the Jews, one Pharaoh decreed that every single male baby of the Jews should be drowned. The men felt that every time they had sex, they could get their wife pregnant, and that since half those children would be boys, every time they had sex, they would be causing 50% of their children to be killed. That put them right off sex altogether. If that had continued, it would have meant the end of the Jewish people within a single generation.

The Jewish women then realised that this would cause the end of the Jewish people. So they took their mirrors, and, despite all the hardship of slavery, made themselves as beautiful as possible for their husbands, so that their husbands would find them so attractive that they would not be able to resist. As a result, the men kept having sex with their wives, and they kept getting pregnant. One of these children was Moses, who then led the people out of slavery into freedom.

Thus, it was the Jewish women with their mirrors, who kept the Jewish people from dying out. It is thanks to them that the Jews survived. The priests' job is to pray for the Jews' survival, and the thing that ensures their prayers are accepted, is the thing that ensures they enter in ritual purity, the wash-basin. So the thing that keeps the Jews alive the most, in the Mishkan, was the wash-basin, and it is only fitting that the people who really kept the Jews alive, the women, should have their mirrors in the pride of place, to remind everyone, that it's really the women of the Jews who are the reason that there are any Jews around in the first place.

I can also point to Judges 4:8-9:
Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” And she said, “I will surely go with you. But nothing will result of it (Ephes). The road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.
Barak refuses to put trust in Deborah's prophecy as a woman, and G-d says that for not trusting a woman implicitly, then Barak will lose the entire credit of winning the battle, and it will be a woman who will save the Jews, not Barak.

I can also point to Judges 13:12-13:
And Manoah said, "NOW, (the message of) your words will come (to be carried out). What is to be the decision regarding the child and his behaviour?" And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her keep. She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing. All that I commanded her let her observe."
First, the angel appears to Manoach's wife, not Manoach. But he doesn't believe her. So when the angel appears again to her, he goes to the angel, and asks what is to be done. What does the angel reply? The very first words out of the angel's mouth are: "Of all that I said to the woman let her keep." But that's what the angel told Manoach's wife. That means that whatever his wife says the angel said, that Manoach has to let his wife do, and has to provide everything to allow her to do it. He has to implicitly trust his wife and act as if it is the word of G-d.

I can also point to Esther 4:15-17:
Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, "Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Shushan, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish." Mordecai then went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him.
There are no circumstances in which any ordinary man can call a fast day, and even a highly respected Rabbi can only call a fast day under the strictest of circumstances, and even then, only with the agreement of the majority of the other Rabbis in the city, and even then, never consecutive fasts, as that could be too hard for many people to bear. Yet Esther, a woman, who isn't a Rabbi, and isn't a man, can order the leader of the Jews to do so, and he acts implicitly, as if G-d ordered him to.

That is the power of a woman in the Bible. A man must have power and authority to get others to listen to him, and even then, many rebel against him. But according to the Bible, G-d expects you to follow your woman's words implicitly as if they were the gospel truth.

And you think that G-d thinks more highly of men than women?

Men only get the top positions in the Bible, because without them, they are nothing. Women are even more important than even the greatest Rabbis, just be being a woman.

So you see, women are very highly regarded in the Bible, far more than ANY man.
 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/23/2010 10:35:38 AM

s, actually

why are all those Old Testament verses still in the bible then, which is supposedly god' s eternal, never-changing "word" for all time?

just wasted space?

the old testaments form the majority of the wrords in the bible -it's just all to be ignored according to you?

what a waste over the years then, hundreds of millions of copies printed, billions of pages, to be ignored.


No they aren't to be ignored, but because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice we now live in the period of Grace which is if you sin, as long as you confess it with your mouth, truly repent from it, and don't do it again, He will forgive us.

In all honesty, I don't fully comprehend it and don't claim to know everything about Scripture, I don't. What I do know though, is that we no longer need to take matters into our hands, because all of us sin, therefore not one of us should have the authority to morally condemn one another.

As I understand it, and I think I have said this before; whichever transgression/sin we commit, to God is simply disobedience, regardless of which sin is your weakness. Therefore if I lie or you are Gay; we are both disobedient. How can I condemn you for your transgression when mine is a transgression all the same to God? In other words, morally we are all in trouble, whichever the weakness.

There are laws to punish crimes and He does instruct us to obey the laws of men, so if we commit a crime punishable by such laws, it ought to be punished accordingly.
However, if your actions aren't simply going with his precepts, He will be the ultimate judge when time comes, not us.

Again, all of the above represents my interpretation of Scripture, I don’t claim to know it all and I don’t claim that I am right; it is simply my opinion and I don’t discard the possibility of being wrong.

 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/24/2010 12:23:34 AM
god also says that a man is worth about twice as much as a woman .not sure if that includes 'gay' men as well, but it appears so? : both the jewsih /xian 'god' and the muslim allah agree:...


Here is something I am curious about; did you have a point, were you going somewhere with it, or was this just another verse that you have a problem with?


Oh, you mean the NEW Testament was written in ENGLISH... thanks for clearing that up. It's the sad fall back position of many to claim 'bad translation'...

If the Christian God has lost control of what His Book says and how Its interpreted, then He is indeed a piss-poor excuse for a god, especially since he KNEW English would be the primary language in the world and didn't account for it. If biblical scholars still can't get it right after 2 or 3,000 years, why in the hell should we believe YOU?

Oh, and your apologetics are pitiful.

James, Seattle


English is the primary language spoken in the whole wide world? Really?
How do you know this? Is this from statistics somewhere or common knowledge for everyone?
I certainly wasn't aware, I never got the memo, fax, email; nobody notified me. I think I would very much like to speak to someone!...

I always thought that the strongest argument proves nothing unless it is entirely founded on personal experience. Therefore, unless you have spoken to the entire world, I don't see how you can claim that English is the primary language of the entire world.

Throughout this thread I have became curious about one thing; why is it that you think that we are trying to convince you of anything anyway? You don't need to believe anyone or what we believe, we aren't trying to bring you to the other side.

At this point we are just telling you why we think what we do. You don't have to agree or somehow transition to our side. It is a matter of opinions and I don't have a problem with the way you feel about it or where you stand. I think that we all ought to be able to state personal opinions regardless of differences.
We really aren't trying to offend you or get you angry; the fact that we obviously do, well respectfully, sounds to me like a personal problem, your problem.

Each one of us creates his/her own reality according to our own beliefs, world, or whatever you want to call it. In my world; there is but one God and He exists with or without you believing that He does. Don't confuse yourself; your existence is possible because of His, not the other way around.
The good news is and I cannot emphasize this enough; this is in my world, you don't have to make my world yours or even live in it...

So I guess we can thank God for your world huh? or whomever you usually thank...

BTW: What does 'piss-poor' mean?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 41
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/24/2010 10:09:23 AM


So I guess we can thank God for your world huh? or whomever you usually thank...


uhhh, which 'god' exactly are we referring to?

is it Apollo, Ceres, Diana, Juno, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Annapurna, Ganesha, Maya, Balrama, Ram, Indra, Shakti, Krishna, Vishnu, Hu-huang,Fei Lian, Feng Po Po, Lei-Kung, Lei-zi, Lei-Kung ,Lei-zi , Heng O, Gong gong, Han, Hou Ji, Cai-shen, Fan-kui, Sun-pi, Fu-xing , Gong De Tian, Wei-tuo, Cheng-huang , Tsao Wang , Zeus, Hera, Artemis, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Athena, Demeter, Hermes, Ades, Hermes, Persephone, Gaia, Isis, etc, etc, or on of the THOUSANDS of other gods humans have invented or created over time??

It seems a little arrogant and ethnocentric to assume that you have discovered 'the one true god' and that's what you are talking about?

I'm guessing that when most people on this thread refer to 'god' they mean the jewish/christian/muslim 'god' or 'allah'?


why are so many people ignoring all the other gods? atheist in respect to the thousands but believe in the one?

what most 'believers' refer to as 'atheists' are just people who believe the same as you but have gone one god further.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 42
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/24/2010 11:11:29 AM
^^^^ actually, I think Vulcan was only a demi-god, the offspring of a god and a human. Mythology is filled with crazy stuff like gods impregnating mortal women.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/27/2010 5:08:18 AM
RE Msg: 88 by sarniafairyboy:
why are so many people ignoring all the other gods? atheist in respect to the thousands but believe in the one?

what most 'believers' refer to as 'atheists' are just people who believe the same as you but have gone one god further.
If that's true, then there is no reason why you cannot go one further. Go on. Be a nega-theist.
 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/27/2010 9:56:22 AM

uhhh, which 'god' exactly are we referring to?

Whomever you bow to or acknowledge as your superior being, but I doubt there is one...

This is why I love my world; you see, I get to choose my God and dismiss all others as Gods.

No I don't think that is arrogant from my part, you see in my world once again, I can do that and still be humble. Hey it is my world...

BTW: I can tell you that I know about all those names above, I just don't consider them Gods. It is not ignorance, I call it personal choice.

Additionally, in my world, atheists, Christians, Muslims and members of each and every religion out there are simply human beings.
I don't attribute their way of thinking or assign labels of any kind simply because they claim to belong to any organized religion regardless of which one.
Fortunately, I have learned to accept the fact that I may not understand someone's point of view, but that doesn't make him/her anything other than an individual whose opinion differs from mine.

