God-Centered

UNA Lion:

This is one of my favorites about the times we are into.

2 Timothy 3:1-9

3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: ² For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, ³ unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, ⁴ traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! ⁶ For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, ⁷ always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; ⁹ but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

There are so many in the pulpits, on the television, in the political seats of power, or seeking the seats of power, that is hard for me not to think we are in the last days.

CG, the problem is that most of history is covered in times like this, this is really nothing new to the human condition, even during the times of men like Nero this type of behavior was very prevalent.

cowboygrandpa, excellent Scripture that.

cowboygrandpa wrote:

There are so many in the pulpits, on the television, in the political seats of power, or seeking the seats of power, that is hard for me not to think we are in the last days

Well, except for the television part, you could well be talking about the Holy Roman Empire.

Levi and I had an interesting discussion about the absolute moral issue - of course, we didn't agree, but we ended up on each others friends' lists and gained some respect for each other.

God's morals are absolute mans are not. That

Surely you see a bit of change in the morals of God between the Old and New Testament, how can there be such change if these morals are absolute? For example, why don't we offer burnt sacrifices anymore? According to the OT God found the smoke from such offerings to be pleasing, would they still be pleasing today?

and the jealousy unlike human emotion is born out of love.

Unlike? Sounds to me like 'very like', think of the jealous lover, it's almost cliche. Whether born out of love or not, jealousy is an emotion that is about insecurity and a fear of loss, things that don't mesh well with a supposedly all powerful god.

(I'm speaking of how God never said rape and slavery were sins, and instead condoned them -

When the heck did the Bible condone rape? It was a very serious crime. Slavery was ubiquious in the ancient world, but the Bible says much to mitigate slavery. It wasn't for life, for starters. You could earn money and redeem your freedom. That made it more like indentured servitude than the slavery of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Surely you see a bit of change in the morals of God between the Old and New Testament, how can there be such change if these morals are absolute?

Surely not. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew. He quoted the Torah all the time, including in some of the most beloved Gospel passages. It was Paul who totally changed what was to be called "Christianity." Jews no longer offer burnt offerings, BTW, because the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It cannot be rebuilt because the Muslims built mosques on the site, and it cannot be moved either since the Bible specified exactly where it could be. The Wailing Wall is the only part that survived. So Rabbinical Judaism necessarily changed its focus.

The whole notion about Chrisitianity being all sweetness and light whereas the Old Testament deity was cruel is an uninformed lie created by anti-Semites.

Surely you see a bit of change in the morals of God between the Old and New Testament, how can there be such change if these morals are absolute?

Surely not. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew. He quoted the Torah all the time, including in some of the most beloved Gospel passages. It was Paul who totally changed what was to be called "Christianity." Jews no longer offer burnt offerings, BTW, because the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It cannot be rebuilt because the Muslims built mosques on the site, and it cannot be moved either since the Bible specified exactly where it could be. The Wailing Wall is the only part that survived. So Rabbinical Judaism necessarily changed its focus.

The whole notion about Chrisitianity being all sweetness and light whereas the Old Testament deity was cruel is an uninformed lie created by anti-Semites.

OK, now I"m curious - I have to see how many times this posts since Hiram and Oom are apparently stuck in some kind of multiple posting limbo!

Oom, try the passage that says if you enslave a woman after killing her husband, you have to wait 30 days before raping her. That clearly condones both rape and slavery. There's also the passage where if you rape a virgin, you have to buy her from her father - and then you get to rape her for the rest of her life, in both cases.

"There's also the passage where if you rape a virgin, you have to buy her from her father - and then you get to rape her for the rest of her life, in both cases."

One thing I learned by running a rooming house and lliving with lots of folks from third world countries is that you CANNOT assume that everybody feels the same way we do. They just plain don't. I always thought of the Dinah-Shechem story in Genesis as a great injustice against Dinah. Yes, the Torah says she was raped by Shechem the Prince but maybe she actually wanted to marry him anyway. He was a prince, after all. For all we know he looked like a movie star, and this was her one chance to be a queen. Her 12 brothers didn't give her a choice or asked what she wanted, they just murdered Shechem and all of his people. Her father Jacob was furious--at his SONS, not at her. Maybe in ancient times, marrying her rapist was the most compassionate thing for the victim in many cases. A modern American woman's feelings aren't reflective of how Dinah or a woman like her might have felt. Ever heard of the tale of Tam Lin, for that matter, which was immortalized in a song by Fairport Convention? The "Janet" or "Margaret" of that famous Halloween tale set in Scotland actually risked her life to save her rapist so she could marry him. Would you or I? Of course not, but they were from a different time and place.

"Where do you talk about how the Bible says God murdered so many people out of anger and jealousy?"

Any biologist or psychologist will expalin that neither anger nor jealousy are automatically evil. No emotion is evil since all evolved for a reason. For a human to murder from such motives would be evil, but God is in charge of life and death anyway. In a sense, God eventually murders every one of us.

(If anyone is upset that I'm not using the normal quote function, BTW, is that for some reason my computer won't let me right now.)

One thing I learned by running a rooming house and lliving with lots of folks from third world countries is that you CANNOT assume that everybody feels the same way we do. They just plain don't. I always thought of the Dinah-Shechem story in Genesis as a great injustice against Dinah. Yes, the Torah says she was raped by Shechem the Prince but maybe she actually wanted to marry him anyway.

Sounds like apologetics. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible or Torah is infallible or it is not. You can't choose to ignore what it REALLY says and make up your own @!$%#. It says she was raped.

And really...is it so hard to imagine that she was raped? Muslims and Christians have been supressing sex for hundreds of years. Some Muslims cut off a womans clitoris and then sew her up and leave only enough room for her to menstruate. Christian priests used to rape witches, have raped TENS of THOUSANDS of children worldwide and the religious do next to nothing. Women in North America (supposedly modern secular countries) constantly have to fight for their rights against the religious. Homosexuals the same thing.

God eventually murders every one of us.

Our point exactly. It is evil to know what's going to happen ahead of time, allow it to happen anyways and then punish them for doing what he already knew they'd do and on top of that, he supposedly created them to do just that.

Sorry. It doesn't make sense. You can twist your logic around to try and apologize for God, but it will never make sense except to those who NEED to believe for some odd reason.

Sounds like apologetics. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible or Torah is infallible or it is not. You can't choose to ignore what it REALLY says and make up your own @!$%#. It says she was raped.

I have noticed this trend all over the Vine even in my short time here. Peeps claiming they're not Christian but defending that faith with everything they got. They think they can fool us and that somehow when they claim they're not Christian it's gonna make their inane arguments sound more reasonable.

This post from Oom doesn't surprise me at all. She claims she's not Christian but wherever there is a Christian related post there she shows to defend their atrocities and their pure evil with tooth and nail.

Yes, the Torah says she was raped by Shechem the Prince but maybe she actually wanted to marry him anyway.

I find this last post though particularly disgusting, especially coming from a supposed woman. It's one of many arguments many rapists put forth on their defense.

1) They say it's not rape if she wanted it.

or even more disgusting

2) She tempted them so much that she had it coming.

In fact, it was this last one that a rapist of a 5 yr old girl in his daycare put forth. He said that this sweet innocent little 5 yr old girl kept flirting with him and that it was her fault he molested her. What a piece of scum!!!

Sounds like apologetics. You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible or Torah is infallible or it is not. You can't choose to ignore what it REALLY says and make up your own @!$%#. It says she was raped.

I'm not a fundie, or even a member of any particular faith. I just felt for Dinah the first time I read that story, which was in a public high school "Bible as Literatue" class. Because I never even saw it as an unambiguous rape. I thought just maybe she jsut fell in love with a cute boy who happened to be a prince, but never even had the chance to beg her dad for the right to marry him because her brothers ignored her wishes, let alone the wishes of the elders. I'll just bet that Dinah, the only girl, was Daddy's girl. Jacob might have listened to her and allowed her to marry and be a princess, but the hot blooded, out of control brothers did not. They didn't give a damn about either their sister or their parents, as the Torah makes clear. (Please remember, they also sold their brother Joseph, Dad's favaroite, into slavery. Nice boys. Got along nearly as well as my own kids.) My own screen name means "Mother of Jacob" and of course I didn't choose the name for my firstborn out of sympathy for that Biblical character, but out of respect for an actual uncle. Nertheless I have that sympathy. Guess he didn't need to have 13 kids he couldn't control. Sometimes you can't even control just one.

This post from Oom doesn't surprise me at all. She claims she's not Christian but wherever there is a Christian related post there she shows to defend their atrocities and their pure evil with tooth and nail.

You DO understand the Torah was written by Jews, not Christians, right? Well maybe you still don't get the differemce. My screen name is of course obviously Muslim but I guess you don't get that either. Please look it up. It would usually be called "UmYaaqub" but that name was taken.

Muslims, Christians, and Jew all share a heritage and most of the same stories. To not know this shows profound ignorance.

You DO understand the Torah was written by Jews, not Christians, right?

Of course I do, as was the Zohar and the Kabbalah. Your point?

Muslims, Christians, and Jew all share a heritage and most of the same stories. To not know this shows profound ignorance.

I agree. Your point again? If you have one...

My point is that I am onstantly being accused as having a Christian background even though I have none whatsoever, other than spending time with an Irish grandmother of the sort who only goes to Mass on either Easter or Christmas (I cannot remember which, bless her dear departed soul, as she divided this duty with her sister. If one showed up on Easter, the other did so on Christmas and visa versa. This means one or the other dragged me to Mass twice year. The rest of the time I was either lightiomg Shabbos candles with my other Grandmother, or doing nothing at all.) Most Viners are far too ignorant to understand that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the same basic religous heritage. And they have no idea what that even is.

My point is that I am onstantly being accused as having a Christian background even though I have none whatsoever, other than spending time with an Irish grandmother of the sort who only goes to Mass on either Easter or Christmas (I cannot remember which, bless her dear departed soul, as she divided this with her sister.)

I can only go by what I see, and whenever I see your postings, they seem to be in fervent, almost obsessive defense of Christianity and/or God to the point of dismissing arguments crying out for basic human decency.

Just read the post above about you justifying rape in the Torah. The Bible has a ton of similar passages justifying rape, murder and slavery as mandated by God. Will you justify those too the way that Hiram does?

His argument is that rape, murder and slavery perpetrated on innocents including kids is perfectly justified as long as the Judeo/Christian God is involved which is nothing more than a cop out.

