Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Morality and FaithPage 6 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

You just rationalised the rape of 10,000 virgin girls who are around 12-16 years of age.....

Is anyone else disgusted by this?
I am. Where did she talk about rape at all?

Where do you get off making basless accusations?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/1/2009 4:35:48 PM
RE Msg: 284 by Verzen:
Scorp - "I have set out a piece for you to read if you are interested, this piece answers your question about numbers 31.. I completely Trust Gods Decisions on everything, "
What has that got to do with anything under discussion? Do you just state things that only exist in your own mind?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 3:31:21 AM
Msg: 291 by Verzen:
The link? It's in your bible!
Look it up!
Numbers 31:18

>


New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

King James Bible
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

American King James Version
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

American Standard Version
But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:

Darby Bible Translation
but all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves.

English Revised Version
But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Webster's Bible Translation
But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

World English Bible
But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Young's Literal Translation
and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves.

Any more proof? I do not need to provide a link. Simply look in your bible.
Rape in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man will find a virgin maiden who was not betrothed, and takes hold of her and lies with her..."
There are tons of references to sex, and they ALL use the term "lie with her". "Keep alive" does NOT mean rape, or even marriage.

"For", the pronoun Le-, in the Bible:
Genesis 12:1 "...Go for yourself, from your land, from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you."

Leviticus 23:40 "You will take for yourselves, on the first day, the fruit of a citron tree, ...
Clearly, the pronoun Le-, which is translated into Greek, then into Latin, then into English, as "for" yourself, "for" yourselves, cannot correspond to "for your own purposes", because that doesn't fit the context.

Further, if you go to dinner with Israelis, and you want to ask for the mayo, the appropriate expression is NOT "Can I have the salt", as that is merely a question in Hebrew, that only deserves the answer "yes", with no appropriate action. The appropriate expression is "give me the salt", because to Hebrew speakers, because "give me the salt", implies "give me the salt (if you want to)", because Hebrew is a language that assumes non-violence and freedom of choice. In English, "give me the salt", implies "give me the salt (unless you want me to take it from you by force)", because English is a language that assumes violent oppression.

The Bible is written in Hebrew. You take a translation of the Bible, from its written non-violent and open language, into a violent and oppressive language like English, and you try to justify that your understanding of such a translation is that the Bible is violent and oppressive?

I take it that you would say, that if someone translated the American Constitution into Arabic, and equally mistranslated it that Arabic speakers who don't read it in its written language, who just happen to live in Iraq, see that the American constitution requires that every American carry a gun, and has the right to use such guns against anyone that they want, and as a result, those Iraqis conclude that Americans are violent murderers who must be stopped, and who blow up "murderous" American soldiers as a result, are justified in their actions, and you would support them? Do you support suicide bombers, who only kill, based on poor translations of the American constitution? No? Would you say that they should read it in English? If they don't know English, shouldn't they at least bother to learn English, just so they can read it themselves, without having to take anyone else's word for it, such as the translators' word for it? Wouldn't you expect the same of anyone, to not take anyone's word for it, and to read the Bible themselves, in the orginal Hebrew? If they don't know Hebrew, then wouldn't you expect them to learn Hebrew, and then to read it for themselves?

So when I was 18, I got myself a Hebrew dictionary, a book on Hebrew grammar, and a Hebrew Bible, and I looked the words up myself. I was shocked at just how different the Bible reads from the translations in English, because they are so different, it's like comparing the Communist Manifesto to the US Constitution. It's that big a difference.

In this passage, when I read this, in the Hebrew, as it was written, all it says is to keep these women alive, to not kill them, and provide them with employment opportunities, or food, shelter and clothing, if they cannot find suitable work. Whether they choose to marry or not, or choose to have sex or not, would be entirely their choice.

Why do you take these translators words for it? Why do you believe the words of others? Can't you think for yourself? Are you a mindless, killing drone?

Edit:

Msg: 289 by Verzen:
Wow! So she trusts Gods decision to keep all the female CHILDREN alive to themselves! They became SEX slaves.
The text doesn't say that at all. If you read into it that they were made sex slaves, that's because you assume that is what would happen, because that's what you'd do. I realise that if you kept female children alive, you would make them sex slaves. But please, don't assume that everyone wants to be a paedophile, just because you do.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 4:35:16 AM

The text doesn't say that at all. If you read into it that they were made sex slaves, that's because you assume that is what would happen, because that's what you'd do. I realise that if you kept female children alive, you would make them sex slaves. But please, don't assume that everyone wants to be a paedophile, just because you do.


Wow. Ad hominem much?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 6:06:07 AM
RE Msg: 295 by desertrhino:
Wow. Ad hominem much?
That's my whole point. If you start accusing people of something, where there is no indication whatsoever in their words, that they were raping, or being asked to rape, then it comes from you. The Bible says "keep alive for yourselves". It doesn't mention sex, except that these are women who hadn't have normal sexual intercourse yet. So where on Earth does Verzen get the idea that this says rape? It doesn't. It comes from him.

If you don't like that he's made a Freudian slip, then tough.

RE Msg: 296 by chomskian:
Well done. This is precisely the function of these discussions, to provide a forum for the most obscenely slanderous personal accusations possible. Keep up the good work we're all so impressed with your superior intellect and old testament righteousness. Would love to stay and hate with you, but I've got to go back to reading Voltaire, you know, the guy who said,
Hey, I didn't start insulting people, Verzen did, in message 279, when he wrote:
You just rationalised the rape of 10,000 virgin girls who are around 12-16 years of age.....
If you want to keep these discussions away from the most obscenely slanderous personal accusations possible, then start demanding that people like Verzen stop making them. On the other hand, if you want to provide a forum for the most obscenely slanderous personal accusations possible, then please, continue to let people like Verzen make obscene and slanderous accusations, and then attack anyone who attacks him for making them. Keep up the good work we're all so impressed with your superior intellect and self-righteousness.

As Voltaire said: "When you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost. You can always call him vile names." I answered your argument, by pointing out that I am trying to stop hate, and you are trying to stop anyone stopping hate. If all your arguments are lost, then you can always call me vile names. But my argument stands regardless. It is up to Verzen to behave responsibly, and up to us, to correct him when he does not. If we do not, then not only will he deduce that we will accept him making baseless accusations without proof, but someone else will go further, and deduce that we will accept him acting on baseless accusations without proof, maybe beating some innocent guy up, or even killing him.

I'll stick to Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for all good men to do nothing".
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 8:24:27 AM
RE Msg: 298 by oldsoul:
Here's a perfect example that morality has nothing to do with faith - it's also a perfect example (in my opinion) of just how dangerous indoctrination can be.
Exactly, oldsoul. It's clear to me, anyone who thinks that sex has nothing to do with whether women should be helped or not, would realise just how indoctrinated people like Verzen have been, by our over-sexualised, male chauvinist society, that parades women as nothing more than pretty objects, to read into everything as if that is only way to see things.



Why do you believe the words of others? Can't you think for yourself? Are you a mindless, killing drone?
And that ^ is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Here is a classic example of such indoctrination. I point out the weakness in Verzen's opinion, and how he doesn't think for himself, and you immediately criticise it. Why? Because I'm not treating religion as inferior to YOUR views? What makes YOU, ONE person, have the right to lord your views over others.

All I can say is that anyone who "believes" that faith = morality is not on the same page as I am - in fact, we're not even in the same book or the same library and I'm starting to wonder if we're even from the same planet.
All I can say, is that anyone who thinks that no faith = morality, or even that no faith = a higher level of morality, isn't realistic, at least, not about all the British, Scots, Irish, Canadians, Americans, South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders, Frenchs, Germans, Russians, and everyone else I've met, and is certainly not inhabiting even the same universe as me.

Faith might not mean a higher level of morality. But neither does non-faith, and those who claim so, are just fulfilling the words of Nietzsche, that you quoted:
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

~Friedrich Nietzsche~
IMHO, anyone who is "non-faith", who wants their young to not be corrupt, would therefore instruct him to never hold in higher esteem, those who are alike in his views, thatn those who disagree with his opinions, and so, would therefore instruct him to never hold those who disagree with his opinions in lower esteem than those who agree with him.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 9:21:16 AM
RE Msg: 300 by Verzen:
Wow scorp.. That is not it at all. WTF would be the NEED for them to be virgins if they WEREN'T sex slaves? I am fighting AGAINST the bible for their treatment of children. What makes you think I want a child sex slave when I am fighting against it? ****ing dip shit. I take GREAT offense to being called a pedophile.
It's reasonable to ask why the Sun is yellow, and not some other colour. It's reasonable to ask why Americans only made slaves of black Africans, and not white Russians. It's reasonable to ask why the Bible says in Numbers 31:17-18 that "Now, kill all males in the children, and all females that know a man by heterosexual sex, kill,
And all the children of the females, who haven't known heterosexual sex, keep alive for yourselves."
It's reasonable to ask why only the females who haven't had heterosexual sex, should be kept alive, and everyone else should be killed.

But is is reasonable to draw conclusions without thinking them through, and at least testing your hypotheses? Is that good science? Of course not. That's idiocacy, because you aren't thinking, or perversion, because you are trying to push your perversions as truth.

So, let's test your hypothesis: consider a scumbag pimp, who uses women as sex slaves. Would he want to get rid of all the adult and teenage women who AREN'T virgins? Of course not. They've already got used to sex, so they'll be better in the sack.

I used to think that maybe virgins might have a tightness that other women lack, but in entirely unrelated threads in the relationships forum, other posters have informed us that they've met plenty of women who have had a lot of lovers, and that wasn't a problem, only in women who used BOBs a lot. So that's not an issue.

What about being "the first"? Well, that's good for the first time, but after then, they're no better than the other women.

What about marrying a virgin? Well, that's good for those men who'd rather marry a virgin than a hot woman, but I gather that most men would rather marry a woman who they find attractive, even if she's not a virgin, than an ugly virgin, that they cannot stand to look at.

Of course, maybe that's what the Bible means, only hot virgins. But there are 3 problems with that:
1) You're interpreting the Bible based on what it says, and it doesn't mention anything about how attractive these women are.
2) The Bible says to kill off even adult women who are virgins.
3) There are so few hot virgins, that you'd have pretty poor pickings in women. So there'd be no point.

All in all, if you wanted sex slaves, you'd keep all the women alive, as slaves to cook and clean for you, and use the hot ones for sex, and that's pretty much what happens in real life, in places where such slavery of women has gone on. There's been a few cases of such treatment reported in certain places over the last 39 years of my life, so I know we have evidence for this.

So this cannot be for sex slavery, because it would not achieve that objective at all.

So, I am left with one of 2 options:
1) That you just read child rape into everything, because that is constantly what you think about, paedophilia.
2) That you just don't think about what you read at all.

If the former is true, I suggest you attend therapy, pronto.
If the latter is true, I would caution you to never do any electrics DIY at all, and rather pay someone how to do this, because people who don't think too much to be able to understand instructions, don't understand the basics of electricity either, and tend to electrocute themselves, and some are unfortunate enough to die of such experiences, and if you don't think, the odds are against you.

I take GREAT offense to being called a pedophile.
But you don't have a problem with calling the people in the Bible paedophiles, when you haven't even asked them here, to defend themselves? At least I gave you the opportunity to answer my views, by posting here, where you have the capacity to reply. Pot, meet kettle, and then some.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 10:33:39 AM
God does love sex slaves and condones rape if done for the right reasons by favored people. If a dictator ran a nation on earth by the same rules the God of Christianity uses, he would make Idi Amin or Saddam Hussien look like saints or angels.

From http://www.evilbible.com/ a quick resource for the twisted side of god.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/2/2009 7:22:45 PM
RE Msg: 302 by Verzen:



It's reasonable to ask why the Sun is yellow, and not some other colour.
It depends on temperature that the sun puts out
I didn't ask you that as a question. Please stop reading things into what I've written that aren't there. I stated the question was reasonable to ask.


It's reasonable to ask why Americans only made slaves of black Africans, and not white Russians.
Their own race was supplying the demand. Russians weren't selling their own people as slaves like the African's were. They were the dealers, that is why you have black slaves. Plus it was easier to distinguish between a slave and a non-slave.
I didn't ask you that as a question. Please stop reading things into what I've written that aren't there. I stated the question was reasonable to ask.

If I told you to kill that family over there but leave the virgins to me, what would you think?
I'd think: "On what authority would you to be telling me to kill those people?" The murder would be the most pressing issue.

Or if I told you to kill everyone but the virgins in that city and you along with the rest of the men can have the virgin WOMEN what would you think?
I'd think: "On what authority would you to be telling me to kill those people?" The murder would be the most pressing issue.

If its the whole sin thing then why not virgin boys? eh?
No such thing. How can you prove that a boy isn't a virgin? If his life depends on being a virgin, don't you think he'll say he's a virgin, to save his life? So how are you going to prove he's a virgin? It's not like boys have a hymen.

As someone who has studied quite a bit on human trafficing and knows quite a bit about the sex trade (but is not part of it.. need to clarify that so you don't pervert what I said) virgins are valued WAY higher than non-virgins. In fact, you can get a virgin for $200,000-$400,000 USD in comparison to $50,000. That is quite a jump.
At that rate, virgins are worth 4-8 non-virgins. But if selling them is your objective, you'd be a damn fool to not sell the non-virgins as well, because you'd be losing out on $50,000 per non-virgin. So your own statement PROVES that if that was your objective, you wouldn't kill the non-virgins.