 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 45
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 7/30/2010 2:04:07 PM

uhhh, which 'god' exactly are we referring to?

Whomever you bow to or acknowledge as your superior being, but I doubt there is one...

This is why I love my world; you see, I get to choose my God and dismiss all others as Gods.

No I don't think that is arrogant from my part, you see in my world once again, I can do that and still be humble. Hey it is my world...

BTW: I can tell you that I know about all those names above, I just don't consider them Gods. It is not ignorance, I call it personal choice.


err, can't resist the put-down huh?

odd for a 'loving" christian lol

you doubt there is one, and so I am an inferior person to you, right?
 forumschick
Joined: 1/15/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
the Bible requires killing (Stoning) ????
Posted: 8/2/2010 3:18:50 PM


err, can't resist the put-down huh?

odd for a 'loving" christian lol

you doubt there is one, and so I am an inferior person to you, right?

Was that the intention of the post? Sorry I missed it.
As for being a loving Christian; is “loving” something you think I am or did I claim that somewhere and I don’t remember?
Now, I am going to respond to your post even though I am sure that you understood what I meant by it. I know I have said this before and you refuse to acknowledge it or simply does not serve the purpose of your intentions.
I am Christian; what this means is that I have accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior period. The adjectives that you want to attach to me being a Christian is something that simply indicates to me your generalization or stereotype for Christians, considering you have yet to meet all of them. I understand that your experience has helped you to conclude to it, I am okay with it, and if I do fit your definition of it, so be it; I don’t have a problem with any of that at all.
In my opinion, your perception of what a Christian is, is simply that your perception. Such doesn’t define anybody else other than those of which you have experienced to fit the profile. Now if your intentions are to portray me as such; let me help you with that.
I cannot emphasize the following enough to you; compared to Christ side by side, I am simply a poor excuse for a human being, I have no problem admitting to you or anyone how little of the reflection of Christ characterizes me. I could very well be the worst version of a Christian in the world, morally, ethically and every other “*lly” that exists.
Now, hoping to clear your confusion; Christ is supposed to help me be a better individual, and it is long life process. Now if you see no reflection of Jesus Christ in my behavior that is indeed a reflection of me and my desire or poor ability to imitate Him, it isn’t a reflection of what Christ stands for. His precepts will be the same whether or not someone like me whose intentions are to imitate Him truly follows them or not.
When someone has had negative experiences with Christians and make these the representatives or the entire Christian community, he/she is not only affecting negatively those individuals whose behavior do reflect Christ’s precepts, but also, ruin the possibility of experiencing what would otherwise contradict his/her ambiguous prejudices.
When I said “I doubt there is one…” I meant that in my experience, most people who don’t believe in God don’t usually believe that there is a being superior to them. I would never dare think of myself as superior to anyone, and as said above, I have no problem admitting the possibility of being the worst possible human being ever to exist.
Now considering that I have made my self perception quite clear and is pretty much similar to your perception of me, I am quite puzzled as to what you are after here…


 JosephTF
Joined: 9/20/2010
Msg: 47
God loves gay people ????
Posted: 9/24/2010 9:54:46 AM
Well Mr.

God is against Spilling your semen
He is against in appropriate use of your genitals.
Thats anal and oral sex.

Homosexuality denies the laws of nature.

And God does love all people..
When the repent.

Hope that answered your question. thought heres no references.

He loves you. But hates you you are.

Maybe you should just stop looking for a sexual partner and actually consider what The Lord God wants. Because everyone who hates Gays are just as condemned.

But homosexuality brings me to rage enough to call together a crowd and stone them to death.. sorry.
Be right, or be wrong.
And homosexuality is on so many levels wrong
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 48
God loves gay people ????
Posted: 9/24/2010 11:20:08 AM

But homosexuality brings me to rage enough to call together a crowd and stone them to death.. sorry.
Be right, or be wrong.
And homosexuality is on so many levels wrong


I believe Jesus Christ was reported to have said: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

are YOU, then, without sin ? are you claiming that status?

who told you that anal & oral sex is "inapproriate" use of genitals? aren't they *MY* or "your" genitals to do with as one pleases?

err, so what are the "many levels" on which homosexuality is " wrong" ?

please expand on this statement, & provide examples of the many 'levels' ?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 49
God loves gay people ????
Posted: 9/24/2010 12:59:29 PM

Homosexuality denies the laws of nature.


Ummmmm no, actually.


http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Here's some excerpts from the link I provided:


1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.

"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 50
God loves gay people ????
Posted: 9/26/2010 12:51:23 PM

God loves us all,but God knows who we are even if we don't.


But again, this raises the question of which God?

There are numerous beliefs and each belief is equally valid... including believing there is NO god or gods.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > God loves gay people ????