Actualy, what I defend is religion in general, not any one particular monotheistic faith. I would defend Hinduism too, for that matter. I feel a lot of kinship with Hindus and I LOVE their imagainative literatue.. Why would a Christian take a screen name that is so Muslim as mine is? It is absolutely an Arabic name, given to a Muslima I loved until her tragic death. I didn't justify rape in the the Torah, only that in SOME rare circumstances a woman might fall in love with her rapist, as I think Dinah MAY have with PRINCE Sheckem, or more obviously, Janet/Margaret clearly did in 16th century Scotland. with PRINCE Tamlin, a story immortalistized by none other than Roberty Burns. Please be fair. If you had grown up in a very repressive culture, where you had few chances, and then all of a sudden you have been given a chance to marry a prince, as opposed to the local pig farmer, you might not give a damn that he had he "raped" you, especially if were you were pregnant. That doesn't mean that any 21st century American woman would feel the same. Of course not! But please understand that the way you feel isn't identical with the way a woman from centuries ago might feel. And BTW this only works if your happen to be a freaking PRINCE.

only that in SOME rare circumstances a woman might fall in love with her rapist, as I think Dinah MAY have with PRINCE Sheckem

In that case, that might not be love, that might be a form of Stockholm Syndrome and it's still not right.

Did I mention that my screen name is entirely feminie, and means "Mother of Jacob"? This is based on an Arabic custom of naiming a new mom after her firstborn. I am still very worried about my older son, who just turned 21. So he can buy beer, big deal, he is still a kid. His best friend, who I think of a "nice boy" just got let off a house arrest. My son just got a "job offer" including a free aparment from an obvious drug-crazed pedphiile known on the street as "Crazy Man" so and so that has my head spinning. Even extranged husband is upalthought our son is technically an adult. I would like to punch him out. btw it was Dad who first suspected a problem, not me. Sometimes men recognize what women do not.

My son just got a "job offer" including a free aparment from an obvious drug-crazed pedphiile known on the street as "Crazy Man" so and so that has my head spinning. Even extranged husband is upalthought our son is technically an adult. I would like to punch him out. btw it was Dad who first suspected a problem, not me. Sometimes men recognize what women do not.

Well I'm a dad of a 5 yr old boy so I'm not quite there yet. Thank God!!! :)

The way I see it though is that if you did a good job, gave your son the tools and the information to fend for himself, no matter who he is friends with, he'll stick to his values and come out the other side just fine.

Kids gotta make their own mistakes or else they'll never grow up.

I get what you say about Stockholdm syndrome, but I don't think you get how a woman might feel in a society in which her options were limited. Or even today, for that matter. I married my husband because he stood by me when I was pregnnt. In the long run, I fell in love, even though he was no prince,

I married my husband because he stood by me when I was pregnnt. In the long run, I fell in love, even though he was no prince,

Well at least he was a responsible man so I'd say you made yourself a prince :)

The way I see it though is that if you did a good job, gave your son the tools and the information to fend for himself, no matter who he is friends with, he'll stick to his values and come out the other side just fine.

Kids gotta make their own mistakes or else they'll never grow up.

At least he still seeks his parent's advice, which is a good sign. When he gpt stoned or drunk as a minor, I always calmly explaomed why this was so bad for any minor. I didn't punish, I just explained. I hope this helped. But there is so chance my son has mild Asperges, so I hope he stays home just a bit longer. He doesn't even drive yet

Either the Bible or Torah is infallible or it is not.

The vast majority of Jews, and I would presume Chistians as well, believe no such thing. How childish. What most believers of all faiths think is that there is great wisdom in their scripture, but it was still written by human beings, even if inspired by their deity. It is totally unfair to judge normal people of faith to the extremists.

I still think most of you are showing a failure of imagination as to how a woman of a different culture might feel. Suppose you had been told nothing about sex and you were very young. But then a handsome man not all that much older throws you down and rapes you, and remember, you don't know how normal sex is supposed to be except for watching the sheep in the field. (Which often resembles rape.) Suppose afterwards he then holds you, kisses away your tears, tells you that you are the most beautiful girl he's ever seen and he loves you so much he couldn't resist and he's very sorry he hurt you, but now he wants to marry you and be with you forever and he will never hurt you like that again. Do you even know you have been raped in the 21st century sense of the word? Of course not. Suppose he then says he is a prince and he will make you his princess and you will be a bride, "the envy of all you see" as in the lines from Fiddler on the Roof. Once again, you know nothing about normal sex, rape, or the notion that a man might deceive. You have just fallen madly in love and want nothing more than to run home to your Abba, who loves you to pieces as his only daughter out of 13 children, most of whom are hopelessly annoying. You alone are Abba's "precious kitten". You want to throw yourself into Abba's arms and explain about how much you want a wedding to a handsome prince. Abba wants to consult your mama about the upcoming wedding, but your brothers ignore your feelings, let alone their Abba's, and create a disaster that not only breaks your heart, but could have ended the Jewish people right then and there.

That is my interpretation of the Dinah story, and trust me, no rabbi, imam, priest or minister ever taught this to me. It is original. I got it simply by my many conversations with women from the Middle East. Some of those same women told me amazing tales of having been born on horseback, etc. which might not have been true but THEY believed it. (Once my husband took our entire household out in his ancient VW microbus. My Arab friend's son stopped crying as soon as the bus got moving, and she wondered why. My husband puckishly said that children have always been carried by animals, so the baby must think he is riding a camel since the van had about that much smoothness and even smelled like a camel. She bought it.

I still think most of you are showing a failure of imagination as to how a woman of a different culture might feel. Suppose you had been told nothing about sex and you were very young. But then a handsome man not all that much older throws you down and rapes you, and remember, you don't know how normal sex is supposed to be except for watching the sheep in the field. (Which often resembles rape.) Suppose afterwards he then holds you, kisses away your tears, tells you that you are the most beautiful girl he's ever seen and he loves you so much he couldn't resist and he's very sorry he hurt you, but now he wants to marry you and be with you forever and he will never hurt you like that again.

And I think you are going to extra lengths to justify rape.

I have noticed this trend all over the Vine even in my short time here. Peeps claiming they're not Christian but defending that faith with everything they got

If you had ever had a real education in comparative religion you would understand how much they have in common. Therefore, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, and nonaffiliated monotheists like me are goint to agree about a LOT. Monotheists are going to sound even more alike because we are all going by the same stories from the same book, the Tanakh. If I were Christian I would SAY so. I'd be proud of it. I even experimented with Eastern Orthodox Christianity after moving to Pittsburgh, which has a huge Slavic population, (and I am part Russian) but sorry, I just couldn't buy it. It's that Paul I can't deal with. I don't mean the antifeminist stuff, but everything Paul said. However, God is real, he is not in some box, and he (or she) doesn't give a damn abouit what denomination you choose. He only wants you to love him and your neighbor and to observe basic morality.

And I think you are going to extra lengths to justify rape.

I have justified nothing. I am a woman who has escaped a rapist. I have also had many Muslima friends and who has even dated Arab boys. (It was infuriating to explain anything to them. All they cared about was that they were dating a "hot Jewess.") I have tried very hard to explain that people from totally different cultures who were educated in totally different ways don't feel like we do. I KNOW this. I'm not making it up. I'm not suggesting you behave like Shechem because you will end up in prison. And besides, you are obviously not royalty. I am trying to see it from Dinah's POV, which you refuse to even try. Please TRY to understand that everyone from the beginning of time didn't live in the United States and grew up using Facebook.

Sometimes just as an experiment I pretend I am having a conversation with somebody long dead like my beloved Ben Franklin and that I have to explain our culture to him. It's pretty humbling to do so.

However, God is real, he is not in some box, and he (or she) doesn't give a damn abouit what denomination you choose.

That's YOUR belief/delusion. It is NOT a fact.

He only wants you to love him and your neighbor and to observe basic morality.

The Christian God has no morals. He murders innocents along with the guilty including kids and he mandates rape and slavery. That is as far from moral as you can get.

I have tried very hard to explain that people from totally different cultures who were educated in totally different ways don't feel like we do. I KNOW this. I'm not making it up. I'm not suggesting you behave like Shechem because you will end up in prison. And besides, you are obviously not royalty. I am trying to see it from Dinah's POV, which you refuse to even try.

I understand cultural norms. In the Middle East for example it is a great compliment to burp after a good meal whereas it's bad manner to do it in Western Civilizations.

However, there are acts so evil they should not be tolerated or justified in any way or form by any culture on Earth and those are acts against kids and against women. Anyone defending such acts by any means is beyond evil to me.

The Christian God has no morals. He murders innocents along with the guilty including kids and he mandates rape and slavery. That is as far from moral as you can get.

I know nothing about the Christian God, so why even bring that up?. As in the old joke in which someone tries to ward off a vampire with a crucifix, "who hah, do you have the wrong wampire." I couldn't care less about Christians. I am NOT one, for the ten thousandths time, and do not care. Please stop barking up the wrong tree. Christians didn't write the Torah. They don't even understand it, otherwise they wouldn't have come up with all that nonsense about "origianal sin." My people wrote that book, not the damned Christians.

I understand cultural norms. In the Middle East for example it is a great compliment to burp after a good meal whereas it's bad manner to do it in Western Civilizations.

You do NOT understand cultural norms at all since if you did your wouldn't trivialize them the way your are trying to do, as silly left wing yuppies always do. It is NOT a matter of just whether you burp your soup, or how you dress. It goes much, much deeper. My accessment of how Dinah probably felt is way more realistic. Real rape, which I as a woman have faced, is "I may not live through this" and it traumatizes you for the rest of your life. The Dinah story is NOT that kind of genuine rape. She merely had sex with the boy she loved without permission from all the grownups first. You just don't understand the obvious. Dinah was pretty obviously a young woman in love. No, I'm not "defending" anything. I am trying desperately to get it through your closed mind that not all the women in human history felt as you do right now in 2012 CE.

Here's real cultural differences. I was pregnant and neither me nor my child's dad had a job. I had just been turned down for government aid. (Long story, but hey, we were in Virginia, land of the boll weavil, where when it comes to govrernment help, the laws are Medieval.) I told my child's father I was going to answer some of those ads for "loving couple wanting to adopt." He got angry and stomped out. Then out came my Lebanese roommate, also pregant but looking very regal. She unceremoniously took my glasses off and then slapped me, hard. She literally said, essentially, "whatsamata YOU?" Then she went on and on about how in her country, a woman is given the name "Mother of Soandso" for the rest of her life (hence my screen name) and that Allah had given me this child to raise, etc. And then she said, if I could just get a job, she would watch my child for free as long as I paid her share of the rent (which was far less than a babysitter would charge.) I was stunned. Okay, would I have taken this from an American woman? Obviously not, but I realized the huge difference between Lebanon and the United States. Maybe you never went through a 15 year civil war where your little brother's school was blown up and he was left with a school phobia for many years. (Gee, ya think?) Maybe cultural differences go way, way, way deeper than burbing.

The Dinah story is NOT that kind of genuine rape. She merely had sex with the boy she loved without permission from all the grownups first. You just don't understand the obvious. Dinah was pretty obviously a young woman in love. No, I'm not "defending" anything. I am trying desperately to get it through your closed mind that not all the women in human history felt as you do right now in 2012 CE.

Fine. Let's say that your interpretation of the Dinah story is correct. Are you using that example to say that each and every mention of God approving and mandating rape in the Bible is wrong? That as you say the women really wanted it which is a line rapists use often?

Anyone defending such acts by any means is beyond evil to me.

who "defended" such acts? Describing what I suspect might have happened isn't defending and it doesn't imply approval in any way, shape, or form. But whether it's part of your reality or not, women sometimes DO fall in love with men who raped them, especially under circumstances like this. I personally knew a woman who had married the guy who date raped her; it was only many years later after they had grandkids that she decided to leave him. This would obviously be far more common in a different era in which marriages were generally arranged anyway and you didn't expect to go and find a man the way we do in modern times.

Understand, experts say there are different categories of rapist. This was probably of the variety the experts call the "gentleman rapist" in which there is force but no violence or obvious misogyny. In his own mind the perpetrator often doesn't even realize that what he just did was rape. He may ask for the woman's phone number afterwards, for instance. It's obviously still wrong, and I'm amazed you think that I think otherwise. OF COURSE Shechem should have simply spoken gently to her, found out who her parents were and where they lived and then his parents could negotiate a marriage with her parents. That is what they do in such cultures. He didn't have to take matters into his own hands but I guess when you're a prince you can easily turn into a spoiled brat.

who "defended" such acts? Describing what I suspect might have happened isn't defending and it doesn't imply approval in any way, shape, or form. But whether it's part of your reality or not, women sometimes DO fall in love with men who raped them, especially under circumstances like this. I personally knew a woman who had married the guy who date raped her; it was only many years later after they had grandkids that she decided to leave him.

I don't care how you keep justifying it whether the guy marries her, whether the guy pays her father to rape her as described in the Bible or even giving her a month to mourn the parents you killed and THEN raping her.

Forcing a woman to have sex is rape. No is no.

Are you using that example to say that each and every mention of God approving and mandating rape in the Bible is wrong?

No, of course I'm not saying that. I am only saying that, given the context of the times and the fact that rape victims were probably seen as damaged goods, also given the fact that everybody needed to marry, the rule that the rapist would have to marry his victim for life was probably a relatively compassionate one. If you think about it, it would certainly tend to deter men from raping in the first place, unless like Shechem they WANTED to marry the woman. But in that case, as I just said in 3.47, why wouldn't he simply go to her parents and arrange it the right way?

BTW, where in the Bible does God either mandate or "approve" rape? What I think more likely is that the writers of the Bible acknowledged that it exists, as does slavery, and that there need to be rules to at least somewhat protect the victims. Even waiting 30 days before you may touch a widowed slave is still a lot more compassionate than what Muhammad did 2,000 years later when he killed Safiyah’s husband along with 500 other Jews and them immediately married her against her will.

It is totally illogical to judge the Torah or any other ancient text by the standards of today. Better to judge it by the standards of other cultures that existed at the time. Morality does evolve. The point is that at least the Torah is saying God loves compassion.

What I think more likely is that the writers of the Bible acknowledged that it exists, as does slavery, and that there need to be rules to at least somewhat protect the victims.

Really now? Victims's rights? Are you sure you wanna go that way? Check this out. Straight out of your Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Every defense you got for rape gets you in deeper in the hole by your own Bible.

Andrew, for crying out loud, why do you keep intentionally twisting my words around?!? Describing something does NOT mean I approve. If you read a news story about a murder, does that mean the journalist approved of the murder?

Of course rape is wrong, but it has still occurred throughout human history. At least the Torah recognized that fact and tried to provide for the victim; in many cultures there was no such provision. For the 10th time, I am simply saying that there are deep, deep cultural differences, and you cannot just assume that a woman from an utterly alien culture would feel the same way a modern American woman would! She didn't get to choose her husband anyway, and had no such expectation in her wildest dreams. If she ended up married to a good man by the standards of the day, it was really the best deal she was going to get. The alternative was being scorned and going unmarried the rest of her life, in a culture where this was unheard of.

Please try to get free of your ridiculous cultural blinders. I ran a rooming house for ten years and lived with people from all over the world. Trust me, culture isn't just about trivialities like food, clothing, and burping! They really do think differently in some very basic ways!

I assume you are a man. I am a woman, and once barely escaped being raped by a man who broke into my apartment in the middle of the night. Which one of us knows better the horror of rape? Do you think you are telling me anything? Sheesh!

Every defense you got for rape gets you in deeper in the hole by your own Bible.

First off, stop lying as I have not once "defended' rape and you know it. I have only defended Torah within the context of the time. I am not some ultra Orthox Hasidic fundie and I don't believe the Torah is the last word in anything, but by the standards of its time it was a great moral achievement. No other culture really cared about the victim 3,000 years ago.

The passage you cite had nothing to do with rape. It was about voluntary sex with someone other than your intended. Bethrothal was tantamount to marriage at the time; therefore this was considered adultery. Virtually every culture of the time had severe penalities including death for adultery, obviously because it had such a tendency to totally disrupt a small community in which people were dependent upon each other for survival. It wasn't like today where if my husband cheats, I can just get a divorce, never see him again, and get on with my life. Adultery back then threatened the whole community in a very real way.

It always amazes me that liberals think they have such sensitivity to other cultures, when in reality they just don't get it at all.

The passage you cite had nothing to do with rape. It was about voluntary sex with someone other than your intended. Bethrothal was tantamount to marriage at the time; therefore this was considered adultery.

Boy the rape blinders are on big time. The passage says that the woman is to be stoned to death for not crying out loud enough to be heard. It blames the victim for her own rape and sentences her to death.

And you talk about victim rights? What victim rights?

It always amazes me that liberals think they have such sensitivity to other cultures, when in reality they just don't get it at all.

I have sensitivity to murder and rape regardless of how you try to use culture to justify it.

No other culture really cared about the victim 3,000 years ago.

Had you even bothered to read anything other than the Torah and the Bible, you'd see texts like the Gita offer much better morals than God mandated rapes and murders.

OomYaaqub - you must realize by now that andrew refuses to understand anything that does not line up with his understanding or experence....and goes beyound that if he does not understand it he hates it.

OomYaaqub - you must realize by now that andrew refuses to understand anything that does not line up with his understanding or experence....and goes beyound that if he does not understand it he hates it.

Had you even bothered to read anything other than the Torah and the Bible, you'd see texts like the Gita offer much better morals than God mandated rapes and murders.

You make quite an assumption, my friend. I keep the Qu'ran and the Gita on my nightstand. There is great wisdom in the Gita, but don't forget it also advocates the caste system and going to war against your own relatives (in order words, murder) in order to preserve the caste system. Are you sure YOU'VE actually read it?

Truett, thank you. At some point it becomes obvious and you realize you're just wasting your time. I just don't like being intentionally slandered by claiming I justified rape.

Here you go. This tale dates from Renaisance Scotland and IMHO somewhat parallels the Dinah tale.

http://www.lyrics007.com/Fairport%20Convention%20Lyrics/Tam%20Lin%20Lyrics.html

Is Tam Lin's behavior justified? Of course not, but these things do happen once in a great while. This song, a hit in the 60s, was just as popular with women as with men. Real human emotions are far more complex than the self-proclaimed "sensitives" of the world like Andrew want to believe. Obviously I would strongly advise any man NOT to rape a woman assuming he will thereby win her love. He is of course far more likely to end up in prison and have to register as a sex offender for life. But maybe this gives some insight as to why the writers of the Torah were actually trying to be compassionate to female victims in the context of the times.

but don't forget it also advocates the caste system and going to war against your own relatives (in order words, murder) in order to preserve the caste system. Are you sure YOU'VE actually read it?

Are you sure you have?

When Krishna shows Arjuna why he has to fight his own family, he's not telling him he has to do it to exterminate them much like God mandates in the Bible but because it's a war and it is his duty to protect his side. By fulfilling his role, his dharma, he is correcting a dis-balance.

But maybe this gives some insight as to why the writers of the Torah were actually trying to be compassionate to female victims in the context of the times.

Yes, the compassion oozes out of every pore of the rape passages in the Bible. Like the one where you kill a woman's husband and give her a month and then you can rape her. Gosh!! How considerate of the rapist!!

Oom - why can't you understand that the rape in the first place was WRONG? You want to play it as "ooh, maybe the rape victim fell in love with her rapist afterward." That's bull@!$%# in itself, but let's pretend the Stockholm Syndrome kicked in. Maybe you've read too many Rosemary Rogers novels as a teenager. I read those, but they sure as hell didn't make me think they made sense.

Then, let's understand that it didn't kick in for most rape victims. They hated their rapists, many of whom had killed their husbands, fathers, brothers, in front of them. They spent the rest of their lives being raped by their husbands' murderers. Rape is wrong. Period. And a god should SURE damn well understand that better than any of us unworthy humans do. Yet .. the god condones it.

When Krishna shows Arjuna why he has to fight his own family, he's not telling him he has to do it to exterminate them much like God mandates in the Bible but because it's a war and it is his duty to protect his side. By fulfilling his role, his dharma, he is correcting a dis-balance.

Oh well, THAT makes all the difference, doesn't it? /Sarcasm.

Andrew, in Chapter Two, Text 38, Krishna tells Arjuna "Do thou fight for the sake of fighting" (Prabhupada translation), which doesn't sound particularly holy to me. You're a warrior, shut up and do your duty. That's where we get good Nazis. Killing is rather pathetically justified on the grounds that the soul lasts forever, which is really identical to the argument that it's okay to kill innocents because they will be better off in heaven. The caste system is justified. Religious war is justified. I can understand while you like the Gita better than the Bible as it's more exotic and the whole Hindu religion so colorful, but in essence they are saying very close to the same things. The major difference between them is that the Bible is much longer and is codifying law in the portions that have you so upset. And what I'm saying is that in the context of the times, it was a huge step up. Never and nowhere does the Bible say "women have no rights". Nothing like suttee existed in the Jewish tradition. A widow was encouraged to remarry or was cared for by the community if she did not. Isn't that a step up from throwing her on the fire as Hindus did until the British stopped the practice?

Oom - why can't you understand that the rape in the first place was WRONG?

OF COURSE it was. WHEN did I say or imply that it wasn't? Rape is always wrong! But the issue here is how to provide justice to the victim in the context of an ancient culture where victims were viewed as "damaged goods" and would have a difficult or impossible time finding a husband. Why can't you understand that? First, the man was put on notice that if he raped an unmarried woman, he would be stuck with her for the rest of his life. (If he raped a married one, he would be executed.) So obviously HaShem wasn't condoing rape here. He was merely saying, given that the crime happens, let's have concern for the victim. At least she will be taken care of. As for how she would feel about the whole situation, you CANNOT project the feelings of a modern American woman onto an Israelite in 1,000 BCE. You cannot, and you should know better. She may simply have been making the best of a bad situation, put on her bridal clothes, and tried to forgive and have a good marriage because there was no better option.

I have no idea who Rosemary Rogers is, and was never into romance novels, which is what I assume you mean.

The point you keep missing is that at least the Torah genually cared about the future of the victim. Most other cultures of the time did not. Today of course we have a better understanding of the fact that the victim is not to blame and isn't damaged goods, also that she can support herself even if she doesn't marry. If need be, she could even move far away. None of those things were possible at the time the Torah was written. The marriage provision was a way of preventing the victim from slitting her wrists because she knew her life was over.

BTW, here's a shocker for you. Are you aware that in the Talmud, sexual pleasure is something a husband owes his wife, rather than the other way around as in virtually every other culture? It even codifies how often she has the right to it, depending on his job. According to some authorities, that means he also owes her things like cosmetics and negligees and anything else she might need to enhance her own feelings of sexual desire. If he fails to perform, she has the right to divorce. Judaism sexist? I don't think so.

It's nice that the texts cared about the victim. It would have been far nicer if they had condemned anyone who committed rape in the first place, instead of allowing the rapists to purchase their victims.

If the Torah cared genuinely about the victim - why wouldn't have that god said that rape was wrong to begin with? Yes, I'm familiar with what the Talmud says about that; he can divorce her if she burns dinner, but she can divorce him if he doesn't please her in bed. And if he doesn't give her a get - the rabbis can beat him until he does. That's all very nice, but has nothing to do with this conversation. That doesn't mean rape is OK.

It wasn't a shocker for me, Oom. But saying "ooh, the crime happened, let's let the rapist have her" that's a shocker. I'm NOT projecting my feelings onto a bronze age woman - I'm saying that a true god would be so far above our feelings that it would have much better morals. God cared if you ate pork - but yet didn't give a FF about rape and slavery? Seriously? That's one disgusting god.

Isn't that a step up from throwing her on the fire as Hindus did until the British stopped the practice?

Whoa!!! Stereotyping much? You should learn a wee bit of Indian history girl.

The original practice of Sati (self-inmolation) is talked about in the Mahabharata but unlike the Bible, the practice is not mandated by any Hindu Gods. It's something that a spouse, particularly women wanted to do for their husbands in order to erase their bad sins and allow them to have a happy after-life. Am I justifying it? No. It's a horrendous practice.

As for your contention that the British stopped it, you're wrong. They just happened to be the latest to ban it but Sati sometimes still happens, even nowadays.

Humayun, an Indian sultan back in the 1500's issued a royal command to stop Sati.

Akbar, his son and successor allowed it BUT with the provision that it had to be approved by his officials and that the woman make her decision after a certain period of time after her husband's death. The way he reasoned it was that if the widow had some time to get her emotions in check, she might not be so eager to sacrifice herself.

Oh and by the way, even the Sikh's condemn Sati. Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism was the first to speak out against it but not the last.

I'm thinking you've been reading too much Around The World in 80 Days and thought the events portrayed there were real. Come down to Earth and join us :)

The point Oom misses is that no true god, worthy of worship, would tell us to make anyone else our victims. We're all equal. Golden rule. Every single one of you is just as worthy as I am, and just as liable if you start killing or stealing or raping. No god's going to find a way for you to justify those things in the real world. And that's what matters.

No god's going to find a way for you to justify those things in the real world. And that's what matters.

Precisely. It honestly boggles the mind that a woman would go to all these lengths to defend rape.

The search for the perfect God continues....

Andrew, in Chapter Two, Text 38, Krishna tells Arjuna "Do thou fight for the sake of fighting" (Prabhupada translation), which doesn't sound particularly holy to me. You're a warrior, shut up and do your duty. That's where we get good Nazis. Killing is rather pathetically justified on the grounds that the soul lasts forever, which is really identical to the argument that it's okay to kill innocents because they will be better off in heaven.

That is a completely wrong assertion. Krishna is simply telling Arjuna to deal with the here and now.

Remember. They are standing in the field of battle. Arjuna is the leader of his troops and Krishna's avatar is posing as one of them. Arjuna is looking at his troops and the enemy troops across the way. He's scared which any man would be and he's regretful to be forced to take the lives of family.

Krishna simply reassures him that while he is in the mortal plane, his duty is to do his part just like any warrior would in the field of battle. It's that simple. He's not being promised any special treatment in the afterlife.

Wanna know who was promised special treatment in the afterlife in order to entice them to murder infidels in any way or form? You guessed it. Christians.

When the First Crusade started. The Pope, Urban I if my memory serves me made sure to pass a continent wide proclamation that any Crusader who died murdering infidels had an instant ticket to heaven.

As a result almost 200,000 innocent men, women and children were massacred in every manner possible. When the Crusaders got to Jerusalem, they locked up about 60,000 innocent Jews in their Temple, set fire to it and watched it burn.

I'm sure you will try defending that.

And not only Christians have experienced God. Look at King David, Abraham, and Moses. Read some Sufu or Hindu mystidal poetry. Any human being who sincerely seeks God can experience God.

That would be the case of many Christians including myself we have experienced God.

Yes, that is a declaration that believers in all of the various theistic religions make. You have that much in common, although you, Hiram, are distinctly humble and modest about it.

I have another question for you: Do you ever wonder if you lived in an Islamic country, for example, would you then embrace the local faith, the one culturally applicable that everyone grew up with?

Along those lines, I sometimes wonder, hypothetically of course, if I had grown up in Nazi Germany, how would I have behaved?

I would offer that we are a product of our environment to a large extent, although we make individual choices.

I am glad you found a path that works for you as we all will do that.

Indeed, all of us do, throughout the world. What a remarkable expression of human diversity.

God pursues a love relationship with each of us that is real and personal. No mater where you are who you are or what your enviorment is He is reaching for you. That is experiencing God in a real and personal way.

Sure, I can understand that Hiram.

I just conceptualize the word god differently, as more a reflection of the self-examined and corrected human spirit, as the seeker of harmony within and without, however that manifests itself within us as individuals....and collectively, is the essence of morality.

Beyond that, I would offer that god has no meaning in the workings of the natural world, except for the meaning that we as humans choose to ascribe to it, for our own personal, and communal enrichment.

An interesting concept and well put. I just happen to believe God does interact with the natural world.

Can't really have it both ways. If you want your God to stay out of the spotlight of science, then He either doesn't interact with humans and Christians need to stop pretending they know what such a being wants or admit that they think he interacts with humans and they do know what he wants but can't prove it in any scientific way.

If God interacts with humans, he should be part of the natural world and have left his mark on Earth, allowing scientists to test those things.

Guess what? So far, no luck. Despite Christianity trying for thousands of years. Same as every other religion.

Funny that something like 95% of the higher scientists see it the way of the atheist. Weird how that works. But even so, believers have no direct evidence and so their claims can be dismissed very easily because scientifically, we can show that large portions of the bibles are against what we know scientifically.

And that's why it isn't actually evidence. Evidence requires facts, not mere perception.

I just happen to believe God does interact with the natural world.

You'd think there would be abundant natural evidence for that then, considering Who we are talking about here. But everything seems to be moving along according to natural law, as best we can tell, unless you have something specific in mind you can share.

God should be able to reverse a natural disaster, or cause one or something! Maybe it's shy and likes to play hide and seek, or maybe it only operates on a personal, human level, as I suspect.

It must be unreasonable of me to expect some sort of natural evidence from this deity that I'm supposed to worship.

Now I will be the first to admit that I've had some very close calls, and that I've been very fortunate-is that what you call divine intervention? Well, maybe, but if so, then logically, it tells me that I am being cared for as things stand, and that I should just keep to my course, I would conclude. That's a bit of a rush:)

You'd think there would be abundant natural evidence for that then, considering Who we are talking about here.

Logically, how could there be? Science discovers what happens; there is no known "deity calling card". Science simply assumes that everything has a natural cause; if it didn't, it wouldn't be science. How COULD God prove his/her existence, anyway? If all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves to say "I am God" in every human language, scientists by definition would still have to look for a "natural explanation". Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand how science works. Yes, there is "Occam's razor" but the God explanation is ruled inadmissible evidence from the beginning.

Logically, how could there be?

That's the theist's nightmare scenario.

God has not reversed a natural disaster, or performed some kind of miracle...at least not to my knowledge. Or do you have something specific in mind Oom? Otherwise, you are speculating with the rest of them, and how could I reasonably accept just your word for it?

How COULD God prove his/her existence, anyway?

You tell me, as you apologise for this god.

If all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves to say "I am God" in every human language, scientists by definition would still have to look for a "natural explanation"

If mammals appeared before trilobites, then you might have a case. I predict you will find NONE in the fossil record. If Dinosaurs suddenly appeared, then I would be on my knees with Hiram. We've given god plenty of chances, but this guy is a no-show.

God is love. You don't seek "proof" for love, you just feel it. I believe in God because I've experienced him. This didn't happen until I was 40 years old, BTW.

God is love. You don't seek "proof" for love, you just feel it. I believe in God because I've experienced him. This didn't happen until I was 40 years old, BTW.

You feel the love until he burns down your entire city with you, your husband and your kids in it because the guy next to you was a pedophile ala Sodom and Gomorrah.

God is love.

If only.......

Sorry to hear that it wasn't until you were forty.

You don't seek "proof" for love...

My wife sure does, and I have to prove it to her everyday. Better take that trash out :P

It's nice to know that god is just love. Somehow, I mistakenly thought that theists call it our Creator, our Designer, this supernatural entity that intervenes on our behalf, and...OH, if not, then OK, I believe in god. It's a wrap.

Actually, I didn't say he was JUST love. I also think he is our Creator in some sense or other than allows for evolution. I also think he is a supernatural entity that can intervene, but usually the help he gives is emotional, not some miracle with physical manifestations. I don't know what happened in Gomorrah, most likely some natural disaster that had nothing to do with their behavior. I'm not a fundie and I think the Bible is inspired by God, but not infallible.

Often God is blamed for things that the human Biblical characters said or did. For instance, Moses once advocated murder and rape of certain enemies, but since when Moses God? He was fully capable of sin. In fact, he wasn't even allowed into the Promised Land as punishment for his sin.

Actually, I didn't say he was JUST love

Well, you said: God is love. You don't seek "proof" for love...

I also think he is our Creator

Yeah, so what? Where's your proof?

Not a shred of evidence...just more personal testimonial...over and over again.

All that stuff in the Bible, and where has this god been since? MIA, that where.

Often God is blamed for things that the human Biblical characters said or did. For instance, Moses once advocated murder and rape of certain enemies, but since when Moses God? He was fully capable of sin. In fact, he wasn't even allowed into the Promised Land as punishment for his sin.

Oh yes poor God, he murders all the Egyptian first born including innocent babies in cold blood but it's so horrible when he's besmirched by Moses's actions.

Give me a fraking break Oom!!

It really cracks me up how hard you deny you're a Christian.

Andrew, you're wrong. God didn't just murder all the firstborn humans - it was the firstborn male animals too. The "firstborn of the livestock." That's even more sickening and atrocious. Those poor animals, who had never done a single thing to offend God. Oh, I get why he did it. If he killed off the livestock, the people depending on them would starve. So nice.

Andrew, you're wrong. God didn't just murder all the firstborn humans - it was the firstborn male animals too. The "firstborn of the livestock." That's even more sickening and atrocious. Those poor animals, who had never done a single thing to offend God. Oh, I get why he did it. If he killed off the livestock, the people depending on them would starve. So nice

I stand corrected. Thanks kittycat :)

That's even more sickening and atrocious. (Kat)

All that stuff in the Bible, and where has this god been since?

MIA, that's where.

And maybe that's a good thing, ya? Careful what you wish for, no?

#4.22 should have read...

Andrew, you're wrong. God didn't just murder all the firstborn humans - it was the firstborn male animals too. The "firstborn of the livestock." That's even more sickening and atrocious. Those poor animals, who had never done a single thing to offend God. Oh, I get why he did it. If he killed off the livestock, the people depending on them would starve. So nice

I stand corrected. Thanks kittycat :)

It really cracks me up how hard you deny you're a Christian.

Actually, it angers me because it's just plain not true. Neither of my parents was Christian. There is much about Christian theology I DESPISE, especially the insane notion that you are "saved by faith". Christianity was really invented by Paul, not Jesus. Jesus was just a rabbi who interpreted a few things more liberally than average at the time. I don't think he had any intention of starting a new religion. He certainly didn't rise from the dead let alone redeem all humanity, who didn't need redeeming anyway because there is no such thing as "original sin". And the parts of the Bible we've been discussing aren't Christian at all, but Jewish. Would any Christian say what I just said?

BTW, the whole "Old Testament" vs. "New Testament" thing is kind of insulting. Christians often say they "completed Judaism" but how would they like it if Muslims were to say, "Islam completed Christianity"? They are three different faiths, something you seem to have an impossible time comprehending. I realize the person who started this seed is a Christian, but my own posts have discussed nothing but Judaism.

Do you honestly believe the whole "plagues of Egypt" story in the first place? I certainly don't. Once again, MOST people who believe in religion are not literalists. We only know the Jews got out of Egypt somehow (assuming they were ever there in the first place, for which there is no real evidence.) But assuming any part of the story is true, then HaShem must have helped them survive the journey, if only by inspiring them to never give up.

Wow!...just Wow!

Do you honestly believe the whole "plagues of Egypt" story in the first place? I certainly don't. Once again, MOST people who believe in religion are not literalists. We only know the Jews got out of Egypt somehow (assuming they were ever there in the first place, for which there is no real evidence.)

Of course I don't believe it literally but for the zealots who keep saying that God is all love and cuddles I have to use their own texts such as the Bible to point out that, no, he is an evil SOB.

And lo and behold, who shows up on every single Christian related seed but Oom to the rescue!!!

It definitely makes one wonder.

But assuming any part of the story is true, then HaShem must have helped them survive the journey, if only by inspiring them to never give up.

Yes and murder and rape, tons of it. Don't forget what Moses told them. Kill the men and married women and then you can rape the kids. How generous!!! /s

Andrew and Katrix. You two are so in meshed in your own thinking that you can not nor will you ever admit that you both are way out in left field. You are so hung up on the word rape that you haven't heard a word that the others have tried to explain before you shoot off at the hips on your fairy tale gods. Andrew. You evidently do not know the definition of the word Christian. You do not show any attributes of one.

Andrew. You evidently do not know the definition of the word Christian. You do not show any attributes of one.

If your definition of a Christian is one that follows a God that has an orgasm every time he murders innocents including babies and mandates rape and enslavement as clearly described in your Bible then no I want no part of being your type of Christian. Hitler was one of you guys after all.

Andrew, most so-called Christian-related sites are actual RELIGIOUS-related sites. They involve ALL faiths, or at least all three monotheistic ones. That is the connection. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are three entirely separate, and yet closely related faiths. I think you actually know this perfectly well, so suppose you stopped trolling me. You are like some bully in junior high. The ONLY reason you keep callilng me a Christian is that you know it upsets me greatly. I have yet to meet even one person who tried to hide their Christianity, if they actually were one. I will state one more time I despise Paul, don't consider Jesus anything but a human rabbi, and consider Christianity a great step down from Judaism, morally speaking. This doesn't mean there aren't some very nice Christians, of course, just as their are some lovely Muslims and even atheists.

BTW, I just finished reporting you on another seed for claiming I am "pro rape"which of course I am not. That's a COH personal attack if I ever heard one. HOW DARE YOU?!? How could I be "pro rape"? For crying out loud, I was once nearly raped in my own apartment! I had to have x-rays, was left with very long term phobias and will probably never be okay with living alone, even though this happened back in 1984 when I was still in my twenties. I explained over and over and over what I was actually saying. Defending a 3300 year old law in the Torah based on the social realities of the times is hardly pro rape. It is pro Torah and pro victim.

BTW, I just finished reporting you on another seed for claiming I am "pro rape"which of course I am not.

Your posts say otherwise and as I said, I'm not the only one that sees it. I guess you missed this post....

Oom - why can't you understand that the rape in the first place was WRONG? You want to play it as "ooh, maybe the rape victim fell in love with her rapist afterward." That's bull@!$%# in itself, but let's pretend the Stockholm Syndrome kicked in. Maybe you've read too many Rosemary Rogers novels as a teenager. I read those, but they sure as hell didn't make me think they made sense.

Then, let's understand that it didn't kick in for most rape victims. They hated their rapists, many of whom had killed their husbands, fathers, brothers, in front of them. They spent the rest of their lives being raped by their husbands' murderers. Rape is wrong. Period. And a god should SURE damn well understand that better than any of us unworthy humans do. Yet .. the god condones it.

Go ahead and report me. You may have a right to support rape and I have to respect that, but it doesn't mean you have a right to have me stay quiet about it. I'll simply point NV to your wonderful posts listing the benefits of rape.

The God of Islam is a distant God a former Muslim friend once told me.

That's odd. There's a Sufi (Muslim) saying that Allah is as close is your jugular vein. My Muslima roommate obviously felt the same way.

OTOH, your friend was quite right to convert if he found a faith that happened to suit him personally better than the one he was born into. All religions are nothing but paths to the Divine, so none of them can be "right" or "wrong".

You may have a right to support rape

Oh just stop it. How did my interpretation of what may have happened in an ancient tale that may or may not be true about people who may or may not have actually existed amount to "supporting rape"? There are NO "benefits" to rape. There are only old stories with more than one possible interpretation. But I guess I should stop feeding trolls.

You certainly have NO right to accuse me of being a Christian. That's just plain harassment.

Not one bad comment so far! You all are experiencing and bestowing love to each other. Maybe there be hope yet. I was compelled to fight when young, and achieved a huge dislike of it. I found that, if given enough time and presence, enemies disolved to friendship or I developed an air of deplomacy, which enhanced my success of less hatred given in my direction. The internet is a wonderful tool to meet ones potentials, for the diversity of feelings is the greatest seen here.

I somehow was multiplied.........an act of what?

Hiram, you will get used to Enoch's vopes. The first time is traumatic. After that, it feels good.

Oh, don't blame yourself! It was a Newsvine glitch, nothing to apologize for, nothing you did wrong. At least if a comment had to be repeated, it was yours - a very nice comment. My only problem was deciding which instance of it to vote up.

I do not believe that people are incapable I believe they are unwilling.\

Well then you'd again be trying to twist your religious thinking around actual science which refutes you. This is why religion is so dangerous - it holds faith based thinking above evidence based thinking.

This was a long and tenuous process and in the end I am where I am and I know (experience) that it i because of God and the strength that He provides I can be who I am.

I think you did it on your own, my friend. I think you're stronger than you give yourself credit for but regardless, I think you're a good person at heart.

I do not believe that people are incapable I believe they are unwilling.

I see. It all boils down to just a matter of will, thus:

I should just be willing to believe that the Creation Myths of the Bible are literally true.

I should just be willing to believe that the miracles of the Bible are literally true.

I should just be willing to believe that we as Homo sapiens were planned, and that we exist as we were intended to be.

I should just be willing to believe that evolutionary theory is wrong, in that it holds that we are a chance occurrence, rather than a planned occurrence.

Well Hiram, my will can only follow what I percieve to be true. Regardless of the strength of my will, I cannot willingly believe that a personally caring, supernatural entity intervenes on my behalf-one that controls every aspect of existence, down to the smallest detail. There is not even a speck of evidence to support that claim. Indeed, all of the available evidence from nature contradicts it.

I see in the science evidence of God.

No natural scientist will agree with your interpretation of the scientific evidence, Hiram. Not a one. Please cite one who does; otherwise, your assertion is unscientific, and it only exists as wild speculative opinion on your part.

Please do not mutate the science to justify your faith. You do harm to yourself when you do. Your faith must stand alone, as no amount of science will ever confirm it.

You see it all as just a matter of willing submission, and then your faith builds out on that from there. Well, I am incapable of doing just that, because of my very unwillingness to throw reason and logic away. That's what it boils down to.

I do not believe that people are incapable I believe they are unwilling.

I think some people are truly incapable for various reasons including childhood abuse or even mental illness, but I also think God knows who those people are and takes that into account. We don't know how God handles this, but all sorts of possibilities from reincarnation to just plain divine forgiveness. Christopher Hitchens may well be in Heaven right now, having fascinating intellectual conversations with Moses, Buddha, and St. Peter for all we know. In any case, my own religion stresses behavior, not belief.

And even when it comes to behavior, I'm certain God still looks at mitigating circumstances. I have a son who will probably turn out to be schizophrenic when he old enough for an official diagnosis. (They won't give it to a young teenager because it's too devastating. The best they'll do is "psychotic disorder, NOS.) Would a just God judge him by the same standards as a normal, healthy person? God forbid!

I found more than one

LMAO!!! And all of them conveniently listed on Creationist websites. Yeah, that makes for truly unbiased views doesn't it?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

http://creationevangelismtools.org/creation-scientists/

Try again Hiram.

Well then you'd again be trying to twist your religious thinking around actual science which refutes you.

One of my degrees is in biology. Not even ONE of my professors ever said science in any way refutes religion. Unless you are talking about fundamentalism of the sort that thinks dinosaurs died in the Flood, religion and science exist in totally different realms. It's like if your CPA tried to tell you your spouse doesn't love you. How the hell could he or she possibly know? You might ask your marriage counselor such a question, or even your friends, but not an accountant. Similarly, a scientist can't say whether or not there is a God. He has no more authority on this question than anybody else.

You forgot the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton.

Similarly, a scientist can't say whether or not there is a God. He has no more authority on this question than anybody else.

But that's exactly what Hiram's so called scientists claim. They're saying there is a God when they can't explain something and they show no evidence to back up such an asinine assertion.

One of my degrees is in biology. Not even ONE of my professors ever said science in any way refutes religion.

Not religion. I was talking about the science that shows people don't choose what they believe. There are people unable to choose belief over evidence.

Religion (God belief) is independant of science. However, the dogma that goes along with it isn't.

LMAO!!! And all of them conveniently listed on Creationist websites.

Tsk Tsk Hiram. You do disappoint me Brother. And here I thought you had a scientific background. Shame shame...although I should have expected it, I just wanted you to confirm it.

Try again Hiram.

And this time, from a reputable source, like any Public University, or a leading publication, such as Nature.

(Thank you Andrew for the legwork:)

Tsk Tsk Hiram. You do disappoint me Brother. And here I thought you had a scientific background. Shame shame...although I should have expected it, I just wanted you to confirm it.

My guess is he just thought if he dropped any names with a doctorate before them that I'd be impressed enough not to look any further.

Sheep may fall for that but not me.

(Thanks Andrew for the legwork:)

Not a problem brother. I find it fun to use logic and reason to knock down zealot arguments.

Not even ONE of my professors ever said science in any way refutes religion.

OK. Depends on the religion. Evolution itself contradicts the concept of Design, and thus Purpose...you should know that as a Biologist, Oom.

You forgot the greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton.

Yeah, and he preceded Darwin by what, more than a century?

I see you struck Einstein from your list. Why is that?

OK. Depends on the religion. Evolution itself contradicts the concept of Design, and thus Purpose...you should know that as a Biologist, Oom.

There's a reason why the clergy have been fightuing it since Darwin had the idea. If it proved their point, you can bet your ass they'd have embraced it with open arms.

You asked for names of scientist I gave you just that. You make the wrong assumption that because they are listed on a creation web site that they are not "legitimate" scientist. When wants to find a creation scientist a creation web site would be the logical place to look. Or perhaps they are just not up to your standards because they do not believe as you do. You cannot change the rules just because it does not meet your approval. The prejudice and bias in your thinking is growing ever apparent.

And there's yet another flaw in your thinking Hiram. There is no belief, prejudice or bias in science.

A true scientist puts his faith aside for Sundays at Church and concentrates on the evidence in front of him.

A true scientist works with what is in the here and now and doesn't just abandon all reason and logic to proclaim that because he can't figure something out... yet, it must be the work of a God.

It's sloppy to think that way and that person doesn't deserve the title of scientist.

Andrew Artie and Grisham

Ha ha! Andrew and Artie, my friend. I already know that the creationists are the extreme minority and the concensus is that evolution is correct and there is tons of evidence for it and none for creationism. I'm sure there are one, two maybe three scientists who are the fringe who can't let go of their faith long enough to be objective, but they aren't taken very seriously so it's a moot point.

But anyhow, I didn't ask for names. *wink*

I was talking about the science that shows people don't choose what they believe

I know perfectly well I chose what to believe, just as I have always chosen whom to love. Sorry about you. If you decide to behave lovingly toward someone you "fall in love" with them. Same with what you choose to believe. I was raised atheist, so why do I believe?

Look up the science on free will and how and why people choose certain things or believe certain ways. Or you can keep clinging to the illusion that you're somehow above the functions of your brain and somehow have free will while believing in a being that is all-knowing and knows what you'll do before you do it anyways, making your choices obsolete, even if you did indeed have free will. Even 'falling in love' is a chemical reaction in your brain.

So don't feel sorry for me. You're human just like I am and the way our brains and bodies work apply to you as they do to me. I'm good with that.

I meant 'if you believe in an all-knowing God' not that you believe, since I'm not sure that's what you believe, although your posts make it sound as though you do.

You cannot change the rules just because it does not meet your approval. The prejudice and bias in your thinking is growing ever apparent.

Hiram-the garbage spewed on those creationist sites is pure propaganda, and you're defending it, my Brother! Why???

They say they have found Dinosaur tracks with Human footprints, and that the marine fossils on Everest are proof of the Flood! It's all bogus Hiram. Any first year geology student knows that. Otherwise, it would be taught in public university, and published in reputable journals-but it's not, because it's bunk!

That's not my prejudice and bias-it's your being used, and lied to. Take a first year geology course, and you'll see. I know something about it...

And I hope you don't think it's some kind of conspiracy-if so, that's the ultimate denial of the facts. It's all a plot by us, the scientific community? If you think that, then you've lost all understanding of what science really is, and I will give up all hope of having a rational conversation with you.

The only bias and prejudice here is reflected in the despicable nature of those creationist websites, such as icr and discovery inst, who peddle their junk science so as to manipulate the gullible believer.

Hiram: I pulled one example from your list. Here is an except from an interview by Creation Ministries International:

How old do you think the universe is?

Probably six to eight thousand years.

Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

He's a crackpot. Thus he has only been published in Journal of Creation, and Creation Research Society Quarterly. Nothing in any other publication, like Astronomical Journal, for example.

Your world closes in on you when you isolate yourself from scientific community like that.

AS for being lied to I have done the research on both sides,

and you have sacrificed your scientific objectivity on the alter of your religious dogma.

I am incapable of doing that, because of my very unwillingness to throw reason and logic away. That is the difference between us.

To you your example with different emphasis

How old do you think the universe is?

He gave his personal opinion.....

How old do you think the universe is?

Per UCLA

There are at least 3 ways that the age of the Universe can be estimated.

• The age of the chemical elements.
• The age of the oldest star clusters.
• The age of the oldest white dwarf stars.

The age of the Universe can also be estimated from a cosmological model based on the Hubble constant and the densities of matter and dark energy. This model-based age is currently 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. But this Web page will only deal with actual age measurements, not estimates from cosmological models. The actual age measurements are consistent with the model-based age which increases our confidence in the Big Bang model.

Or per NASA

we can estimate the age of the universe to about 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years!

You will find that to be the commonly accepted age throughout the greater scientific community Truett. It is only the isolated microcommunity of the Creationists who differ, by about 13,700,000,000 years!

He gave his personal opinion.....

Exactly-his personal opinion, and just like yours, one that is not accepted as scientifically valid.

A huge logical fallacy here my friend. "No True Scotsman" beyond a doubt and that is not like you.

It is not a logical fallacy when the logic is there Hiram. The fact you refuse to see it is a different matter.

A scientist works on evidence. God has no evidence. Ergo. a scientist speaking of God as a fact is not a scientist.

and you have sacrificed your scientific objectivity on the alter of your religious dogma.

Precisely. Hiram seemed to be one of the reasonable Christians that might just be open enough to accept that science provides facts not beliefs such as the fact that the Earth is way, way older than 6,000 yrs.

After seeing he follows the ramblings of crackpots who eschew evidence to proclaim a 6,000 yr old Earth belief as fact, he disappointed me big time.

How old do you think the universe is?

Your point being? He wasn't asked a question of faith. He wasn't asked.

How old do you believe the Earth is?

The word think refers to that old rational noggin in your head, rational for most us that is. He was asked to answer in a rational way and he responded 6,000 yrs with a straight face.

It made him lose all credibility as a scientist.

Perhaps the only real difference between us is not that I have throw reason and logic away, but that I have a new perspective on reason and logic or a different perspective than you.

Logic and reason are not subject to perspective. They are what they are. You can't twist logic and reason to fit your beliefs. It's not only dishonest but downright insane.

The can argument can be presented because they are not published in journals that you deem reputable does not make them anymore or less a scientist than anyone else.

You can say the same thing for those who believe the Earth is flat. That's the same kind of crowd that you're running around with Hiram. Fact is, they have no articles published outside of their creationist journals-none that I could find:)

Perhaps the only real difference between us is not that I have throw reason and logic away, but that I have a new perspective on reason and logic or a different perspective than you.

Yeah, one that does not use the scientific method-we know.

And that is acceptable, after all if we all thought a like that would make things pretty boring.

Sure, but don't expect anyone outside of your little "academic" Creationist community to take your opinion as scientifically valid. No one's buying it. That should be a huge red flag to you right there.

I can assure you that I have not sacrificed my objectiveness

Cite scientists who use the scientific method and I will be reassurred. NASA is not acceptable to you. Got it.

Andrew I have the utmost respect for you and your passion.

Thank you.

The truth is the only person that I am concerned with disappointed is God. I would hope that you can see that I am a person of reason and that we just disagree on things.

That is true. We disagree on some major points like the accountability of God but hey as long as you're a decent guy and have enough morality not to literally follow some of God's most evil mandates such as rape, and murder, you're ok in my book.

I can't say the same for someone I know from the Vine who I have no doubt does precisely that.

First Artie-3438207 - How old to I think the earth is?

Exactly-his personal opinion, and just like yours, one that is not accepted as scientifically valid.

How old to I think the earth is?

a. 4.6 Gy

b. 4.6 My

c. 4.6 Ky

d. 4.6 y

a?

Just like your scientist I DON'T know......just like them all I can do is estimate that it is VERY VERY OLD.....

Just like your scientist I DON'T know......

Well, they give reasoned explanations, based on scientific evidence Truett, and they all cross-check each other...

......just like them all I can do is estimate

Have you suddenly started estimating by using the scientific method?

The answer is 4.6 billion years...The Universe is three times older, at 13.7 billion years.

that it is VERY VERY OLD.....

Fascinating to consider, and marvelous that we can.

Just like your scientist I DON'T know......just like them all I can do is estimate that it is VERY VERY OLD.....

There is hope!!! At least he didn't say 6,000 yrs old though his definition of old might be different than mine of course. 6,000 is long to me but in cosmological terms is very little time.

Look up the science on free will and how and why people choose certain things or believe certain ways. Or you can keep clinging to the illusion that you're somehow above the functions of your brain and somehow have free will while believing in a being that is all-knowing and knows what you'll do before you do it anyways, making your choices obsolete, even if you did indeed have free will. Even 'falling in love' is a chemical reaction in your brain.

In the first place, I didn't say I was a Chrisitian--I'm not--or that I hold a particular theology as you describe--I don't. i do have a bachelor of scinece degree in biology and I promise you I never had even one professor who said free will didn't exist, let alone that there was some mysterious scientific proof it did not. In fact, if there were such a professor, he or she would be first rolling in the halls in laughter, and then be forced to give every student an A. After all, if there is no free will, nobody deserves a better grade than anyone else.

Please grow up. No society could possibly exist without a belief in free will.

They estimate approx 4.6 billion years.....with the current technology I estimate it might be closer to 4.4 billion if not over 4.7 billion according to scripture.....

I estimate it might be closer to 4.4 billion if not over 4.7 billion according to scripture.....

Give it up Truett. Hindsight's always 20/20.

They estimate approx 4.6 billion years.....with the current technology I estimate it might be closer to 4.4 billion if not over 4.7 billion according to scripture.....

LMAO!!!! He's actually claiming scripture reveals the age of Earth? JESUS FRAKING CHRIST!! What a crock!!

This is the same book that claims the Earth was the center of the universe which has been more than debunked.

LMAO!!!! He's actually claiming scripture reveals the age of Earth?

Yeah, and manipulating the data will cost him his reputation :D

Please grow up. No society could possibly exist without a belief in free will.

I'm full grown. How do you know no society would be possible, especially when you're raised to believe you're so special?

Don't go attacking because your premise was so easily refuted with your scientific 'falling in love' basis and all. Science makes new discoveries every day. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it's wrong. Stop being so lazy and do the research.

I bet some scientist somewhere is making a new discovery right now!

After all, if there is no free will, nobody deserves a better grade than anyone else.

LOL. Actions we can control (some better than others:) but beliefs (and emotions in general), no.

We must believe what we perceive to be true. I might want to believe something, but I can't believe it unless I am compelled by the evidence to accept it. Can you force yourself to believe in unicorns?

Or you can keep clinging to the illusion that you're somehow above the functions of your brain and somehow have free will while believing in a being that is all-knowing and knows what you'll do before you do it anyways, making your choices obsolete, even if you did indeed have free will.

I never said God was all knowing. Even if he is, it is possible he keeps some knowledge from himself in the same manner that you do not cheat at solataire.

Tell me, do you really believe you personally have no free will? If you came home from a trip and found your wife in bed with another guy, would you say, "oh well, she can't help it because there is no such thing as free will"? Do we let all the prisoners out of prison because they couldn't help their crimes?

Even 'falling in love' is a chemical reaction in your brain.

So is everything, but that doesn't mean you don't control it. If you act lovingly toward a reasonably suitable partner under reasonably favorable circumstances, you will automatically fall in love with him/her as a result. Or so my Asian friends tell me who have been in arranged marriages. "Ve fall in love after the ceremony" one woman told me. I totally agree with this. I didn't really feel "in love" with my husband until after we married. I realized that he HAD stood by me when I got pregnant, and was therefore my hero, worthy of my love. It's only our Western myth of uncontrollable passion that comes from nowhere that has you confused.

It must be very sad to think you

Sorry, I meant to finish 20.43 by saying, it must be very sad to think you lack free will, like a lower animal driven entirely by instinct. Do you think you are preprogrammed to come on line or that your posts have nothing whatsoever to do with any original thinking you do? The human brain is very expensive metabolically, so why do we even need it if we have no free will?

The human brain is very expensive metabolically, so why do we even need it if we have no free will?

Actions are a choice-belief is not.

I am not free to believe in this god, no matter how strong my will is. It's not that I am unwilling to believe, in contrast to what Hiram said (20.1):

I do not believe that people are incapable I believe they are unwilling.

but rather, it is that I am unable to believe-I'm incapable of it-the contrary evidence is so strong that it does not allow me to believe.

This has nothing to do with mental capacity:

I think some people are truly incapable for various reasons including childhood abuse or even mental illness, but I also think God knows who those people are and takes that into account.

That very nice, but irrelevant! Are you paying attention?

In case you missed it, per the dogma of the Christian Church, you are granted a choice as whether to believe in their god or not. It's called free will. Their smartest monks spent a lot of time worrying about that over the centuries...and they spilled a lot of blood enforcing the concept.

So, if you choose to deny this god, then you, by your own choice, are condemned eternally to hell, oh and to be tortured or burned as a heretic, so the justification goes. But if you submit, then you get all the goodies...whatever it is that god has promised...

Apparently you have no idea as to what we have been talking about on this thread.

Surprise. I don't believe for one moment in Christian doctrine, especially that one. It's just ridiculous to say that the Creator cares more about your belief than what you actually DO. I was using "free will" in the ordinary sense of the word, not the Christian sense. I have the free will to choose what to do; I'm not a programmed robot. That's all I meant by that post.

Incidentally, I also have the free will to believe in a Supreme Being, but I don't think my "salvation" rests on that particular choice. But it IS a choice. Everybody has feelings on both sides of this issue; the choice rests on which ones you decide to pay attention to. This is true in all of life, not just religious matters. For instance, you might come to realize that you tend toward irrational jealousy. Maybe you learned it in therapy or whatever, doesn't matter. Now, in a particular situation in which you might tend to suspect your spouse, do you give in to it, or do you reason things out rationally? Either way, you have just made a CHOICE about what to believe. Obviously your mental capacity is very relevant to all that; a paranoid person might be incapable of making that choice because of something wrong with his brain.

Just because it is in the OT does not mean God approved of it.

How could he NOT approve since he ORDERED or carried out most of the atrocities found in the OT?

Just because it is in the OT does not mean God approved of it.

So now that we expose the evil God does then the Bible is not the true word of God? Make up your mind dude!!

God's morality and core values never change, but he is a realist, so the behavior he allows can change over time.

And Andrew, stop insisting that if you are not a fundie nutcase, you must not believe the Bible is the true word of God. Are you perhaps trolling, or do you really not see the distinction? The Tanakh or Hebrew Bible as a whole teaches compassion, justice, and caring for the poor. Does God ever advocate war? Sure, but so does Krishna in the Gita.

God's morality and core values never change, but he is a realist, so the behavior he allows can change over time.

Sounds very human to me:) and sounds a lot like our Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution...principled, pragmatic, and secular, that is.

Sure, but so does Krishna in the Gita.

LMAO!!! I was waiting for the strawman argument and there it is.

Krishna may have faults but he never advocated for and performed child murders. Your God did.

The Bible said we are made in God's image, so yes, he is very human. He also inspired the Founders, who were far less secular than you think. Englightened and nondenominational do not equal "secular".

The Bible said we are made in God's image, so yes, he is very human.

Ding ding ding ding!!! Finally!!! A chink in the God is perfect mantra so many zealots have. He is very human indeed which doesn't make him worthy of worship especially when most of the human emotions he displays are the negative ones.

He also inspired the Founders, who were far less secular than you think. Englightened and nondenominational do not equal "secular".

WOW!!! That's a two-fer!! Two things you have said right!!!Will wonders never cease. The Founding Fathers were Deists but the ideals they wanted for this country were secular. Why? Because they recognized the evil the Church did during the time it was in absolute control in Europe such as The Dark Ages, The Crusades and the Inquisitions and they did not want a repeat performance. So they make sure to include provisions in the Constitution that would not allow one religion to have more power in government than another.

Of course Christians are chomping at the bit to overturn everything the Founding Fathers stood for and ruin this country forever.

If we don't watch out, it's gonna be Crusade numero 10 here we come!!

Saying God isn't deserving of worship just because he is "human" is like saying your spouse isn't worthy of love because he doesn't look like Brad Pitt or act like St. Francis.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "negative emotion". ALL emotions have their place, which is why we have them. If there were no anger, you wouldn't be inspired to stop injustice or even protect yourself from danger. (Fight/flight response.) Jealousy can be appropriate, can help keep families together and motivate you to do better so can have what others have. Besides, would you want to be with a spouse who doesn't care enough about you to EVER be jealous, or who doesn't try to prevent you from really stupid, risky behavior? Even hate has its place. You should hate evil. You should hate someone who is a threat to your loved ones. If God didn't experience anger, hatred, and jealousy he would NOT be worthy of our worship. He wouldn't even be a good role model, except perhaps from a Buddhist POV. But you'll notice Buddhists have no personal deity.

The Dark Ages had nothing to do with religion but were the natural result of the chaos after the breakup of the Roman Empire in the West. Remember, it was the Irish monks who saved as much of the Empire's culture as possible. I believe the Founders were mainly concerned with not starting European-style sectarian religious wars in this country. They didn't even outlaw official relgions at the STATE level, just at the national level, because all faiths should be equal in a multifaith nation.

Saying God isn't deserving of worship just because he is "human" is like saying your spouse isn't worthy of love because he doesn't look like Brad Pitt or act like St. Francis.

You're confusing worship and love.

I love my wife and my son with every cell in my body. I'd do anything for them and I mean anything including killing if I were forced to. They are a part of me as I am a part of them but we're still all fellow humans.

A God by its very definition has to be something more. He has to be beyond reproach, beyond question and not subject to the same faults humans have. Your God has some serious emotional issues. He's a psycho. So he's not worthy of my worship.

The Dark Ages had nothing to do with religion but were the natural result of the chaos after the breakup of the Roman Empire in the West.

Of course it had to do with religion!! In those times in Europe, everything had to do with religion since it was a virtual Christian theocracy. The Church had its grubby little hands everywhere.

These were the times of the Crusades. These were the times of the Black Plague and these were the times where the Church made sure to silence anyone and everyone that went against Church dogma by any means necessary.

Like Galileo who was put under permanent house arrest for going against the establishment, discovering that Earth was NOT the center of the universe and daring to publish his findings.

The Church has been responsible for holding up human progress for roughly 500 to 600 yrs or more. We might be living in space by now if the sickos hadn't been trying to hold on to their power so tightly.

The Bible said we are made in God's image, so yes, he is very human.

Oh, so god's very human now...and you worship it, why???

He also inspired the Founders, who were far less secular than you think. Englightened and nondenominational do not equal "secular".

You may get an A in religion, but you get an F in American History.

Oh, so god's very human now...and you worship it, why???

She doesn't even know what she's saying at this point. The evidence has her all turned around.

You may get an A in religion, but you get an F in American History.

I think she gets an F in both. I know Christianity better than she does as well, just about any other mainstream religion.

It's a sad comment on the faithful that the Atheists and the Agnostics such as myself know more about their faith than they do.

#23.12 should read...

I think she gets an F in both. I know Christianity better than she does as well as, just about any other mainstream religion.

I think she's lonely, and that she's had a tough life. Just projecting-I have no business doing it-sorry.

But I get the feeling it's like I'm arguing with my mother-I lose no matter what :P

Anyway, I'm depending on everyone to call me on it if I'm being so assuming and pretentious-what are FR's for. Uh-OH :)

I think she is being trolled....

I think she is being trolled....

Whatcha talking about Willis?

You heard me....

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

A God by its very definition has to be something more. He has to be beyond reproach, beyond question and not subject to the same faults humans have.

Your definition. NOT mine, and not the one to be found in the dictionary. God only has to be much better than a human being to deserve worship, NOT to be "perfect' (as if any of us understood what perfection really means, anyway.

Have you by any chance ever read Rabbi Harry Kushner's best seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People"? His whole argument is that God isn't omnipotent, either. This makes a lot of sense to me.

I know Christianity better than she does

Well, of course you do. You were raised Christian. I was not. All I know about it is what I've picked up in casual reading by authors like C.S. Lewis. Why would you expect a non-Christian like me to understand all that much about Christianity?

as well, just about any other mainstream religion.

I doubt THAT.

It's a sad comment on the faithful that the Atheists and the Agnostics such as myself know more about their faith than they do.

LOL, first you keep insisting I'm a Christian even though I've stated repeatedly that I am not, and then you make an "accusation" like that one! I probably know more about Islam than I do about Christianity since Muslima friends spend so much time talking to me about it.

It's like if I just arbitrarily decided you must be Egyptian, even though you explained you were not, and then I attacked you for not speaking Arabic! You're getting more and more absurd.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

I have presented clear and concise arguments denouncing her statements not her. She defends rape. I condemn rape.

She says God is all love and cuddles, I show quotes from her very own Bible that shows he's an evil child murderer.

That's not trolling. Try again.

Have you by any chance ever read Rabbi Harry Kushner's best seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People"? His whole argument is that God isn't omnipotent, either. This makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm downloading it as we speak :)

Andrew, you know damn well I never defended rape. I only defended the rule that a rapist must marry his victim since it would be the best deal for the victim in the context of the times. Neither did I say God is "all love and cuddles". Nor should he be, since if he were, he would be a lousy, irresponsible parent. Do you just let your child do anything he wants? As I say I'm no Biblical literalist, but I think the Torah is making the point that sometimes HaShem has had to react very strongly in order to teach our ancestors that human behavior matters very greatly to him. The time in which these events supposedly happened was a VERY brutal one. It had to stop. Sometimes you can only stop brutality with brutality. The police are allowed to use deadly force when necessary. So is HaShem. (Besides, who's going to stop him?)

You are scarcely in a position to be lecturing anyone about COH. What do you call it, other than harassment, when you constantly lie and misrepresent my positions and indeed, my very identity? For personal reasons that I'm sure you'd never understand, I am rather sensitive to being called a "Christian". I don't dislike Christians, but to me personally being called that is an insult.

Anyway, I'm depending on everyone to call me on it if I'm being so assuming and pretentious-what are FR's

Yes, you're being those things and you are also guilty of COH violation.

As I say I'm no Biblical literalist, but I think the Torah is making the point that sometimes HaShem has had to react very strongly in order to teach our ancestors that human behavior matters very greatly to him. The time in which these events supposedly happened was a VERY brutal one. It had to stop. Sometimes you can only stop brutality with brutality. The police are allowed to use deadly force when necessary. So is HaShem. (Besides, who's going to stop him?)

Oh brother!! So let me get this straight,,

So now the latest cop out is, oh well, since it's God, let him go ahead and kill every innocent including babies, let him order men to rape, murder, enslave and do anything he wants because gee he's so powerful so what can we do.

What can we do? We don't have to worship such scum. I know I don't. I don't have my blinders on.

We worship life Andrew, We worship what we know is honest and good. We do not need a god in our lives or the weak attempts to condone the hideous crimes from within the bible.

We worship life Andrew, We worship what we know is honest and good. We do not need a god in our lives or the weak attempts to condone the hideous crimes from within the bible.

Thank you Memory. Very well said.

Thank you Andrew, once I removed my blinders my appreciation for life became enriched beyond my expectations.

The Dark Ages had nothing to do with religion but were the natural result of the chaos after the breakup of the Roman Empire in the West.

Of course it had to do with religion!! In those times in Europe, everything had to do with religion since it was a virtual Christian theocracy. The Church had its grubby little hands everywhere.

Oh, nothing to do with maurading bands of Pagan thugs like the Vikings, say? There was very little government of any sort during the Dark Ages.

These were the times of the Crusades. These were the times of the Black Plague and these were the times where the Church made sure to silence anyone and everyone that went against Church dogma by any means necessary.

Now you're confusing the Dark Ages with the Middle Ages, which were certainly a more civilized period. I'm not defending Christians, mind you. They persecuted my people for 2,000 years. But please be historically accurate.

Now you're confusing the Dark Ages with the Middle Ages, which were certainly a more civilized period.

I'm not confusing anything. You're the one that needs to do some reading.

The Dark Ages are the early part of the Middle Ages and while you're right, (for once), there was no centralized political government, the Church connected everyone and the Pope had absolute faith-based control. The Dark Ages is when he initiated the Crusades.

The reason they were called Dark Ages is because there isn't much literature, art, or really any kind of solid scientific knowledge that came out from that era since the Church had its dirty hands everywhere and they suppressed anything that didn't fit Christian doctrine, not to mention they were conducting 9 Crusades to kill every Jew and Muslim they came across whether they be men, women or children.

The Black Plague also helped, it killed a major chunk of the European population of the time.

It was only after the 9 Crusades in the late part of the Middle Ages that some measure of control was given to Kings, and people moved nto cities thereby eliminating most of the feudal lord system but the Church was always there in the background exerting its power.

In fact, the Church's atrocities weren't over because after the Crusades some countries started conducting their own Inquisitions, the most well known one being the Spanish one featuring Torquemada.

I'm not defending Christians,

Sure you're not.

But please be historically accurate.

Pot meet kettle.

http://members.tripod.com/~mr_sedivy/med_hist.html

The "Dark Ages" are generally considered to end in 1000 CE. The first Crusade was launched nearly 100 years later, in response to Muslim aggression BTW. (Both the Christians and the Muslims were about equally to blame, really.) Now, in reality, this is all somewhat arbitrary, in that "Ages" don't really start and stop at some precise moment, but what everybody is taught in college is that they happened during the "High Middle Ages."

Here's how much I "defend" Christianty. My high school class went on a trip to what was then the USSR. My father asked his Russian-born uncle if there was anything he'd like me to bring back. "Oh," said my great uncle, "I don't think your daughter could get heads on a platter through customs." This bitter remark should tell you how Christians treated Jews, and certainly not just in Russia. (At least they let us live there at all; many countries in Europe did not.) But that's not the point. Atheist Viners tend to hate ALL religion. They might make an exception for something currently fashionable like Paganism, something exotic like Hinduism (because they don't actually know any Hindus), or somebody as cuddly as the Dali Lama, but they despise the religious people they are actually likely to come into contact with. It's one thing to point out particular flaws, as I have done myself on this very thread, but quite another to make sweeping and rather outrageous statements like, say, "If it weren't for religion we'd be living in space by now." In the first place the earliest scientists were mostly religious men. In the second place, who, besides Newt Gingrich, even WANTS to be living in space? We are perfectly adapted to THIS planet, which actually has an atmosphere we can breathe for one thing.

The "Dark Ages" are generally considered to end in 1000 CE. The first Crusade was launched nearly 100 years later, in response to Muslim aggression BTW. (Both the Christians and the Muslims were about equally to blame, really.

Here we go again.

Are you gonna justify the Crusaders razing towns on the way to Jerusalem and not just stealing the food but killing all the inhabitants if they weren't Christian?

How about the 60,000 Jews burned alive in their Temple when the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem during the First Crusade? You gonna justify that too being that you're supposedly Jewish.

In his reports about the conquest of Jerusalem, Chronicler Raymond of Aguilers wrote this...

It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place, (referring to the Temple of Solomon), should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers.

And the bastard who would be later be made into St. Bernard said this before the Second Crusade...

The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified.

These frakkers were so wrong about Jesus it's insane.

Atheist Viners tend to hate ALL religion. They might make an exception for something currently fashionable like Paganism, something exotic like Hinduism (because they don't actually know any Hindus), or somebody as cuddly as the Dali Lama, but they despise the religious people they are actually likely to come into contact with.

LMAO!!!!

First of all, I'm not Atheist. I'm an Agnostic which means that while I don't submit to any organized religion I do have spiritual beliefs.

It also means I'm not a zealot who has abandoned science, reason logic, common sense and basic human decency to defend the most evil atrocities of my faith and my God such as rape, murder and slavery.

I thread a nice middle ground.

And for the record my wife is a practicing Christian who I adore with all my heart and soul. And there are quite a few Christians that I respect including my wife like cowboygrampa here on the Vine.

It's one thing to point out particular flaws, as I have done myself on this very thread, but quite another to make sweeping and rather outrageous statements like, say, "If it weren't for religion we'd be living in space by now."

Your Church has been single handedly responsible for the delay in human technological and sociological advancement.

We only begun advancement when we threw off the damn Christian shackles and they keep coming off more and more the more we discover but we will never get back at least 500 to 600 yrs the Western World was under their complete control.

In the first place the earliest scientists were mostly religious men.

Typical Creationist argument LOL. Are you gonna post a list of "scientists" from Creationist websites too the way Hiram did?

There are tons of scientists even today with a belief in God. The difference is that a true scientist keeps his faith away from his vocation. Science deals with facts not beliefs.

Andrew and Oom, here's some history for you guys, the fact is that both of you are right at different points, at others you are wrong.

http://www.history.com/topics/dark-ages

And here's something on the middle ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages

Now, can you two please get back on topic?

There's a lot to be said for simplicity Memory:)

I prefer to be atheist-centered

Theistic religion is, in and of itself, a human-centered declaration. It fully expresses an anthropomorphic bias in claiming the existence of a personally caring, intervening god, that specifically created us individually for a higher purpose.

We are the special ones, and consequently, there arises the need to restrain our ego-no simple task :P The solution is to saddle the believer with the burden of guilt (The Christ died for your sins!) and your inadequacy (you cannot succeed without god, who is perfect; all things come from god...!), which can only be remedied by faith, of course.

This self-centered religious indulgence is in sharp contrast to the non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism or Pantheism, that are free of such weighty concerns, considering instead that we harmoniously take our place within the whole symphony of existence, rather than seeing ourselves as somehow separate from it, or in need of something outside of it.

hubby claims I am high maintenance LOL

So is my wife but she deserves it :) What do you claim for yourself? LOL

I tend to claim I have high energy and need pampering now and then =) It's all about balance!

Pampering is good. The wife loves pampering and I love the rewards of such pampering so it all works out well :)

* gives memory a foot rub *

We can talk more about this tomorrow.

It's from K. Gibran, The Prophet, on Love. He's one of my favorites.

Here is access to this verse (and the others-they are all wonderfully inspiring :)

Group hugs. You guys rock.

katrix :)

Hiram :)

if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Would that be on the same line as God saying, "Many are called and a few are chosen"? God does the calling and he also will do the choosing?