However, what your statement also proves, is that you know so much about human trafficking, that you seem to only think about women in those terms. You don't consider reality, as I've shown above.

What are BOB's?
Battery Operated Boyfriends. It's used quite a lot on POF.

(Im not good at abreviations) anyway, its not about tightness. It is solely about being the ONLY person to have sex with that particular girl.
Try asking most men, if they would rather have sex with a woman they are attracted to who is not a virgin, or a woman who they aren't attracted to, who is a virgin. Judging my most responses I've seen on POF and in real life, they would always choose the woman they are attracted to. I know that men prefer virgins they are attracted to, over non-virgins they are attracted to. But the Bible doesn't specify the attractive ones, and that moots the whole issue.

Unless you're the ONLY person to have sex with them.. The thing is, is that their virginity doesn't matter. It is the fact that you are the ONLY person they have been with. That is what matters.
That's only worth it, if you intend on marrying them, and if that is the case, then you're not raping her, are you?

Logical fallacy. You are assuming that all virgins are ugly. Some virgins are pretty attractive who just wish to wait till marriage to avoid unnecessary STD's
I'm not assuming anything of the kind. The simple reality is that the attractive girls get hit on a lot, and at much younger ages, so the majority of attractive women tend to not be virgins, not unless they come from a very religious family, who keep their women away from the men.

However, Numbers 31:18 is discussing the women of Midian, and as we can see in Numbers 22:4, the Midianites were in cahoots with the Moabites. But as we can also see in Numbers 25:1 and Numbers 25:6, the Moabites and the Midianites sent the Moabite women and the Midianite women to seduce the men of the Children of Israel. So clearly, they weren't all that bothered about keeping their daughters virgins.

So, considering that they weren't all that bothered about keeping their daughters virgins, the most likely thing is that the more attractive the woman, the more she was likely to lose her virginity earlier, just like today.

So, the reality is, that demanding that only the virgins would live, would severely restrict your chances of finding a woman you found attractive.

The chances that there would be an adult women who has not had sex is astronomical in those days. The younger they are, the better chance they have at being a virgin.
That's true. But that would still just increase your chances of a virgin. It would still mean that the vast majority of women would be eliminated, and that would be totally counter to the idea of taking women as sex slaves.

What does hotness have to do with anything? It's all about power/control and being the only person who has had sex with them.
No-one gives a monkey's about controlling an ugly virgin. You can find ugly virgins now, who are willing to give it up to the first man who'd be their boyfriend. It only matters if you are the first person to have sex with them, if other men also want to have sex with them. Otherwise, you've got the same level of control as the guys who don't want her.

Yes, because we are suppose to interpret things when they tell us directly what it means...
Now you're just showing indoctrination. If you read the Bible, it's full of poetic allegory, which is language that you are supposed to understand has far deeper meanings than the direct and obvious meaning. However, today, so many people don't like to think about what others say, that they don't like to hear allegories any more, and want to be told exactly what you mean, even when the issue is far too complex to explain that way. If you think that what people do these days in the West, is what people always did, in every part of the world, then you're assuming that the entire world has always thought like your neck of the woods, and if they didn't, there's something wrong with them, and to be persuaded of such a fallacy, is indoctrination.

The bible also doesn't mention that there are millions of different planets and that there are a few like ours out there, does it? Yet we know better.
We don't know better.
Genesis 15:5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
Genesis 22:17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies . . .
Genesis 32:12 But you have said, ‘I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.’”
The Bible says that the Children of Israel will be as numerous as the stars, and as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that whoever authored the Bible clearly thought that the stars were as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore. Care to count them? Do you think there's only a few hundred grains of sand in the desert? Considering that the Bible is discussing an area which is full of coastline, you'd think that the fact that there are at least billions of grains of sand on the seashore, would not escape their notice. So you'd think, that the author of the Bible knew that there were at least billions of stars out there. At least, if you thought. But then, it does say, that they "cannot be counted". Considering that the Bible lists the Children of Israel as over 600,000, and that they can combinations of units up to 400 with a unit of 10,000, that's kind of a clue, that they could count up to way over 4 million.

But why would virginity matter. WHY would it matter?
That's a very good question, and one that can be answered. However, we don't want to jump to conclusions. That's what schizophrenics do. It would be unwise to act like a schizophrenic, wouldn't it?

You don't need to be a virgin to clean and cook.
You're right. Which means that wasn't the reason that only the virgins were kept alive.

You DO need to be a virgin to be used as sex though. Remember, in those days if you were a women and you had sex then NO ONE WOULD WANT YOU.
What about Ruth? She wan't a virgin. Boaz married her.
What about Tamar? She wasn't a virgin. Yehudah married her.
Sorry, but that just doesn't wash.

So those who look at something and see the evils in its ways is automatically labeled something horrible while those who can justify it's rationality are automatically labeled as saints?
No. Those who look at something and immediately jump to accusations of paedophilia, without clear proof, just because they haven't figured out why the Bible specified virgins, are horribly irrational, because if they weren't, they would be rational, and conclude they don't have a clear answer, and pursue the matter, until they have an answer, that clearly satisfies all the issues with the text, not just the ones they chose to focus on.

If you pick and choose the things you wish to consider, you're nearly always going to end up with the wrong conclusions, and if you are going to conclude anything from such lack of information, it won't be from the information itself, because you haven't deduced enough to make a conclusion. So you are force to fill in the gaps with your own opinions, and in so doing, you make a Freudian slip, that reveals what YOU think, not what the text implies.

It's obvious that they gave those children to their men to rape. This is exacly WHY I do not follow the bible. If I was a pedophile, wouldn't I follow the OT because of that line and say, "Wow that's cool!" But no, apparently you aren't using the brain God gave you.
That's the type of poor thinking, that led to accusations that Jews were baby-killers, and led to mass pogroms which would regularly slaughter thousands of Jews, including little children, in pretty much every century in the last 1000 years, and in almost every country in Europe, all because Jews would make foods like red-coloured foods on Passover, like Charoset, which is made from red wine, apples and sugar, and Chrain, which is made from red beets and horseradish, all because non-Jews simply didn't know how to make those dishes, and concluded that since the only red colouring they could think of was blood, that they must be made from babies' blood. With people like you, we don't need reasons to commit genocide. You can make ones up all on your own.


But you don't have a problem with calling the people in the Bible paedophiles, when you haven't even asked them here, to defend themselves? At least I gave you the opportunity to answer my views, by posting here, where you have the capacity to reply. Pot, meet kettle, and then some.
WTF? No, its not a pot meet kettle argument. If I point at a pedophile and call them a pedophile, that doesn't mean I am also a pedophile. You need to take logic 101.
You make poor logic, jumping to conclusions, just because you cannot be bothered to use your brain to think that something might require more than a seconds' thought to figure it out, and you think that justifies you calling other people paedophiles? You need to take logic 101, and morality 101, becuase your type of accusations have led to mass killings of thousands of Jews each time, for lots of times, through the last 1000 years. You ought to read history more. Maybe then, you might learn to stop making wild accusations, that could end up causing deaths of innocent children.

RE Msg: 303 by Earthpuppy:
God does love sex slaves and condones rape if done for the right reasons by favored people. If a dictator ran a nation on earth by the same rules the God of Christianity uses, he would make Idi Amin or Saddam Hussien look like saints or angels.
Earthpuppy, you've already made your feelings quite clear. If you jump to conclusions like this, then you are displaying the qualities of a violent schizophrenic. If you act reasonably, then you'd do the service of reading the Bible, not what someone else tells you.

From http://www.evilbible.com/ a quick resource for the twisted side of god.
Why would you want to quote from a site that calls itself "evilbible"? That would be like me quoting from a site called evilatheists.com, and using that as a justification for claiming that all atheists are evil. After all, you've got all these quotes entirely wrong. But then, you didn't read the Bible. You read quotes from someone else, who is just trying to justify their evil opinions. For instance, this is a translation direct from the Hebrew. I can do that, because I can read it. You have to take someone else's word for it, who probably cannot even read Hebrew.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14 THE BIBLE)
As you approach a town to have a war with it, YOU WILL CALL TO IT FOR PEACE. If they respond with peace and open it to you (even if they don't accept your terms), then all the people inside will be (responsible to pay) to you, a tax (just like anyone else), and they will work with you. But if they will not make peace with you, and will make war with you, then you are to hold the town in siege (until they stop trying to make war with you, and make peace with you). (In such an event), G-d will "place" them in your hands (by making them screw up and lose), and in response, you will kill all the males by the edge of the sword (because all the males are automatically conscripted as soldiers who would fight to the last man, or would pretend to surrender, and then pull a Trojan Horse, by pretending to be your friend, until they bretray you. But, if at any stage they make peace with you before you take the town, then the above will apply, and you have to make peace with them). However, the women, the children, and the animals, and everything that is in the city, all that remains, will be yours, and you will enjoy the benefits of the remainder (of the property and land) of your enemies (just like you enjoy the benefits of your property and land), that G-d placed with you.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 THE BIBLE)
If a man finds a young virgin woman, who is not engaged (and is single), and grabs her forcibly, and lays with her (and has sex with her against her will), the man will give 50 silver (about £30,000, or $45,000, on top of the 4 other standard levels of compensation for pain, for medical bills, for embarrassment, and for loss of money due to time off work), and to him, she will be as a wife, (so he will be responsible for her welfare), in place of his really hurting her bad, and he will never be able to get rid of her (or his responsibility to her), (but she can do what she likes).

(Exodus 21:7-11 THE BIBLE)
If a man takes money in exchange for his daughter working as a maid, she will not go out (be treated) like the goings out of workers (because he only buys her to offer her to marry him). If she is unpleasing in the eyes of the man, that he would not offer to marry her, then he must free her (by arranging to have the father pay for her return). He will not control (her) to sell her (against her will) to people of foreign nations (who don't have the same laws, and so might treat her badly), because he betrayed her (by not offering to marry her, as that was the only basis of accepting her). If he offers to marry her to his son (instead), he will treat her according to the laws of daughters (just like any other daughter of the Children of Israel, as an equal daughter-in-law, as if they met and got engaged under normal conditions). (Even) if he takes another wife (as polygamy is permitted under Biblical law), he will not diminish (the quality or quantity) of what he provides for her, or in her dresses, or in sex, (from any other daughter of Israel, and must treat her equal to any other daughter of Israel). And if he will not do any of these 3 (that he refuses to offer to marry her, and refuses to free her, and refuses to offer that she could marry his son), then she will go free, with no money (for him at all).

(Nahum 1:2-8 THE BIBLE)
G-d is a protective, and retributing G-d. He gives retribution (for evil). He "owns" (controls His) anger. He gives retribution to those who try to oppress "Him" (by oppressing His people). He remembers the malicious actions of the enemies of "Him" (by being enemies of His people, and doing malicious acts against them). (But in case you think that G-d is just angry and seeks only to hurt people, remember that) G-d is slow to anger, (even though He) has great power (and it would be easy to destroy those who hurt people, still, He is slow to anger with them, and gives them chance upon chance upon chance to change and stop hurting people). He wipes the slate clean (for those who repent while He is still being slow to get angry), but does not wipe the slate clean in the end (for those who refused to repent even till the end, to give justice for their victims). His path is (as clear and as obvious as) a storm. Clouds are the dust of his "feet". He shouts at the sea, and it becomes dry, and all the rivers become dry as a bone. The lands of Bashan and Carmel become crushed (if He orders it so), and the bloom of the Lebanon becomes crushed (if He orders it so). Mountains tremble from Him. The hills are caused to be dissolved (by Him, if He wishes it). The land, is raised up, because of His will, and so are the whole world, and the people who live in it. Who can stand before his anger (who have caused hurt to others and not repented and not changed their ways, and therefore angered Him)? Who (having hurt others, and have not changed their ways, and so, having already felt His punishment), can get up again in the midst of His expression of anger, which wounds like fire, and when even rocks become shattered before Him? (Lest you imagine that G-d is just up to hurting people, remember that) G-d is good. He is to us as a fortress on the day of oppression (when WE are being oppressed). He knows who put their faith in Him (and so, who really is good to others, and who is not, and just pretends to be). (To those who hurt others and do not repent, and so arouse his anger), with a passing flood, he makes a destructive end in its place. The enemies of "Him" (the enemies of His people), He makes darkness pursue them. (Moral of the passage: G-d will give those who hurt others many chances to change their ways and make up for what they have done. But if they refuse to repent, He will hurt them bad. As 2 teachers in my school said to us on their first day with us, "Be good to me and I will be good to you. But treat me bad, and I'll make you wish you'd never been born." They were the only teachers in my school who ever got respect from the pupils).

(Zechariah 14:1-2 THE BIBLE)
Here, a day will come for G-d (when G-d's anger, though slow, must come, and justice will be settled for every evil thing that has happened), and your spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations (who still crave violence enough to battle) to Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, the houses demolished, the women (who used sex as a weapon) ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

Now, you have 4 choices:
1) You can take these people's words for it, who are quoting translations of translations of translations, who cannot even figure out that Almah (Isiaah 7) isn't a virgin, because Betulah means virgin, and who probably cannot read a word of the Bible as it was written down.
2) or you can take the word for it of someone who made the effort to read the Bible in the original, precisely because he found so much that didn't make sense, but knew enough to know that people lie to support their own views,
3) or you can do what I did, buy a book on Hebrew grammar, buy a Hebrew dictionary, buy a Hebrew Bible, and read it, painstaking in the beginning, but getting faster and faster, until you can read it almost as fast as you can read English,
4) or you can choose to be ignorant, and just jump to conclusions that support your lifestyle, and your selfishness.

You have the power to make reasonable or unreasonable choices. I don't have the power to control you. Only you can do that. Only you can decide to think for yourself, and not take evilbible's word for it. Are you up to the challenge and the effort of thinking for yourself?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/4/2009 10:07:05 AM
RE Msg: 310 by James Bottomtooth III:
Well if you could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people and problem would be solved.
I don't understand. Are you saying that if you can reason with people, that they cease to exist? In that case, then if you regard yourself as someone who is reasonable, surely you have ceased to exist. But if you don't exist, then you cannot exist to post. So how can you make any posts at all?
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/4/2009 10:23:52 AM

My Question to the Atheists:Can You suggest some
BEAUTIFUL music similar to HANDEL'S MESSIAH
or SCHUBERT'S (OR GOUNOD'S) AVE MARIA!


Yup, Pink Floyd springs to mind..
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/4/2009 10:37:20 AM
RE Msg: 312 by James Bottomtooth III:
I am saying if people used simple logic and understood there are no invisible sky wizards, we would not have many of the problems that exist in the world today.
Then since you wrote:
Well if you could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people and problem would be solved.
I can only surmise that your opinion is that if you could reason with religious people, they would ALL conclude that athiesm is the only option, and that would make atheism the exclusive truth. Considering that there are plenty of threads on the proof of the existence of G-d, and they ALL end up with that there are NO conclusive proofs of theism or atheism, that just leaves claiming that atheism is an exclusive truth as unreasonable.

I hav no idea why you would want to claim unreasonable ideas as the exclusive truth. I quite like intelligent atheists, and have learned much from them. But I don't think anyone who claims unreasonable ideas as the exclusive truth can teach anyone anything.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/4/2009 10:44:31 AM

I hav no idea why you would want to claim unreasonable ideas as the exclusive truth. ... But I don't think anyone who claims unreasonable ideas as the exclusive truth can teach anyone anything.


Thank you, scorpiomover. I needed a good laugh to start (rather late, but...) my day. *laughter*
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/5/2009 6:17:07 AM
RE Msg: 316 by James Bottomtooth III:
You say in your profile that you are a fan of House.

Well check out this link and tell me if you still are.

http://nikkieg23.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/if-you-could-reason-wth-religious-people-there-would-be-no-religious-people-house.jpg
Of course I am.

I like House because when he has a good reason for a diagnosis and everyone else tells him that he has no proof, he doesn't just capitulate and agree with everyone else, and he doesn't just say that he's right because he is. Instead, he keeps searching for more and more facts, until he PROVES his diagnosis is right on the money, or completely wrong.

But he doesn't do this with everything. He goes into denial over his gambling addiction. He goes into denial over his Vicodin addiction. He goes into denial about his motives for trying to split up his ex-wife and her husband. He goes into denial over why he hangs out with Wilson.

He's great, when he's challenging the scientific status quo. But when he just spouts the scientific status quo as if it is gospel, without proof, then he's just a bigot.

I like him. But he's still a bigot. But I can separate the two.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/5/2009 2:14:54 PM
RE Msg: 319 by Bright1Raziel:
Seriously though, why dose the bible only mention sexual acts involving the penis? There is talk of it being unatural for people to have sex with animals or for men to lay with men, but not for women to lay with women.

I'm just curious as to why people think that sexual acts between women were omited from the bible?
That's a good question. I have far more questions than I have answers in most subjects. The Bible is one of those subjects. This is one of those questions to which I do not have a good answer.

My personal belief is that women have a much more fluid idea of sex. Lesbian sex doesn't automatically change how a woman sees herself, and many women are "bi-curious" but still straight, and many women who have had lesbian experiences decide to never repeat them. But with men, it seems that most men think that if they have had gay sex ONCE, that they are either bi, or gay. Male homosexual sex changes men, for life. Lesbian sex, even lesbian sex for years, doesn't necessarily change women.

My own personal opinio on the mater is, that the outlawing of certain acts was intenede to keep the popluation healthy. Many of the laws regarding what to eat and how to behave apear to be based on an understanding that these acts carried increased risk of illness, such as eating pork (trichanosoniasis), washing your feet before entering temple (athletes foot) and avoiding anal sex (stds). I personaly belive most of the rules in the bible were not intended as a molral framework but as rules of conduct to prevent illness in close knit comunities.
That's the view of the German Emancipation movement, which stems from the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenment attempted to re-write everything purely in terms of science. The Emancipation movement attempted to re-write everything religious purely in terms of science.

The problem with this philosophy, is that it doesn't match at all with the laws of the Children of Israel, Jewish religious law, because Jewish religious law holds that diseased animals are not automatically kosher, and that the decrees of the Bible are on top of that. So even completely disease-free pigs are still non-kosher, which would be contra to the theory. The same goes for washing your feet before entering the temple, as even people with no trace of athelete's foot, still had to wash their feet, and washing your feet will still not stop athlete's foot, because athlete's foot is a fungus, that feeds on damp environments, such as wet feet. The same goes for avoiding anal sex, because the Bible forbids anal sex between 2 men, but doesn't say anything at all about a man entering a woman's anus, which would have the same issues re stds.

Such a theory is completely ignored in communities where the majority of the members are very experienced in analysing the Bible, for this reason. But the German Jews of the Emancipation seem to lack that level of knowledge, and so, their conclusions result from lack of knowledge.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/5/2009 3:16:47 PM
^^^ For "German Emancipation movement", read "German Enlightenment movement". My mistake.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/9/2009 10:57:30 PM
most men, or a lot of men? [are irresponsible]
I understand your grievances, the world is in an obvious state of disrepair, agreed?
men are fast losing thier respect and leadership roles. its an uphill battle, against the tide of worldly thoughts.
male obligations are; family provider [basic food, lodging, protection, and affection] agreed? would most of us agree on that? basic is the word here.
this is in a society where that is possible, ours, and a few others. I think these are non negotiable obligations.
nobody has talked about the females obligations.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/9/2009 11:23:20 PM

"Morality and faith is an oxymoron to me "

Given your declaration of the above perhaps you should be excused from comment on this thread.
Children are the future of the world and proper care by both parents with good example and behaviour is a moral issue and is certainly connected to this thread in many ways.When males take guns and openly murder innocent bystanders using auto rifles we ask why this is happening.Maybe it happened because the male did not have proper values when growing up.This is moral issue.


The man has the greater responsibility to behave properly, provide for his children and support the woman he has chosen to impregnate.Nobody forced him to do so and when he does so he must assume responsibility for the result of his action.


Peter, could you explain either how your response related to what oldsoul said, OR how what you said relates faith and morality? Seriously. You make no sense, dude.

Beside which, I've been a single father for over a decade, so don't act like you're the only one in that boat and somehow have a "special" viewpoint or perspective...
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/11/2009 7:25:41 PM
if the family isnt eating, its the mans fault, as a rule, unless there is something wrong with him, it happens. I dont mean a hang-nail!
nothing fancy, just eating.
even if he leaves!
woman should help out.
got any better ideas so kids can eat?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/11/2009 9:18:45 PM
Peter, have you ever looked back and noticed that your responses are so colored by your agenda that you fail to address the actual question in almost every way, every single time?

I'm just curious if this is visible to you (if you take the time to look and try), or just to everyone else in the world.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/12/2009 12:31:23 AM
peter, people as a rule throughout history have always had a problem with those that they cannot pigion hole.
take most of it and settle grettle, its easyer on the heart, its tough to do though.

I hope you realize the other half has a role in it too, but we might not dare go there.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/12/2009 5:30:41 AM
I'm going to take that angry spew as a "no."
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/18/2009 10:26:17 PM
Peter: What? Are you just bumping because you feel a little ignored?

You feel a little ignored because your agenda is so overpowering that you are in fact unable to address the topic at hand in a meaningful manner. Ergo, people don't bother responding.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Morality and Faith
Posted: 5/20/2009 10:18:37 AM
I see all those ''bad'' things the creator of the universe did, to try and staighten us out.

he got rid of evil, but it came right back.

even had a special bunch of people that he tryed to nurture, [and they were to tell the rest of us] they told him where to go.
not special no more.

there is no hell. [to me that makes it all that much easyer to swallow]

freewill [what can I say]
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >