God's Laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Um, do you think they stoned to death MUTE women who were raped because they didn't cry aloud? Gimme a break. A five-year-old gets the idea. She wasn't raped out in the country, she was "in town" having consensual relations.

Umm, no. Numerous sources put this into the rape category. I would cite them, but we all know you won't read them. Additionally, the idea of punishing a woman for not resisting a rape is well documented in numerous cultures and numerous time periods.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And the reasons for separate passages are obvious to me (then again, I have the Spirit in me!):
It's probably just gas. Take some antacids.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Also, and I do hope you find this helpful, Talmud and tradition record that VERY few people (a handful) were EVER stoned.
Why should I believe you? You've already lied in this very thread. Cite a reputable source and I'll consider it.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And in Jesus's trial (not that TTAtheists care if Jesus was brutally put to death via a miscarriage of justice) the Sanhedrin after pronouncing any death sentence would normally take up to two weeks to meditate on their judgment in a sort of given appeals process.
No. According to the story, jesus was executed by the Romans, under Roman law and it was legitimate. He claimed to be the "King of the Jews", which subverted Roman authority.

So, are you saying that god's will was a miscarriage of justice? Interesting.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again--and I've shared this at TTA twenty times already--but God knows--you would stone people having consensual sex in public with a pillar of fire right there and God in your midst having just utterly delivered you from Egypt.
Sigh. One, you can't stone someone with a pillar of fire. The word is "smite" or maybe "strike". Second, the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt, there was no deliverance and there was no god to deliver them from an enslavement that never happened.

Seriously? At least put some effort into this.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Oh, and here's something new for you and for me--let's say I take your argument as true for the sake of finding common ground (and for using the scientific method of hypothesizing as true then going down that road for testing):

I go to my dad next week in ancient Israel and say:

"Dad, I need my inheritance, and some of the land you were giving me when I was older."

"Oh? Why is that, son?"

"There's this chick I really like, and I wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't listen to my courtship. So I gagged her so she couldn't cry aloud per the law of Moses, and I raped her and took her virginity. Now she's mine! Aren't you proud of me? Aren't I a good Jew? Oh, and Dad, my new wife is going to REALLY love and respect me all of her days because of this rape. I can sleep well at night, never worrying she will trim off my privates with a rusty knife..."

According to the cultures, by raping the virgin, the rapist devalued her and cost her father the money he would have gotten for her marriage. If caught and accused, the rapist, to avoid being killed, was obligated to pay the father for his loss of property, if the father demanded it. Now theoretically, the woman could refuse, but that left her with the option of being cast out by her father, and since she wasn't a virgin, her marriage prospects were more limited.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your little scenario/rant with any comments.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Ultimately, I think God's stance on fornication, not rape, is what annoys the TTAtheist. Sorry, but that's how I see it!

Ah. Atheists just like to sin. I think I have bingo.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
24-03-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 09:30 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Um, do you think they stoned to death MUTE women who were raped because they didn't cry aloud? Gimme a break. A five-year-old gets the idea. She wasn't raped out in the country, she was "in town" having consensual relations.

Umm, no. Numerous sources put this into the rape category. I would cite them, but we all know you won't read them. Additionally, the idea of punishing a woman for not resisting a rape is well documented in numerous cultures and numerous time periods.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And the reasons for separate passages are obvious to me (then again, I have the Spirit in me!):
It's probably just gas. Take some antacids.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Also, and I do hope you find this helpful, Talmud and tradition record that VERY few people (a handful) were EVER stoned.
Why should I believe you? You've already lied in this very thread. Cite a reputable source and I'll consider it.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And in Jesus's trial (not that TTAtheists care if Jesus was brutally put to death via a miscarriage of justice) the Sanhedrin after pronouncing any death sentence would normally take up to two weeks to meditate on their judgment in a sort of given appeals process.
No. According to the story, jesus was executed by the Romans, under Roman law and it was legitimate. He claimed to be the "King of the Jews", which subverted Roman authority.

So, are you saying that god's will was a miscarriage of justice? Interesting.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Again--and I've shared this at TTA twenty times already--but God knows--you would stone people having consensual sex in public with a pillar of fire right there and God in your midst having just utterly delivered you from Egypt.
Sigh. One, you can't stone someone with a pillar of fire. The word is "smite" or maybe "strike". Second, the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt, there was no deliverance and there was no god to deliver them from an enslavement that never happened.

Seriously? At least put some effort into this.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Oh, and here's something new for you and for me--let's say I take your argument as true for the sake of finding common ground (and for using the scientific method of hypothesizing as true then going down that road for testing):

I go to my dad next week in ancient Israel and say:

"Dad, I need my inheritance, and some of the land you were giving me when I was older."

"Oh? Why is that, son?"

"There's this chick I really like, and I wanted to marry her, but she wouldn't listen to my courtship. So I gagged her so she couldn't cry aloud per the law of Moses, and I raped her and took her virginity. Now she's mine! Aren't you proud of me? Aren't I a good Jew? Oh, and Dad, my new wife is going to REALLY love and respect me all of her days because of this rape. I can sleep well at night, never worrying she will trim off my privates with a rusty knife..."

According to the cultures, by raping the virgin, the rapist devalued her and cost her father the money he would have gotten for her marriage. If caught and accused, the rapist, to avoid being killed, was obligated to pay the father for his loss of property, if the father demanded it. Now theoretically, the woman could refuse, but that left her with the option of being cast out by her father, and since she wasn't a virgin, her marriage prospects were more limited.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your little scenario/rant with any comments.

(24-03-2016 08:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Ultimately, I think God's stance on fornication, not rape, is what annoys the TTAtheist. Sorry, but that's how I see it!

Ah. Atheists just like to sin. I think I have bingo.

"An appeal to numerous sources" has limited appeal, coming from an atheist, when "numerous sources" say there is a God!

Jesus's death included warped justice, yes, but God is able to convert even evil happenings for good.

I'm aware of the get and dowry principles of ancient Israel, yes, in that culture a deflowered virgin could face repercussions. Many people have noted, however, that there are disparate laws mentioned. And again, my scenario--that you refuse to address INTERNALLY--has a lot to say. If this was the law, would you rape to get? Of course not. Be reasonable!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 12:01 PM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 10:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm aware of the get and dowry principles of ancient Israel, yes, in that culture a deflowered virgin could face repercussions. Many people have noted, however, that there are disparate laws mentioned. And again, my scenario--that you refuse to address INTERNALLY--has a lot to say. If this was the law, would you rape to get? Of course not. Be reasonable!

I do not see anywhere in your scenario where you asked me if that was what I would do. However...

I would in no circumstances rape anyone.

According to the bible though, rape was acceptable. Note that I say "was". I am not implying that the bible advocates rape in modern times. But the bible clearly states that it was acceptable to rape and gives rules for it.

ETA: changed "this" to "rape". In case it wasn't clear what I was referring to.

Just as if it was written by a group of primitives.

If you can say "thou shalt not kill" then you can say "thou shalt not rape."

Your bible is not the word of any god.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
24-03-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: God's Laws
Quote:If you can say "thou shalt not kill" then you can say "thou shalt not rape."

However, Q has already made clear, that he takes those commandmends rather as "rules of thumb", depending on the conditions.

The Q Continuum Wrote:The Bible states that state-sanctioned execution, of say, murderers, is killing that isn't murder. I have no problem with that.

So i guess he has no problem with rape too......if the bible states......or, say given some conditions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
24-03-2016, 11:37 AM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because I parse infinite and eternal and know the difference between eternal punishment or infinite punishment?

Go and tell the difference. Why is eternal not infinite?

Hint: asking me back questions, is not an answer. An explanation is an answer. I am waiting.

(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I recommend you not become a lawyer, judge or English instructor if you don't care to look at word meanings in-depth.

Thanks, but i prefer not to take advice about meaning of words or my future career from people who are demonstrably lying pieces of shit. Particularly about topics like slavery for example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
24-03-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: God's Laws
  • Why is eternal not infinite?
  • How do you know god is just.? On what basis do you judge god?
  • Do you think its moral to punish someone for someone elses crimes?
  • Why do you say gods commandmends are absolute, but condone killing of killers?
  • If you wouldnt go and rape and kill without gods commandmends, why do you need gods commandmends?
  • Why did you lie about slavery in the bible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
24-03-2016, 11:46 AM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 08:35 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I will respond to your hostility peaceably

I would prefer if you would respond to my hostiliy honestly.

If you dont like being called a lying piece of shit, then stop being a lying piece of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
24-03-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 08:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 12:21 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I don't think you read one thing I wrote here. I already explained it thoroughly, we are working with the assumption that this being is all loving and all knowing and all powerful.

Your badly written Bible isn't good enough for me to believe, all the other believers who have come into contact with me have not been able to convince me. If your God is so all loving and all knowing he would surely know what it would take to make me believe and being all powerful he would be able to make it happen, being all good he would be obligated to do it.

I have heard a few conversion stories where someone was either an atheist or a non-practicing Christian who had an angel experience, near death chat with Jesus, etc. so why is it that God feels the need to grant a visit or at least a lucid dream/vision to some people but most everyone else just get's the Bible?

Fact is if your God seems totally fine with atheists existing and doesn't feel a need to do more to save their souls he is either not powerful enough to do so, doesn't care to or doesn't know how to. The only other option is he simply doesn't exist. I hear all the time that anything is possible through God, ok why can't he make me believe? Like I said it doesn't have to be a personal visit, it could be anything. It could be simply giving me the ability to understand the Bible even though I already do but if he can't do something that simple why would he be worth worshiping or seeking out? I have to go out of my way and disregard all my logic and reasoning to believe in him when he has done exactly nothing to deserve it.

Maybe your God is real and simply isn't all good or all powerful or all knowing, in that case he's not a God but simply a very powerful wizard . An all good being would do whatever it takes to save every person from eternal torture. Some people are easier than others, they just believe while others will prove more of a challenge, if your God can't meet that challenge he's weak and not a God.

Even teachers in a classroom understand all children learn differently, some need to read and take notes, some are more visual learners and need a video or a song. Is God not able to figure out something humans have already come to know? That we all need different stimuli to gain knowledge? He figures an old book that says bats are birds, the Earth is a disk and women are property is going to do just fine? If that's true than not only is your God not all good or powerful he's just very lazy, in that case he's still not worth believing in.

When you say "badly written Bible" I think of atheist college professors I had in Religion who sad the Bible was astonishingly well written. Again, you have a childish excuse for childish behavior. "The Bible isn't clear enough to ME on first pass, so I pass!"

I'm not trying to arouse your ire, here, by the way. You have to be childlike to get into Heaven.

Don't worry nothing you say will make me angry, it's just curious to me if anything but the reason I say the Bible is badly written even if some parts are poetic and well-written is because it contradicts itself so often and there are far too many passages that are supposed to be a metaphor or an allegory but it's not obvious so it can be interpreted in many ways. For a book that is supposed to be the ultimate truth it seems to have a hard time deciding for itself what is true, hence the tens of thousands of different denominations that interpret it differently, sometimes wildly differently and they all think they got it right.

I've been told the story in Genesis of the infamous fruit eating incident was a metaphor but also told it happened exactly as told, the talking snake and everything really happened. Well which is it? You don't have to bother answering since there are plenty of believers who will disagree with you. I've read the Bible a few times and I understand it but I don't believe it to have any basis in truth, even if it adds some real touches like real places, wars, etc. the entire foundation of it is myth and folklore but if it was written to be a true document of history they missed the mark. It's far too convoluted to be understood as a simple retelling of what this God has done so far and his predictions for the future. Especially when so many of the most important portions like Exodus and the great flood have been proven historically inaccurate and never happened.

Since I gave the Bible a fair chance and read it a few times and even took notes and discussed them with church leaders I don't see how I dismissed it "on first pass", even Christians I've known have told me they struggle to understand it on a daily basis. Is that what I'm supposed to do, struggle with beliefs being shoved down my throat rather than use my own logic and reasoning to decide for myself if it's worth believing in? I'd rather make up my own mind.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
24-03-2016, 01:00 PM
RE: God's Laws
(24-03-2016 08:07 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 02:01 PM)Alla Wrote:  New Covenant means that some laws of Old Covenant don't have to be practiced any more, some laws still have to be practiced , and some new laws are given.
Ten Commandments are part of New Covenant. They were included.

I think these verses are disagreeing with you in part. Perhaps you will interpret them for us?

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
I will not interpret anything I will ask you 2 questions:
1)which part of this verse exactly is disagreeing with me?
2)where does it say here that New Covenant = absolutely new laws, no more any old laws?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2016, 03:26 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 03:58 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: God's Laws
Ha ha.

Alla meets Q.

Stupid meets stupid.

Could it get more bizzare? Yep.

Picture Q, Egor and Alla alone on an island. Imagine the spittle, the broken teeth, the scratches, the crying, the back-stabbing and the infections. It would make a fascinating episode of "survivor."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: