Dialogue Between Shacklednomore And Thumbelina

February 24, 2011

This discussion is a continuation from Accountability For Vows And Pledges In Numbers. I'm afraid it may have wandered off topic so I started a new thread.

This is the discussion:

[Part 1]

ShackledNoMore said: I find your reference to Leviticus 19:18 to provide the best argument to support your point, followed by Deuteronomy 6:5, with the NT references being the weakest. Why? Well, that's from the scripture that the ancient Hebrew jewish believers had. Even if OT god and NT god are the same god, this is how he presented himself to the ancient Hebrews.

Thumbelina said: To the Christian, the bible is read not in part but as a whole and the whole bible shows God commanding His children to love Him and each other; so yes, I was eager to show that the NT and OT complement each other and I listed the NT example of first.

ShackledNoMore said: The problem is, that the bible sends mixed messages. There most assuredly are commands to love him and others, in both testaments. There are also lots of commands to kill others: in war in concert with invasion, in retaliation, and as punishment for breaking biblegod's laws such as picking up sticks on the sabbath (as we have already touched upon in this topic) or for a son disobeying his father or for a woman who gets raped and doesn't scream. This is the tapestry the Old Testament weaves. You can cite commands (from the OT and NT) to love your neighbor, but commands to kill people for these sorts of offenses are the commands of an authoritarian bully, and are not consistent with a loving god who wants us to love each other, even if there are commands to that effect in the very same chapters and books. You can certainly choose passages where the OT and NT compliment each other, but the kinder, gentler NT overall does not weave this same tapestry.

Thumbelina: The messages may SEEM mixed to us but the closer one gets to God then one sees that God is love. There are commands to kill others but --- "Where There Is No Love There Is No Justice". You don't see rules in there where if a person lies on another person and accuses them of a crime worthy of death that the accuser had to stone the accused? I think that right there, though it seems barbaric to us, was a MAJOR deterrent from people bearing false witness against their neighbor. There are also cities of refuge in the bible where people (whether Israelite or stranger) could run to if they killed someone or hurt someone by accident. A long time ago, I read that Israelite justice system was set up in such a way as to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. There are also places where a newly wed man who was supposed to be fighting battles can have an entire year off with his sweetie (wife).

We are selfish sinners and God could have eradicated the human race but He didn't; He gave us a shot at redemption. There is love and mercy in both testaments and there is a lot of wrath (righteous indignation) in both testaments.

In the biblical narrative the physical journey of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan is described but as I kept saying God gives physical examples to teach us spiritual and moral truths. http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

ShackledNoMore said: Of course the edict [Lev. 19:18] is limited to one's own fellow Israelites.

Thumbelina said: No, the edict was not limited to only fellow Israelites. There were other people that were adopted into the fold ---> Num 9:14; Ex 12 48, 49 http://www.biblegate...,49&version=KJV . God promised to bless ALL nations through His chosen people ( http://www.biblegate...:18&version=KJV Gen 12:3; 22:18 ; they were supposed to be evangelists AND produce the Messiah). The adoptees had to follow the same rules as the Israelites.

ShackledNoMore said: It is limited to fellow Israelites! Reread that verse. It directly specifies those among your own people. You make the case, citing other verses that the law also immigrants and visitors. Fine. It does not erase all the direction from biblegod to obliterate the Israelites' enemies. It remains tribal, ethnocentric. It also stands along side the harsh mandates for punishments of minor offenses.

Thumbelina: No it is not! You do know in order to form a doctrine and to understand scripture one has to compare scripture with scripture, right? One also needs to look at the bible thematically (John 3:16 is the sum of the bible), contextually, culturally, grammatically etc. http://bible.cc/isaiah/28-10.htm so that one can get the big picture. One is NOT supposed to take only one verse and form a doctrine out of it. Following the biblical model for how to understand it also helps to prevent wresting the scripture to ones destruction and it also prevents fanaticism. That being said, please look at the cross references to Lev. 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm and you will see that it means your neigh brother, neighbor, be it an Israelite or not.

God blessed/blesses people who are good to his sons (generic term) http://bible.cc/romans/8-14.htm . The Israelites were a specific people who God used to demonstrate a spiritual truth; however blessings were not always limited to Israelites. God blessed Potiphar's household exceedingly for Potifar being good to Joseph and Potiphar was a heathen who did not worship the living God, God blessed heathen, harlot Rahab for taking care of His Israeli spies and more importantly for believing in Him by faith and Rahab and her family joined the Israelites; God also blessed Ruth., so yes, God looks at people's faith. If Pharaoh had let the Israelites go then God would have let them (the Egyptians) be. Oh! God blessed the widow of zarephath for taking care of Elijah and for her faith.

Thumbelina said: What you MISSED was that Lev 19:33, 34 where God instructs the Israelites to treat strangers kindly. He was specific lest they went on a tangent like you did and wrest the scriptures out of context Lev 19:33, 34 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

ShackledNoMore said: Leviticus 19 is an interesting chapter. It has a general main theme of how to treat others, but it can't resist throwing in random nonsense from right field. It throws in instructions that:

You've offended biblegod by eating sacrificial meat for a third day and must be cut off from your people

Don't mix animals/seeds/fabrics together

No tattoos or piercings

Don't cut your hair at the sides of your head or the edges of your beard

No mediums

Then, in typical fashion, it follows up niceness, mom, and apple pie with chapter 20

Death to anyone who curses their parents

Death to adulators

Death for sexual relations with (step?) parents or in-laws

Death for marriage to both a woman and her mother

Death for bestiality

Banishment for marrying a sibling or half sibling

Banishment for sex during a woman's period

Death to mediums

Thumbelina: God had reasons for doing it and I told you it was mostly for spiritual reasons but some were also moral protections.

ShackledNoMore said: Lev 19 is relatively nice as OT chapters go. Focusing on the theme of about two-thirds of the chapter of treating others nicely, vs. 33-34 still really address visitors/immigrants. Let's not forget what Joshua did to all the nations not in biblegod's little clique, on the bible god's orders.

Thumbelina: Ah *grin* Joshua? The lesson learned from that was ----> http://bible.cc/acts/14-22.htm "Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." We are on a spiritual journey from spiritual Egypt to the spiritual Heavenly Canaan and we will have persecutions from the heathens and the prince of this world who are dominant in this world at the moment. Our spiritual fight tends to come in the form of resisting the things of this transient world and at times, standing up for God's word in a non violent way.

Thumbelina said: You're referring to Lev 19:19 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-19.htm ; commentators explain about this in the link I provided. I see it as God saying 'be ye separate'; He was giving them physical examples of spiritual and moral truths. The pagans were basically immoral idolaters and God wanted a differentiation between His children and them.

ShackledNoMore said: Pretty crazy restrictions for a symbolic message, and a divisive one at that. Kind of smacks in the face of the instructions to be kind to foreigners living among you that we just discussed in versus 33-34.

Thumbelina: Didn't you look at the commentaries? Here's an excerpt:

Gender with a diverse kind - These precepts taken literally seem to imply that they should not permit the horse and the she-ass, nor the he-ass and the cow, (as they do in the East), to couple together; nor sow different kinds of seeds in the same field or garden; nor have garments of silk and woolen, cotton and silk, linen and wool, etc. And if all these were forbidden, there must have been some moral reason for the prohibitions, because domestic economy required several of these mixtures, especially those which relate to seeds and clothing. With respect to heterogeneous mixtures among cattle, there is something very unnatural in it, and it was probably forbidden to prevent excitements to such unnatural lusts as those condemned in the preceding chapter, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 18:23. As to seeds, in many cases it would be very improper to sow different kinds in the same plot of ground. It would be improvident to sow oats and wheat together: the latter would be injured, the former ruined. The turnip and carrot would not succeed conjointly, where either of them separately would prosper and yield a good crop; so we may say of many other kinds of seeds; and if this be all that is intended, the counsels are prudential agricultural maxims. ...

There were some strange and immoral things going on there and the pagans indulged in beastiality so I guess God did not want those deviant behaviors among his people. A couple of months ago I heard that a person reported their goat missing (not in the USA) and when the police tracked it down they caught a 14 year old boy having sex with the goat; they killed the goat. So, I am like, 'why did they kill the goat, wasn't the goat the victim?' then I thought about it and realized that that goat was perverted and spoiled and it will continue to try to have sexual relations with humans.

The spiritual message means this: If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

One can leave the profane people alone and one can even be friendly with them in a xenial (I used your word lol), agape sense or help them if they need it and sometimes even love them in a brotherly way but, but, if they come at you to entice you to do wrong like, ' come go to dances with us and take drugs; curse a lot or period, indulge in talking trash, fornicate, watch porn, commit adultery, dress with your pants on the ground and your hat turned sideways, continually listen to vain philosophies from ungodly, debauched and/ or hubristic philosophers who want to bamboozle whomever is WILLING into thinking they have "knowledge"; then if a believer is weak and do not have high moral and spiritual standards and they keep beholding those things they WILL be changed by it. It is better to sever the friendship and stay completely away from them (one can still pray for them)if one is weak or have a tendency to those sins. It would be like an alcoholic going to a bar in order to recover from alcoholism. That's the problem with Christians today, A LOT of its purported proponents resemble the world and there is no distinction.

ShackledNoMore said: The next verse after that, biblegod is lenient to men who sleep with betrothed female slaves, well, because she was just a slave.

Thumbelina said: Actually God was lenient to both of them and I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that God was lenient.

ShackledNoMore said: I do acknowledge that the god of the bible is lenient in some cases. Don't get to happy about this concession, though, because I would also point out that his leniency can be rather arbitrary. He seems to have no problem over some very ghastly things in the OT, while he zaps others for the most minor of transgressions. The thief next to Jesus at his crucifixion got a lot of leniency, too. On the other hand, a heroic skeptic who sacrifices his life to save another will instantly be rewarded with an eternity in the flames of hell for his non-belief and not proclaiming Jesus as his lord. This is not a good thing.

Thumbelina: The wages of sin, any sin, is death. Sin is a malignant cancer and we know that cancers tend to grow rapidly. You are not God so you cannot determine if the sin was minor. The thief was humble and repentant and he eventually got the right motive. Heroic skeptic on the other hand may be full of pride and only want the praise of men: And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 1 Corinth 13:3; if one does not love God then one does not have love for God is love

1 John 4:8 http://bible.cc/1_john/4-8.htm . God would not force seemingly heroic skeptic to live with Him, probation would have closed and skeptic would have made his choice. God gives everyone, including skeptics a measure of faith and one chooses to let Him grow it or not.

ShackledNoMore said: This whole thing really bespeaks tribal loyalty (or you can say "love" if you prefer) as opposed to love of one's fellow man.

Thumbelina said: What is love? If one is good and loyal to one's fellow man it is indeed love. Love is an action word and I don't know about you but when people don't lie, steal, attempt to kill others, covet them or their stuff in a negative way, cheat on their mates and when they honor their parents it bespeaks love and the FEELING of like can and usually do follow.

ShackledNoMore said: My point stands no matter what definition of "love" you use. Here, it is something that applies to one's tribe or one's nation: one's "people."

ShackledNoMore said: Still, I don't particularly subscribe to your definition of love. Yes, if you love someone it will go along with the territory that you will not lie, cheat, steal, rob that person, etc. However, that's also how a decent person treats people they don't love. I have certainly gone out of my way to help and be kind to people that I did not love at all, and not because I am an exceptional person: the same would be true of just about any decent person you can find. Now those people closest to me who I do love and have built a life with--there is something different there. There is something, love, that differentiates it from merely acting selflessly and kindly toward a person and nothing more. If a coworker who I have been kind to but don't love dies I feel sad, but I do not mourn him/her in the same way I would a close loved one. This is just a passing comment, by the way, which I don't think is really central to our debate. I'm not really looking for a discussion on agape, eros, and phileo unless you think there is an important tangent there to pursue (our posts are already starting to get LONG!!!)

Thumbelina: It matters not what you subscribe to, God's word is objectively true. Yes, you are familiar with the different types of love and the bible does go into more details with those but the last six commandments are the letter of the law. Fallen beings tend not to understand the spirit of the law.

Thumbelina said: Yes you are right, the adoptees could marry Israelites and it is a good thing to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. If you look at Israel's history they apostatized A LOT when they joined themselves with the surrounding nations. Maybe, initially they intended to introduce them to God and the Israelite culture and they probably empathized with some of their troubles but instead they got involved in frivolous conversations and coarse jesting and they got involved in grosser and grosser sins until they apostatized; the pagans converted them instead and consequently they were lost together

ShackledNoMore said: Look at people today. It is rare for people to convert from one major religion to another. Nobody builds themselves a gold calf after they haven't been to church in a month. All generally speaking... Christians, generally speaking, stay christians. Muslims, generally speaking, stay muslims. Jews, who did not have their own nation until 1948 and still mostly live outside of Israel, nevertheless remain jewish, these days. Try going as a missionary to Japan and it's as hard as all get up to convert the Japanese to xianity. The moral of the story is, most people, generally speaking, remain true to their family or cultural indoctrination early in life. Now what if you are surrounded by a polytheistic tradition and you are trying to promote a new cult centered around one of your gods--exclusively one of your gods. It's going to be work. There is going to be trouble with people including the other gods. As you codify your emerging cult, you need to discourage that. It's difficult when you read through the first books of the bible to get a feel for whether the writers regarded biblegod as the only god, or just the god who was top dog over the other gods. People do not often abandon their religious beliefs even when there is no evidence for those beliefs and a lot of evidence against them. So why would the ancient Israelites, who constantly witnessed incontrovertible evidence for their god start worshipping other gods at the drop of a hat? The wouldn't, if biblegod existed as advertised.

Thumbelina: Yes, people don't like change and Christians are delaying the latter rain by not uniting in love i.e. and not politics. Today's golden calf would be soap operas, going to the mall, being on facebook all the time, playing video games ... . There are A LOT of nominal Christians out there! There's a lot of nominal people from the major religions too. God says that one will find Him when one seeks Him with all ones heart, mind and soul and apparently a lot of people are NOT seeking for if they did they WILL find Him. God's people are scattered everywhere; the Christian church is not ready to receive them en masse, we need God to clean us up!

I was looking at a show by Christian ex-Muslims a few months ago and this guy was saying that he grew up in a Muslim culture and he did not know about Jesus but ONE time he was away (maybe on a trip, I don't remember) and he saw a TV show and that mentioned Jesus and that is where he heard that name. He said he never thought about it but one day his brother was/is schizo (I think) and he needs to take meds otherwise he can become violent. One day his brother refused to take his meds and the guy said he felt a prompting to ask Jesus for help so he did . He said "Jesus could you please tell my brother to take his medication?" and right at that moment his brother just got up and went to the kitchen and took his medicine. That started that man's relationship with Jesus and today the guy is a Christian.

Another Muslim wanted to convert and her Muslim father got mad and was about to punch her in the face and an unseen force held him back from doing it so all he could do was spit at her. People are coming into Christianity but the large influx but still the minority compared to the rest of the world, will occur at the latter rain. I've also seen video clips of Muslims, being baptized into Christianity, right outside a mosque; I've seen videos from a spunky Australian pastor who baptizes a lot of Hindus and Muslims and atheists and it is beautiful.

ShackledNoMore said: However, the Pentateuch is all about how sinful man is and even how sinful god's people, the Israelites were. It was all about giving mandates to these sinful people.

Thumbelina: Skeptics see the glass as half empty whereas the believer sees the glass as half full. God was merciful in the OT. No sinner deserves mercy.

ShackledNoMore said: Look at what you have said! Who is a sinner? One of the most quoted verses of bible is Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Xianity teaches that we are all dirty sinners that deserve an eternity of torture. That includes the little goody two shoes kid who (depending on your theology) died shortly after reaching the age of accountability. Yeah, he tossed his broccoli under the table that day in the restaurant, and he didn't share with his sister that other day, and he had a little tantrum a few times when he was small. Oh, and he didn't figure out that he needed to adopt a certain particular religion that he may or may not have been taught by his parents or in a certain church. Yeah, he doesn't deserve mercy. He deserves to burn forever for his transgressions. Thumbelina, this is as cold and heartless as the threats of your god. You are taught essentially this as a xian, but take away the meme and it is a horrible, horrible thing to say that Joe Average deserves an eternity of torture with no mercy.

Thumbelina: I know what I said. What is mercy? 2 definitions are:

1.a refraining from harming or punishing offenders, enemies, persons in one's power, etc.; kindness in excess of what may be expected or demanded by fairness; forbearance and compassion

2. imprisonment rather than the death penalty imposed on those found guilty of capital crimes

We are sinners and we received a pardon and that means we are guilty; you said it via the bible verse you quoted, we come short of God's glory, we are naturally selfish. Some of Christianity may (mistakenly in some cases) teach that God is a torturer but the bible does not teach that! God winks at sins of ignorance, also God looks at the PATTERN of someones life, Moses the meekest man save Jesus, got angry with the Israelites when they almost reached the promised land; God did not let him enter into the physical Canaan (to teach him and the people he was leading a lesson) but Moses repented and God accepted him. As I said before everyone is given a measure of faith and God will judge them based on what they allowed Him to do with it.

February 24, 2011

[Part 2]

Thumbelina said: In a sinful and dangerous world the man is supposed to PROTECT the woman and not harm her.

ShackledNoMore said: And what happens if/when he does harm her?

Thumbelina: He's not obeying God and will pay for it if he does not repent. God comforts the hurting who cry out to Him and He also commands His disciples to comfort the afflicted.

ShackledNoMore said: She may have made such a vow, but my whole point is that she also could have made a vow to fast for one meal or something equally innocuous. Since the husband's veto power is unrestricted, a better question is "What if a wife makes a vow to fast for one meal ...

Thumbelina said: If a husband restricted that then he would be what I call a Nabal (fool) of a husband; he would be an overbearing man.

ShackledNoMore said: Yes, yes! Nabals abound,

Thumbelina: Yes they do!

ShackledNoMore said: ... and they are still have authority over the wife under biblical law. Your bible passages say for the wife to submit to the husband AND for the husband to love the wife. It doesn't let one spouse off the hook because the other doesn't follow the biblical command.

Thumbelina: Shack, we are made in God's image and He gave us the ability to think even though we degenerated a lot. We are to obey God rather than men (in other words, put God first) and as far as it is possible with the wife, she should live peaceably with her husband. The passage is talking about a reciprocal GODLY relationship but Christianity also teaches GRACE. By exhibiting grace (not taking abuse, a wife needs to get out if that is the case) she may sanctify her wayward husband.

Thumbelina said: God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

ShackledNoMore said: If women are so addle minded that they do not even have the capacity to keep from harming themselves and their loved ones, then how are you able to debate these things with me more effectively than the average xian on this site, including the men, who are the ones who are actually supposed to be allowed to teach? You know that women are not that stupid and that the judgement of men is not so vastly superior.

Thumbelina: (This portion relates to the topic we strayed away from) I said TEMPORARY. I am also talking about the culture back then. In some of those strange cultures people made oaths a lot, women TEND to be very emotional and can sometimes be gullible and maybe some addle minded single women were already making their own lives more difficult through oaths and God wanted a little stability until they could do better. Even today we tend to stereotype certain people even though it is wrong but the behavior of most of the people that one encounters may make it seem true. I've had to deal with women who tended to make a person say "Oy Vey!!!! My friend who is a secular tell-it-like-it-is sorta gal, once said" I need to get out of here before I choke one of these women!" It was funny (she won't harm anyone) because the women were difficult whereas the men tended not to be and when I did encounter a basically assertive (not arrogant) and friendly woman I complimented her for it. Now, if you see a lot of addle minded females in modern society, could you imagine what it was like back then? They had constant battles/wars and confusion plus they needed to be taught about the repercussions of sin. Women are doing better today because of the Judeo/Christian ethic of God creating male AND female in His image and Christ really drove that home when He was so kind to women.

OK I'm speechless here, I usually get only ad hominems and insults from skeptics so a compliment is strange to see. Women can teach, they are not supposed to dominate and some women can be so utterly obnoxious and it just does something to them. I think if Hitler and those other dictators were female they would have killed twice as many people as the men.

Thumbelina said: You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself when you said: " This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself ..."

ShackledNoMore said: Whoa! I made no such concession! I said the verse includes certain vows. Now we may have discussed the "oath to afflict the soul" phrase, where I may or may not have made such a concession, but we did not.

Thumbelina: We did discuss it, here's the quote:

"Let me rephrase: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time,This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day."

The professor whom I quoted had mentioned the vow may include sexual abstinence and you did not think so but you did say that it was a vow to afflict herself.

ShackledNoMore said: ... or to cook healthier meals for her family?"

Thumbelina said: As aforementioned, it was a vow to afflict HERSELF. Besides, Israelite meals were basically healthy;

ShackledNoMore said: Even as I was typing that I was thinking that this is more applicable to modern culture than to the Israeli culture of the time, but the husband is still the head of the house: that did not change between testaments. Wouldn't this apply in a timely manner today?

Thumbelina: What are you talking about?

Thumbelina said: *mischievous grin* You know there's a double standard with that? If the woman is gassy the husband can't kick her out of the bed and he has to put up with it but if the man is gassy then it will be 'Ugh, you stink, you have to sleep on the couch!' Vetoing that vow will help the husband breathe well. lol

ShackledNoMore said: Where did THAT double standard come from? I was not aware of it!

Thumbelina: From a teeny, tiny imp in my head that I need to exorcise.

Thumbelina said: I was saying that in a Godly home roles can work and the husband can be the priest of the home. As long as the wife is treated well she will be happy to submit to her husband and allow him to lead.

ShackledNoMore said: Pity that's an xian mandate. I for one, don't want to be married to a puppy dog, I want to be married to an equal. I can see where a lot of women would want to be married to an equal rather than a master, even one who treats her well. I don't know about biblegod, but I appreciate equality in a marriage.

Thumbelina: I said in a Godly home; maybe I should have said a TRULY Godly home. I did not say the woman is not equal, she's just different.

Thumbelina said: As I said in my previous post, God got all the bases covered

ShackledNoMore:But when he explicitly puts women under submission to men, whether the man is selfless and loving, as he should be, well intentioned but merely stupid, or maliciously sadistic, how is this covering all the bases? How are all the bases covered for women that are battered, sometimes even killed by abusive husbands because they follow the biblical edict of submission to their husbands?

Thumbelina said: What I meant by He got His bases covered it was in the context of preventing women from going on strike and abstaining from having intimate relations with their husbands and decreasing the chances of the Messiah being born or being born in a Godly home and saving MANY; No Messiah, no salvation.

ShackledNoMore said: Then it looks like God has a few more bases he needs to cover. Let's start with protections against women getting the tar beat out of them by abusive husbands. Husbands who are larger than their wives, aggressive, with a more testosterone laden physique. Let's start with some better recourse for these women if that happens. Looks like god has his priorities messed up. Moreover, xians believe that the messiah was born of a virgin. Looks like any policy intended to keep men from getting cut off so that the messiah could be procreated was all for nought.

Thumbelina: God has His commandments and throughout history people kept breaking them if people had done this : 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. " 2 Chronicles 7:14 then relationships between man and wife would be perfect. Those things happened as a consequence of sin. The Jews followed a matriarchal line when determining Jewish Heritage, even Christopher Hitchens knows this.

Thumbelina said: In churches today, there tends to be more women than men and a number of these women are unequally yolked with unbelievers and some of these men are horrible, they lie, they cheat, they may verbally abuse the women and in that case the believing woman is the priest of the home. If the husband then becomes a believer and is then converted then He can become the priest of the home. God did and does look at individual situations and He is merciful; it was/is important for a couple to submit to God and that way there will be harmony in the home and more importantly, salvation and eternal life.

ShackledNoMore said: Then how come the divorce rate in marriages of these godly christians (evangelical christians) is 34% while the divorce rate of marriages of godless atheists is 21%?

Thumbelina: Atheists are a minority group and SOME love to shack up apparently, so less of them are married. I once had a guy tell me that atheists don't believe in marriage because marriage is holy matrimony and atheists don't believe in God. Maybe they need to get civil unions for atheists? As I said Christians need to follow the council in 2 Chronicles 7:14 then their marriages will work.

Atheist marriages can work because : For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Rom 2:14,15 or maybe some have open marriages (negotiated infidelity) where each spouse is given permission to cheat, I think I saw that on National Geographic Channel on a show called taboo.

Thumbelina said: You and your wife are living in a different time and culture; you two are not hoping to produce a Messiah, He came already.

ShackledNoMore said: ...Born of a virgin, so the tale goes, as I mentioned above. I'm afraid that explanation is not valid.

Thumbelina: I meant the line that can produce the Messiah.

February 24, 2011

Before I waste time reading about what god does, doesn't, and says, prove he exists. I wouldn't waste time reading about the easter bunny's antics either.

One tiny shred, one crumb, anything, and I'll read all your ramblings.

February 24, 2011

[Part 3]

Thumbelina said: You know before I became a Christian I couldn't stand David, actually even after I became a Christian I still could not stand him but to err is human and I'm not perfect so who am I to judge.

ShackledNoMore said: This suggests to me that you were not a young child when you converted, and you knew something of the bible before you did. Am I right? Being familiar enough with the bible to dislike David it seems odd to me that you would come to see the glass as half full, as you suggested somewhere else. I don't want to trigger your sharing your testimony, especially here in the Colosseum as opposed to the Lion's Den, but I am curious what did it for you.

Thumbelina: I met God at about the age of six and I literally had this experience: "7“But ask the animals, and they will teach you or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;

8or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Job 12:6,7. My heart was open and God entered my heart and I knew He loved me so much and I loved Him too. I used to talk with God, I know you will say 'It was a child's imagination' but that's your opinion. I hardly ever went to church, I only went to a protestant church once in a while, I was so shy and did not like church. I basically took God's love for granted though, I knew I would have to find a religion that taught God's word and I was looking around at religions and people's behavior.

Where I lived there were a lot of irreligious people and there was some jealousies especially among trifling females; people wanted to compete with others by showing off whatever material possessions they had. There was a good bit of sexual immorality and a lot of people liked to shack up, there were also married people but the norm was the good wives or partners stay home and be faithful to the men in their lives while the men ran around and cheated on them with the immoral women.The women were hurt emotionally and I suppose psychologically and sometimes physically. One woman was almost stabbed by the husband of a woman who was having an affair with the woman who was almost stabbed, husband. People would know who is cheating with whom and would condone the behavior and even smile with the person being cheated on even though they knew what was going on. The men were so audacious that they would want their wives to cook for their friends and even for the woman they were cheating with. They would even dare to introduce these women to their wives as just friends.

People loved to hang out and drink alcohol and smoke; there were scantily clad, indecent girls around and there was gutter language, some men would badger (sexually) a retarded girl till she walked funny, that was evidence of what they did. You would smell weed occasionally and there was an instance when I was really under aged where a thirty something year old neighbor was cat calling me and wanted me to go to him; I told my mom who then told my dad and I think my dad said "I'll kill him". I came to find out later that a man whom I did not like showed his private parts to a very young person in my family and he was married with a lot of kids. All of those things distressed me and my heart yearned for the love and goodness that I know God had. N.B. some of what I wrote is not written chronologically, I'm remembering my feelings and subjective experiences.

In my school we would get occasional bible instruction classes and sometimes I escaped going and sometimes I didn't. Later on in that school one of my teachers was a godly (not Christian) woman who had such a beautiful personality and she shared her moral beliefs with us and it was like kismet, she told us what fornication was and that girls needed to be decent (It was an all girls school) and about God's commandments and I was so happy, I was like yes, yes I knew it was true. In hindsight I realize it was the HS leading me. The teacher had mentioned a book that taught some of what she was saying and some of us brought money and let her buy one for us and I read it and I liked the morality it taught. My mother had a huge bible with pictures in it and I used to have a lot of questions, this was before I met that teacher, by the time I met the teacher I could read the bible but not those hard hard words, like those funny biblical names, still can't. The teacher got me more interested in religion but I did not feel compelled to want to join her religion. It was the HS again, I now know that her religion is a cult. However, I was glad she taught me what good morals were from a Godly perspective. While I was in that teacher's class a friend came and confided to me that her step father was molesting her and I told her to go tell the teacher; the teacher shooed us out of class in order to talk with my friend but I never knew what came of that.

I knew a man who was a compulsive liar and suffice it to say, my view of men was not good, I saw men as basically lying cheats who do not care about women and who only cared about satisfying their private parts. What really disgusted me was when I found out that my uncle's wife's sister's husband cheated on her and gave her AIDS, my reaction was deep anger, I was like "I would have killed him, I was not waiting for no AIDS to take him out!" From an intellectual perspective I had known that God had put those rules to protect people's physical and emotional health and now I know it's for their spiritual well-being too. There was a promiscuous lady who drank and smoked and she was drunk one night and she smothered her young grandchild to death by rolling on the child while they were both sleeping. There was a man who hacked -- either 3 or 4 of -- his children to bits and then set their house on fire. There was just things that I saw that made me yearn for God and His rules.

Anyway, some things that I saw in the bible did make me annoyed like polygamy, for what I was witnessing around me was how bad it was with these men running around on these good women. When I saw this text : "... and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." in the bible it did agree with what I was witnessing. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart did confuse me and David, the womanizer, I did not like, killing a man for his wife when he already had so many wives. My little heart was open to the HS and I was hungering and thirsting after righteousness so I was able to defer judgment until I can understand more of the word. It would seem I just knew what was true and what not to follow and how not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In hindsight I know there is no way I could have known those things, this is what happened to me: Blessed art thou, ... : for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 16:17 http://bible.cc/matthew/16-17.htm .

They say that confession is good for the soul but not the reputation but this was my train of thought during that time, I wanted church because I did not want to associate with all the immoral secularists I had been observing and I thought they were going to hell, I heard about hell from my relatives and everyone thought that it was a place where wicked people would burn forever. My thinking was that I knew I wasn't going there because God had already told me that He loved me. BTW though the people around me were basically secular, there were a few weird religions and some of the popular ones too and I had one religionist around me who wanted to bully us into going to church and that person was well, not very nice; I thought the person was a sort of a warden and it further buttressed my belief that men weren't too nice or wanted to dominate but somehow I knew he had nothing to do with a loving God, I did not blame God for his behavior. I must say there were some nice people around too, but the not so nice ones were very loud and noticeable.

I felt God's leading before I joined a church and I eventually joined a protestant church where one is encouraged to think and study and a few years ago I started going through the bible more and I got so close to Jesus and I'm understanding more about the gospel of grace and I'm also understanding more about what happened in the OT. So you see I would have been an unlikely candidate to follow the bible if I truly thought it was teaching men to mistreat women. It shows God meeting some pig headed men where they were at. I came into the Christian church not comprehending that I was a sinful person; I needed/need to be deprogrammed and it does take time. I also believe the biblical prophecies are accurate and I am also understanding more of the spiritual lessons it teaches. As I was getting closer to God I was also experiencing little miracles and answers to prayer, it's as if it were His way of encouraging me.

As of late, I am learning more about the gospel of grace and I NEED to learn to embrace and apply the spirit of the law in my life. Being a Christian now, I now know that I should not have had that type of attitude toward the people from my past.

Thumbelina said: I do remember reading in the bible (forgive me but I don't remember where right now) that women could not inherit property and there was a case where a man had only daughters and the man died and they might have lost their livelihood so they pleaded their case and was granted the property.

ShackledNoMore said: Yes, I remember that, too. I just had to look it up. Are you referring to the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11? Although refreshing, there was still a little cloud that went along with the silver lining. In chapter 36 they were constrained to marry within the tribe of Manasseh to prevent tribal land from changing hands.

Thumbelina: Yes I was. It was part of the culture, even today arranged marriages may work out better than traditional marriages because they are built on principle and not on infatuation which wanes and then divorce comes.

ShackledNoMore said: Some areas that come immediately to mind:

He was kind of prissy cursing the fig tree.

ShackledNoMore said: In a display of bigotry, he called a Samaritan woman a dog in Matthew 15 and she had to grovel for him to heal her daughter.

ShackledNoMore said: Jesus had a wonderful opportunity to condemn the detestable institution of slavery, but he held his silence. 2000 years later slavery was still defended under the cross.

Thumbelina: He was teaching a spiritual lesson; the Jewish nation had been given chance after chance to get their act together and they rejected the Messiah, the wise men from the East knew of the Messiah but they didn't. That text was really a prophecy and an object lesson.

I am a woman and I realize He was not being a bigot. It's like a parent teaching squabbling children a lesson. It's reverse psychology, picture having children picking on a kid because they are fat and the parent over hears them, the parents talk to them and explain how that is unkind. A really obese person comes to the house on day selling something and the kids are there. After the person leaves the parent says 'so you're gonna call that person "fats"?' Their response would be oh no, oh no it is not nice to call people names.The parent would have taught them a lesson. Don't forget the jews were quite bigoted against Samaritans, they called them dogs and unfortunately Jesus was deprogramming them from that mindset and when Jesus called that woman puppy, not dog, he was testing those disciples as well as making the woman give an outward display of how badly she wanted her petitions answered. That too was also a profound object lesson for Christians; we need to DILIGENTLY seek God.

Thumbelina said: In the OT, for a time they were under a theocracy and the people still rebelled with God right there! So you see people who say ' Oh if I see a miracle, I will believe or serve God.' No they won't, they generally won't because they don't want to submit to God so the novelty of a miracle will wane.

ShackledNoMore said: I don't know any other way to say this, but that's preposterous. I believe Barack Obama exists because I have evidence. The stories in the bible are just stories: there was never any observable god on the scene. If biblegod gave proof of his existence of course I would believe, and I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on this site would believe, too. I am a better person not believing in biblegod. As per our discussion, I don't have to think that women are subordinate to me. I don't have to think that those with other religious beliefs are heathen sinners while I know the ultimate truth. I don't have to believe that gays are an abomination. I don't have to believe that slavery is OK or ever could be OK. Why would I want to not believe so that I would not have to submit to a god if the god was actually good?

Thumbelina: The bible says so and the amount of rationalizing that people do because they don't want to take up their crosses and follow Jesus (deny their lustful inclinations) really shows that is true. Even the devils believe, so what? http://bible.cc/james/2-19.htm

As I said, in the OT the people had miracles and they still apostatized.

The bible also says: A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. http://bible.cc/luke/16-31.htm

The bible says that when Jesus raised Lazarus the people were so blinded by jealousy that they even wanted to kill Lazarus to destroy the evidence; all they wanted to do was follow their own inclinations!

The bible says that the carnal mind is enmity against God, people who are bent on being carnally minded will not and cannot follow God.

Thumbelina said: Context my friend, context! In the OT there's an incident recorded where the man was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath but that man was OPENLY rebellious because the Israelites were actual witnesses to God's presence. If God did not get rid of such an arrogant, presumptuous person then others would have followed in his stead and that was a deterrent to others who may have wanted to do the same.

ShackledNoMore said: So I should put my rebellious son to death (as commanded by the bible) for defiantly marking up the wall with crayons while I was present in the room? That would sure teach my other kid not to do the same! He was merely picking up sticks, for crying out loud, and no there is not a fundamental difference in that comparison. In fact, there's reason not to mark up the wall with crayons beyond just "because I said so." I can't fathom how you see a god portrayed this way as merciful in the face of such egregious barbarism.

Thumbelina: No that analogy does not fit. It's more like if you had a grown son who acquired flesh eating bacteria of his own choosing and then he was deliberately trying to spread it after you warned him again and again. That man would have been doing a sort of non verbal peer pressure if God had not stopped him; just look at how fast the people rebelled with the golden calf fiasco.

Thumbelina said: What if there is a really debilitating virus that is going around in a community and your wife, and let's say her sisters, had a really aggressive strain of the virus and you were the only one that had a serum that could stabilize the disease and prolonged treatment will eventually eradicate the disease? The disease makes people irrational and even violent. What if all of a sudden one of your wife's sisters decided that she was not going to take the serum anymore and she eventually made her way in the community where she intended to kill as many people as she can and infect whomever she can? She is about to kill some people, should she be "taken out" in order to prevent a catastrophe?

ShackledNoMore said: That is not a parallel comparison. If a guy were entering the town square with spears and armor to mass murder as many people as possible and god (or a swat team member, or even some guy on the scene, for that matter) took him out, then it would be different. The human race will not self destruct because some guy picked up sticks. Have you ever jaywalked, or driven 5 mph over the speed limit? Do you think you should have been executed for your transgression? After all, you broke the law, willfully. Does evil now abound because you were not executed? Remember, we're talking about a civil penalty prescribed for this offense.

Thumbelina: I know it can't be a parallel comparison, we're dealing with God here; it's an analogy. Yes evil would have abounded, sin is like a fast moving Cancer, it grows and infects the whole body (church). If one part is cancerous the cancer must be eradicated and God will decide who has the cancer. We're are talking about rebelling against the Almighty, the Israelites were under a theocracy. Also the bible says that those things were to teach us Christians an examples http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

ShackledNoMore said: I would think the biblical husband would simply forbid that in the spirit of family harmony. Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Thumbelina said: Taking texts out of contexts in order to hang on to unbelief?

ShackledNoMore said: There's two issues here. First, lest we lose site of this, the bible is a book of myth. The OT is composed of parables and stories. I don't know for sure whether or not you are a literalist, but there was no creation 6000 years ago and there was no global flood. This is not difficult to prove. Yes, I said prove. Therefore, my debate about the bible is merely an exercise for me. I am meeting you on your turf, so to speak. There is no need for me to alter my interpretation of "the good book" to protect any non-belief. It would be interesting to ask you to attempt to show that the bible indeed provides the Ultimate TruthTM, but that has not been within the scope of this conversation.

ShackledNoMore said: Second, as I pointed out above, the decree for husbands to love their wives does not absolve the wife of the duty to obey her husband whether he fulfills his responsibility or not! If you have been driving over the speed limit, it does NOT make it OK for me to drive recklessly! If the husband does not love his wife or "submit himself to her" (I suppose this means commit to her with her best interests at heart since he is given authority over her), even though he is told to do so, it does NOT make it OK for the wife to disobey him. Nor does it make it OK for the man to abandon his responsibility because his wife does not obey him. Where does it say that? Then I have not taken it out of context.

Thumbelina: The bible is a book of myth to ShackledNoMore, there, I finished your sentence

I believe what the bible says. You cannot prove anything, it's all based on faith, it was not observable, demonstrable, repeatable, science has been wrong myriads of times (like recommending smoking for emphysema) and I believe (know based on my personal experiences with God and therefore trust His word) that they are wrong about the age of the earth; that is my faith. I don't care to go into that so anybody who wants to go into that can go to the former agnostics/atheists on www.creation.com and see what they say about it. Thank you for at least being able to be objective about the biblical teachings. I can't prove the bible to anybody especially if their heart is not open but if you ever open your heart then the bible says : taste and see that the LORD is good http://bible.cc/psalms/34-8.htm

I beg to differ, you did take it out of context, you are not supposed to build a doctrine from only one text. Christ is responsible for mankind, He is our Creator and He gave His life for us. Christ's commandments are meant to protect His bride (the church) so wives are supposed to obey their husbands in the Lord. Come on man, e.g. if a husband wanted to sneak around and have a threesome with some pagan prostitute the wife is supposed to say "I must obey God rather than man (her husband)". Surely you know that God comes first in any relationship? The commandments state it explicitly. God holds husbands responsible for their families; when Adam and Eve sinned Adam was questioned, husbands need to take good care of their wives and wives should respect them and live peaceably with them as far as they can. If the husband is being abusive she needs to distance herself.

February 24, 2011

[Part 4]

Thumbelina said: Digusting? No. Crazy? Definitely. I think atheism, the sin, is disgusting but I love the atheists, the people.

ShackledNoMore said: Glad to hear that you love me, Thumb. I love you, too, I suppose, at least in an abstract dispassionate xenial sense, or perhaps in certain respects, an abstract dispassionate philial sense. At least I don't think you deserve to spend eternity in hell but for the grace of your god.

Thumbelina: D'uh of course I love you guys, wanting you to go to heaven and live eternally is love. I will spend eternity in the fire but it won't be hell to me because I would have surrendered to Jesus. His Holy fire (presence) will burn up the wicked people and they will eventually be reduced to ashes.

Thumbelina said: Apparently plenty of scavengers are tasty but that does not mean one should eat them. If they were healthy then God would have put them in the clean meat category but He didn't so ...

ShackledNoMore said: Scavenger: an organism that typically feeds on refuse or carrion

I hate to break this to you, but rabbits are NOT scavengers. They are herbivores. It looks like this next tidbit might send you on your road to apostasy: rabbit is a white meat, low in fat, low in calories, and low in sodium and cholesterol. It is about as healthy a meat as you can get. I dug up a link here and here. Now, it turns out that rabbits are healthy and god didn't put them in the clean meat category. Uh oh. Apparently "God" also thinks that rabbits chew their cud, a factual error found in Leviticus 11:6.

Thumbelina: I was abrupt, if you look at one of my previous posts you will see that I said scavengers and rabbits ... . I know that rabbits are not scavengers but according to God their meat is somehow toxic, as I said before, I think they gnawed on their fecal matter. Careful reading of the texts will show that the clean animals chewed the cud AND had split hooves (vs 3), like the cow; the bible even gives specific examples of unclean animals that did not have both those qualities in the suceeding texts.

Lev 11: 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Thumbelina said: Is your father-in-law an atheist?

ShackledNoMore said: I took the answer to be irrelevant, but I will tell you in a minute.

Thumbelina: Based on biblical promises that I believe in I did not think so.

ShackledNoMore said: The relevant thing is that it would have been a demonstration, actually proof of your god's existence if my father were walking around today. I can assure you, this conversation would have taken a very different turn if that had happened. I would be the most passionate defender of biblegod's existence on this board! Contrary to your assumptions, I look at hard facts, and I think that would have filled the bill. If you truly believe that god regenerates these body parts, the least you could have done is pray that his leg grows back. Believe me, a documented, verifiable instance of a leg growing back would be good for many, many converts.

Thumbelina: Constantine apparently saw a miracle and the pagans flocked into the church and look at what happened, the church became a blend of Christianity and paganism therefore they are not truly worshiping God the way God wants; there is idolatry in the churches, they even adopted a lot of the pagan holidays. The devils can perform supernatural acts but not even them can make a leg grow, they can perform some seeming miracles that will FOOL anyone who does not have a complete dependence on God.

ShackledNoMore said: Now, if it matters, my father-in-law, like most people, is a theist. Specifically, he is catholic. I don't know what you think about catholics, but if we could find an amputee that has beliefs similar to yours, or an atheist amputee, whichever you think is more suitable, I would be equally satisfied, provided I could verify it and have a way of knowing for sure that there was not deception or fraud involved, although I don't know who the ideal amputee would be if believers are left to live with this thorn in their side and atheists are left to will their own legs back into existence.

Thumbelina: God can heal anyone who has faith in Him even if the person is an atheist but then opens his heart. You're funny, I am surprised you did not go ad hominem on me for what I wrote; I'm used to agnostics being the calm ones. Atheists are basically modern day tower of babel builders, they think they have everything in control but the believer has a hope to receive a glorified body in the resurrection. Though, before the end of time there will be a revival with miracles.

February 25, 2011

Before I waste time reading about what god does, doesn't, and says, prove he exists. I wouldn't waste time reading about the easter bunny's antics either.

One tiny shred, one crumb, anything, and I'll read all your ramblings.

Well, Florduh, I read through the posts and here is the evidence I found could be extracted from what I read:

He said "Jesus could you please tell my brother to take his medication?" and right at that moment his brother just got up and went to the kitchen and took his medicine. That started that man's relationship with Jesus and today the guy is a Christian.

Another Muslim wanted to convert and her Muslim father got mad and was about to punch her in the face and an unseen force held him back from doing it so all he could do was spit at her.

You did say a crumb, didn't you? Then again, I've heard anecdotes about the Easter Bunny that'll knock your socks off!

I must say discussing the bible with a christian feels vaguely like discussing "the historical record" with a Thermian (Galaxy Quest).

Anyway, @Thumbelina, I will reply, but given how long this thing has become and that I'm not the speediest member on the board, it will take awhile.

February 25, 2011

The first thing I read from thumblina was "The messages may SEEM mixed to us "

well that was it for mr

same old dribble

the bible doesn't actually say what it says you see.........

oh well

March 2, 2011

Well, Florduh, I read through the posts and here is the evidence I found could be extracted from what I read:

What do you mean Florduh? Florduh is Par's alter ego? Please say it ain't so!

March 2, 2011

Atheists are basically modern day tower of babel builders, they think they have everything in control but the believer has a hope to receive a glorified body in the resurrection. Though, before the end of time there will be a revival with miracles.

And what if we don't want a glorified body in the resurrection? What if we couldn't think of anything worse than spending eternity with douches like yourself? Your god is not in control either sweetheart. Wake up and smell the coffee.

March 2, 2011

As far as I can tell, reading the bible as a unified document was a rule only set out by christian theology. One could read the bible how he/she wants really.

Just my two cents about anything regarding contexts.

March 3, 2011

Part 1a:

¹The messages may SEEM mixed to us but the closer one gets to God then one sees that God is love. There are commands to kill others but... emphasis mine ²--- "Where There Is No Love There Is No Justice". You don't see rules in there where if a person lies on another person and accuses them of a crime worthy of death that the accuser had to stone the accused? I think that right there, though it seems barbaric to us, was a MAJOR deterrent from people bearing false witness against their neighbor. There are also cities of refuge in the bible where people (whether Israelite or stranger) could run to if they killed someone or hurt someone by accident. A long time ago, I read that Israelite justice system was set up in such a way as to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. There are also places where a newly wed man who was supposed to be fighting battles can have an entire year off with his sweetie (wife).

³We are selfish sinners and God could have eradicated the human race but He didn't; He gave us a shot at redemption. There is love and mercy in both testaments and there is a lot of wrath (righteous indignation) in both testaments.

These are classic rationalizations made by people in an abusive relationship--the only difference being that the abusive partner is real and god is not. The pattern of the argument is even the same: ¹My husband may SEEM harsh, but if you were only close to him like I am you'd see how much he loves me. He does have to hit me sometimes to keep me in line, but ² if he didn't love me so much he wouldn't care enough to correct me. He is a fair and reasonable man because <insert several reasons here, and provisions to argue that he makes the relationship a good one>. ³The truth is, I really deserve much worse than I get, but my man is kind, patient, and very forgiving.

The fact is, the god of the bible frequently zapped the thunderbolts himself before there was an opportunity for his people to enact social justice (or not). According to xian doctrine, he will zap the ultimate thunderbolt at the vast majority of people who have ever lived by mercifully torturing them eternally instead of doing something else, say letting them cease to exist.

ShackledNoMore said: Of course the edict [Lev. 19:18] is limited to one's own fellow Israelites.

Thumbelina said: No, the edict was not limited to only fellow Israelites. There were other people that were adopted into the fold ---> Num 9:14; Ex 12 48, 49 http://www.biblegate...,49&version=KJV . God promised to bless ALL nations through His chosen people ( http://www.biblegate...:18&version=KJV Gen 12:3; 22:18 ; they were supposed to be evangelists AND produce the Messiah). The adoptees had to follow the same rules as the Israelites.

ShackledNoMore said: It is limited to fellow Israelites! Reread that verse. It directly specifies those among your own people. You make the case, citing other verses that the law also immigrants and visitors. Fine. It does not erase all the direction from biblegod to obliterate the Israelites' enemies. It remains tribal, ethnocentric. It also stands along side the harsh mandates for punishments of minor offenses.

Thumbelina: No it is not! You do know in order to form a doctrine and to understand scripture one has to compare scripture with scripture, right? One also needs to look at the bible thematically (John 3:16 is the sum of the bible), contextually, culturally, grammatically etc. http://bible.cc/isaiah/28-10.htm so that one can get the big picture. One is NOT supposed to take only one verse and form a doctrine out of it. Following the biblical model for how to understand it also helps to prevent wresting the scripture to ones destruction and it also prevents fanaticism. That being said, please look at the cross references to Lev. 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm and you will see that it means your neigh brother, neighbor, be it an Israelite or not.

No, I do not understand that you need to look in Matthew or Romans to frame the intent of guidance given in the Torah. The bible was not inspired by a deity with a consistent message, it was compiled from a conglomeration of sources, each having somewhat different goals and agendas. It was up to editors to make certain decisions according to their own agendas, such as what became cannon. Read the bible thematically, contextually, culturally, grammatically, etc. and that should show. As the bible was redacted from multiple sources, often for the same book, inconsistencies and contradictions remained. Forming doctrine out of a single verse? Scripture is usually interpreted or emphasized to support the doctrine of the sect.

ShackledNoMore said: Lev 19 is relatively nice as OT chapters go. Focusing on the theme of about two-thirds of the chapter of treating others nicely, vs. 33-34 still really address visitors/immigrants. Let's not forget what Joshua did to all the nations not in biblegod's little clique, on the bible god's orders.

Thumbelina: Ah *grin* Joshua? The lesson learned from that was ----> http://bible.cc/acts/14-22.htm "Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." We are on a spiritual journey from spiritual Egypt to the spiritual Heavenly Canaan and we will have persecutions from the heathens and the prince of this world who are dominant in this world at the moment. Our spiritual fight tends to come in the form of resisting the things of this transient world and at times, standing up for God's word in a non violent way.

Actually, it was his endless massacres and conquests of the indigenous non-Israeli people I had in mind.

Re: Lev. 19:19 on mixing seed, livestock, and fabrics:

Thumbelina: Didn't you look at the commentaries? Here's an excerpt:

...

There were some strange and immoral things going on there and the pagans indulged in bestiality so I guess God did not want those deviant behaviors among his people. A couple of months ago I heard that a person reported their goat missing (not in the USA) and when the police tracked it down they caught a 14 year old boy having sex with the goat; they killed the goat. So, I am like, 'why did they kill the goat, wasn't the goat the victim?' then I thought about it and realized that that goat was perverted and spoiled and it will continue to try to have sexual relations with humans.

Yes, I looked at the commentaries. The one you included was a good example. For mixing fabrics the conclusion was that god had some secret moral reason why it was wrong. For mixing seeds, the commentator erroneously seemed to think that it was necessarily bad farming practice, when in fact, there are benefits planting properly choses plant species in alternating rows. Mixing livestock, I guess is just perverted. Well, look at all those lascivious cockapoo breeders and their perverted bestiality orgies!

Did you just blame the GOAT for getting raped by some adolescent????? You think that the GOAT will go around seducing young farm hands????? This was the boy's doing--the goat had no more to do with this than my last rabbit had to do with becoming dinner on my table. Please be careful on how you justify some things--it can lead to some pretty nasty stuff in god's name.

ShackledNoMore said: I do acknowledge that the god of the bible is lenient in some cases. Don't get to happy about this concession, though, because I would also point out that his leniency can be rather arbitrary. He seems to have no problem over some very ghastly things in the OT, while he zaps others for the most minor of transgressions. The thief next to Jesus at his crucifixion got a lot of leniency, too. On the other hand, a heroic skeptic who sacrifices his life to save another will instantly be rewarded with an eternity in the flames of hell for his non-belief and not proclaiming Jesus as his lord. This is not a good thing.

Thumbelina: The wages of sin, any sin, is death. Sin is a malignant cancer and we know that cancers tend to grow rapidly. You are not God so you cannot determine if the sin was minor.

Neither were the fabricators who conjured up the god-myth. We see the OT god, time after time, treating acts like a minor procedural transgression in a ceremony, touching the ark to save it from toppling onto the ground, picking up sticks, etc. as a major sin while he routinely overlooks mass murder. I can, you can, and everyone else on this thread can correctly determine that the "sin" (or crime, misdeed, atrocity, immoral act, etc.) of cold blooded murder is worse than the crime of jaywalking (to use a modern day example).

Heroic skeptic on the other hand may be full of pride and only want the praise of men:

You are inventing motives for heroic skeptic, and not terribly plausible ones. I promise you, if I ever sacrifice my own life to save someone else's, it will not be so that people will say nice things about me at my wake!

March 3, 2011

Part 1b:

Thumbelina: D'uh of course I love you guys, wanting you to go to heaven and live eternally is love. I will spend eternity in the fire but it won't be hell to me because I would have surrendered to Jesus. His Holy fire (presence) will burn up the wicked people and they will eventually be reduced to ashes.

ShackledNoMore: Still, I don't particularly subscribe to your definition of love.

Thumbelina: It matters not what you subscribe to, God's word is objectively true. Yes, you are familiar with the different types of love and the bible does go into more details with those but the last six commandments are the letter of the law. Fallen beings tend not to understand the spirit of the law.

We've danced around that a bit, me mentioning that the bible is a mythology, you contending that it is objectively true. We're slowly coming closer to tackling that directly, I think that it probably needs to be, but it is also such a tangent that it deserves its own topic. You would have a much tougher job on such a topic--it takes tremendous mental gymnastics to defend the bible as inerrant and objectively true.

As for love, naturally, Greek and Hebrew have different words for love. The cherished concept of Agápe love that christians are so enamored with is more infused by the classical Greek pagans than the ancient Hebrews, who are said to have worshipped the same god that is found in the New Testament.

Under the quasi-anonymity of the Internet, I will share an anecdote of a rather personal nature with you. It was a Sunday. I left the house to walk down to a local fundy church for services. My grandfather, who was catholic, asked me sadly if I was going to the other church. As I walked to the church, my mind was filled with (what I believed was) the reality that my grandfather would spend an eternity burning in exquisite, unrelenting agony. I ducked into a bathroom along the route and started crying. I started really crying, agonizing that the grandfather I loved so much was going to be in hell forever. Maybe it was my state, I just didn't think through that walls won't magically block sounds. I started wailing. Some guy popped in on me asking if I was OK. I tried to act as if I were in a normal state, that I didn't have copious tears rolling down my face. "Yes, I'm OK," I said. "Are you sure?" "Yes, yes, I'm fine." I dashed off, and avoided that location after that.

Do you cry yourself to sleep every night in total belief that I, that Phanta, that Par, that Ouroboros, that Webmaster Dave, that so many of the people you see and interact every day, maybe some who you are quite fond of, maybe even some who are close family members are going to agonize forever in a pit of unrelenting fire? If you have rock solid insight that this fate awaits us and you truly love us all, then you should. (Of course this would be hideously abusive to your own sanity--I'm glad that you almost certainly have defense mechanisms in place to spare you from this horror.) If you see a friend smash her finger, and she's in terrible pain, and it's so bad she has to go to the emergency room and get stitches or a cast, and it continues to hurt for weeks, I assume you empathize and feel distraught for your friend to a degree. The difference in pain between plucking a single hair from your head and bearing a child is imperceptible compared to the difference in pain between your friend's smashing her finger and somebody spending an eternity in hell. Why don't you experience that kind of distress knowing the fate of all these people you love? Is it that you don't love them? Is it that you don't really believe? Or do you have defense mechanisms in place to protect your psyche from this kind of horror? It has to be one of them, or a combination.

If I smashed my finger, would you empathize as much as if your best friend smashed his or her finger? You should empathize more with your friend: one cannot bear the pain of the world. Let me reiterate what you said about love: "What is love? If one is good and loyal to one's fellow man it is indeed love. Love is an action word." Sure love manifests itself in actions. (Ugh! "Manifest" is kind of a fundy word. I think I have been talking to you too much! ) But love is not just actions. Love is an emotion. Love is a kinship, a camaraderie. Love involves personally caring for a person. If I give a meal to a hungry stranger in need, I have displayed compassion, empathy, concern, care, kindness, and generosity. There is no kinship.

The first two definitions for love from dictionary.com are:

1.

a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The first definition from merriamwebster.com is "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties."

As you read various lists of dictionary definitions you will find many nuances. The bible is not the authoritative source from whence springs the definition of love.

Fallen beings...

...have no place outside of mythologies such as the one where believers like you are assumed to have insight to the objective truth of their sacred texts.

Moreover, the belief by those who consider themselves privy to the ultimate truth, that those outside their belief system are damned has not worked out well in Western history over the past 2000 years.

Today's golden calf would be soap operas, going to the mall, being on facebook all the time, playing video games ...

Soap operas are not gods. The bible is very clear specifically on the topic of idol worship/worship of competing gods. The bible specifically calls out the competition: gods like baal, astarte, asherah, molech, and chemosh. Folks just didn't draw the wrath of biblegod for engaging in pastimes like they did for worshipping the competition.

I was looking at a show by Christian ex-Muslims a few months ago and this guy was saying that he grew up in a Muslim culture and he did not know about Jesus

That's truly odd, since the muslims consider jesus to be a prophet.

We are sinners and we received a pardon and that means we are guilty

There is little more I can say. You believe that we all deserve infinite punishment for finite transgressions. You believe it is not even possible for a human to be virtuous enough to not be a sinner deserving of infinite torture. You disagree with me that this in not a cruel and horrendous premise to invent a religion on. If you do not recognize how horrible this is, then I can't think of anything more to say about that.

Well, this finishes part 1. The last thing I wanted to do was answer only a portion at a time, because then I'll try to catch up with older portions as I get a little time, but I also don't want to go forever without any replies and then make five or six very long posts. I will get to the other ones later, in order, and answer them first even if you get a reply to this one before I get to parts 2 - 4.

March 4, 2011

Installment 2a:

Thumbelina said: In a sinful and dangerous world the man is supposed to PROTECT the woman and not harm her.

ShackledNoMore said: And what happens if/when he does harm her?

Thumbelina: He's not obeying God and will pay for it if he does not repent. God comforts the hurting who cry out to Him and He also commands His disciples to comfort the afflicted.

Does that mean that none of the three women per day (on average) who die cry out to god? Do the millions of women who continue to be victims of domestic violence bring it upon themselves by not calling out to god? It almost kind of reminds me of the biblical law for death to women who get raped and don't scream (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Thumbelina: Shack, we are made in God's image and He gave us the ability to think even though we degenerated a lot. We are to obey God rather than men (in other words, put God first) and as far as it is possible with the wife, she should live peaceably with her husband. The passage is talking about a reciprocal GODLY relationship but Christianity also teaches GRACE. By exhibiting grace (not taking abuse, a wife needs to get out if that is the case) she may sanctify her wayward husband.

I'm glad you feel that way, it is a reasonable position to acknowledge that a woman should get out of an abusive relationship. You will find a variety of positions on the matter from your fellow christians, though, and members of every camp will jump to defend their respective positions with scripture. Many will key in on the NT: the gospels agree that except in cases of adultery, if you divorce and then remarry, it is adultery (Matthew 19, Mark 10, etc.). The only biblical reasons I can think of that allows divorce are if a man is not happy with his wife and thinks she is "unclean" he may divorce her (Deut. 24:1-2--notice that the man can divorce the wife, but the wife cannot divorce the husband. Notice, too, that this provision for divorce in the OT would run counter to your argument that marriages needed to be protected to maintain a blood line hoping to produce a messiah. For most xians, this is superseded by jesus' rule change in the gospels), certain instances in the OT where men needed to divorce their wives because they were in interracial marriages, or if the non-believing spouse (not the believer) wants to divorce. Any god that inspired the bible would have done a great disservice to humanity by giving such narrow specific guidelines for when divorce is permissible, and not including cases of spousal abuse and physical violence, especially since he knew that many xians would follow the written divorce guidelines verbatim.

Thumbelina said: God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

ShackledNoMore said: If women are so addle minded that they do not even have the capacity to keep from harming themselves and their loved ones, then how are you able to debate these things with me more effectively than the average xian on this site, including the men, who are the ones who are actually supposed to be allowed to teach? You know that women are not that stupid and that the judgement of men is not so vastly superior.

Thumbelina: (This portion relates to the topic we strayed away from) I said TEMPORARY.

Then lets go back to the parent thread to review the "temporary" law:

SNM: Yes, yes! Nabals abound, and they are still have authority over the wife under biblical law. Your bible passages say for the wife to submit to the husband AND for the husband to love the wife. It doesn't let one spouse off the hook because the other doesn't follow the biblical command.

Thumbelina: God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

We both agree that the law we are talking about was that the wife was to submit to the husband and be under his authority, right? When did that get rescinded? The concept is reiterated in the NT.

OK I'm speechless here, I usually get only ad hominems and insults from skeptics so a compliment is strange to see.

Merely credit where due. Some of your xian cohorts who have braved this site could not write a coherent English sentence. I believe that somewhere out there, you have the capacity to apply real thinking skills to the information you have available to you. You might make a good ex-christian (whatever that is). I could not claim to make a persuasive argument if I attacked you as a person rather than your position.

Moving on to other skeptics: No doubt you have received insults and ad homs from some. This is a place of healing for many who have been abused by your xianity, after all. However, I think there are other ex-christians on this site who are kinder in their discussions with believers than I.

Women can teach, they are not supposed to dominate and some women can be so utterly obnoxious and it just does something to them.

1 Timothy 2:11-15: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women[ should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I think if Hitler and those other dictators were female they would have killed twice as many people as the men.

I doubt it. It has been my experience that on average, men are more prone to testosterone laden acts of aggression than women.

March 4, 2011

Installment 2b:

I doubt it. It has been my experience that on average, men are more prone to testosterone laden acts of aggression than women.

Thumbelina said: You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself when you said: " This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself ..."

ShackledNoMore said: Whoa! I made no such concession! I said the verse includes certain vows. Now we may have discussed the "oath to afflict the soul" phrase, where I may or may not have made such a concession, but we did not.

Thumbelina: We did discuss it, here's the quote:

"Let me rephrase: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time,This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day."
The professor whom I quoted had mentioned the vow may include sexual abstinence and you did not think so but you did say that it was a vow to afflict herself.

Change that from "You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself" to "You already conceded that this can include an oath to deny herself" and I will agree with you. But I think we're squabbling over trifles here.

ShackledNoMore said: ... or to cook healthier meals for her family?"

Thumbelina said: As aforementioned, it was a vow to afflict HERSELF. Besides, Israelite meals were basically healthy;

ShackledNoMore said: Even as I was typing that I was thinking that this is more applicable to modern culture than to the Israeli culture of the time, but the husband is still the head of the house: that did not change between testaments. Wouldn't this apply in a timely manner today?

Thumbelina: What are you talking about?

Recall the original context, now lost in antiquity, was that I was making a point that the husband could overrule a vow that the wife made that was in the best interest of the family. This in response to your claim that it was the husbands role to veto vows so that the best interest of the family would be maintained. The example I used was really more relevant to modern times, but the NT still give the man authority over the wife, which presumably includes the authority to override her broccoli casserole with a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Thumbelina said: *mischievous grin* You know there's a double standard with that? If the woman is gassy the husband can't kick her out of the bed and he has to put up with it but if the man is gassy then it will be 'Ugh, you stink, you have to sleep on the couch!' Vetoing that vow will help the husband breathe well. lol

ShackledNoMore said: Where did THAT double standard come from? I was not aware of it!

Thumbelina: From a teeny, tiny imp in my head that I need to exorcise.

March 4, 2011

Installment 2c:

Thumbelina said: I was saying that in a Godly home roles can work and the husband can be the priest of the home. As long as the wife is treated well she will be happy to submit to her husband and allow him to lead.

ShackledNoMore said: Pity that's an xian mandate. I for one, don't want to be married to a puppy dog, I want to be married to an equal. I can see where a lot of women would want to be married to an equal rather than a master, even one who treats her well. I don't know about biblegod, but I appreciate equality in a marriage.

Thumbelina: I said in a Godly home; maybe I should have said a TRULY Godly home. I did not say the woman is not equal, she's just different.

So what's the difference between a Godly home and a TRULY Godly home? The essence of not being equal is where one person is in authority and the other is subservient. Were the slaves "equal but different" from their masters, or was a condition of inequality imposed upon them?

I once had a guy tell me that atheists don't believe in marriage because marriage is holy matrimony and atheists don't believe in God.

Looking at me and the many other married atheists on this site, I guess that guy's claim is shot down, notwithstanding that there are some atheists who are not interested in marriage. I see nothing "holy" about marriage in a religious sense. I thought of getting married as a sort of statement that my wife became my closest immediate family member, and that were in it together from there. Other atheists may feel differently about it (or may not, there is no dogma they must follow).

Atheist marriages can work because : For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Rom 2:14,15 or maybe some have open marriages (negotiated infidelity) where each spouse is given permission to cheat, I think I saw that on National Geographic Channel on a show called taboo.

It almost sounds like you are saying that I, and a whole bunch of the other heathens, are not dirty sinners, but virtuous!

I don't know if you can really call it infidelity if it is negotiated, and I certainly would not use the term "cheat" if done with the blessings of the spouse, but I would certainly support the right of a couple to decide matters such as this between themselves (I personally have no interest in such an arrangement in case you were wondering). I doubt that "negotiated infidelity" strengthens a marriage by precluding the possibility of betraying your spouse with an affair.

ShackledNoMore said: ...Born of a virgin, so the tale goes, as I mentioned above. I'm afraid that explanation is not valid.

Thumbelina: I meant the line that can produce the Messiah.

Little chance of that. The line seemed established enough. It seems like a lot of other bloodlines survived all over the world without the benefit of OT law, and they didn't even have the benefit of biblegod there to supernaturally ensure that his promise would be fulfilled (not that christians and jews would agree on the matter of the messiah).

March 4, 2011

"The messages may SEEM mixed to us but the closer one gets to God then one sees that God is love."

That's all I needed to see...

That's what all cults say. You don't really understand until you open your mind to believe it man!

March 6, 2011

Final installment, Part 3a:

Thumbelina: Yes I was. It was part of the culture, even today arranged marriages may work out better than traditional marriages because they are built on principle and not on infatuation which wanes and then divorce comes.

The father had a lot of authority, as we have discussed. Interestingly enough, the daughters of Zelophehad had no father who could potentially have arranged their marriages.

While statistically arranged marriages do well in terms of having a low divorce rate, I think you need to back up any claims of why they have a low divorce rate (I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, BTW). The culture and circumstances surrounding arranged marriages are usually quite different from traditional marriages: usually there is a lot more pressure on the couple to stay married. It is also not valid to generalize that arranged marriages are based on principle (convenience and expediency for the family comes to mind as likely motives) or that traditional marriages are based on infatuation (again, convenience, practicality, some sort of personal benefit, camaraderie, and love are possible motives--yes people who love each other and aren't just infatuated can get married).

I am a woman and I realize He was not being a bigot. It's like a parent teaching squabbling children a lesson. It's reverse psychology, picture having children picking on a kid because they are fat and the parent over hears them, the parents talk to them and explain how that is unkind. A really obese person comes to the house on day selling something and the kids are there. After the person leaves the parent says 'so you're gonna call that person "fats"?' Their response would be oh no, oh no it is not nice to call people names.The parent would have taught them a lesson. Don't forget the jews were quite bigoted against Samaritans, they called them dogs and unfortunately Jesus was deprogramming them from that mindset and when Jesus called that woman puppy, not dog, he was testing those disciples as well as making the woman give an outward display of how badly she wanted her petitions answered.

No, It's more comparable to the obese salesman coming to the house, and the parents say, "why should I buy anything from a fat loser like you?" Then the salesman grovels and begs and says that even fat losers have to pay their mortgage, and the parent says, "You've impressed me with how much you want to make this sale that I'll buy your product." Later, when the salesman leaves, the parent says nothing to frame the "lesson" s/he had taught.

Puppies? Not in any of the bibles I looked in. This does not seem to be the consensus of those who have translated the bible:

Matthew 15:26

NIV: "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
English Standard Version: "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."
KJV: "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."
Young's Literal Translation: and he answering said, `It is not good to take the children's bread, and to cast to the little dogs.'

ShackledNoMore said: I don't know any other way to say this, but that's preposterous. I believe Barack Obama exists because I have evidence. The stories in the bible are just stories: there was never any observable god on the scene. If biblegod gave proof of his existence of course I would believe, and I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on this site would believe, too. I am a better person not believing in biblegod. As per our discussion, I don't have to think that women are subordinate to me. I don't have to think that those with other religious beliefs are heathen sinners while I know the ultimate truth. I don't have to believe that gays are an abomination. I don't have to believe that slavery is OK or ever could be OK. Why would I want to not believe so that I would not have to submit to a god if the god was actually good?

Thumbelina: The bible says so and the amount of rationalizing that people do because they don't want to take up their crosses and follow Jesus (deny their lustful inclinations) really shows that is true. Even the devils believe, so what? http://bible.cc/james/2-19.htm

As I said, in the OT the people had miracles and they still apostatized.

The bible also says: A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. http://bible.cc/luke/16-31.htm

The bible says that when Jesus raised Lazarus the people were so blinded by jealousy that they even wanted to kill Lazarus to destroy the evidence; all they wanted to do was follow their own inclinations!

The bible says that the carnal mind is enmity against God, people who are bent on being carnally minded will not and cannot follow God.

(emphasis mine in the above quote)

You've just utterly failed to support your claim. The bible is filled with contradictions, absurdities, and claims that are unsupported outside of the bible. The bible also says that donkeys have been known to talk, insects have four legs, ostriches neglect their young (contrary to their actual behavior), the value of pi is 3 and volume is NOT equal to depth times pi * r², the earth is 6000 years old, and the earth was quickly deluged several miles deep with water which quickly disappeared leaving behind a fertile world to repopulate (globally) with one breeding pair of each species.

Prove that the bible is a correct, reliable source before using it to support your claims. THEN we'll talk.

March 6, 2011

Thumbelina said: Context my friend, context! In the OT there's an incident recorded where the man was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath but that man was OPENLY rebellious because the Israelites were actual witnesses to God's presence. If God did not get rid of such an arrogant, presumptuous person then others would have followed in his stead and that was a deterrent to others who may have wanted to do the same.

ShackledNoMore said: So I should put my rebellious son to death (as commanded by the bible) for defiantly marking up the wall with crayons while I was present in the room? That would sure teach my other kid not to do the same! He was merely picking up sticks, for crying out loud, and no there is not a fundamental difference in that comparison. In fact, there's reason not to mark up the wall with crayons beyond just "because I said so." I can't fathom how you see a god portrayed this way as merciful in the face of such egregious barbarism.

Thumbelina: No that analogy does not fit. It's more like if you had a grown son who acquired flesh eating bacteria of his own choosing and then he was deliberately trying to spread it after you warned him again and again. That man would have been doing a sort of non verbal peer pressure if God had not stopped him; just look at how fast the people rebelled with the golden calf fiasco.

You're telling me, with a presumably straight face, that picking up sticks when told not to is more like deliberately trying to infect people with a flesh-eating disease than like writing on a wall with crayons when told not to!!?????

I think we've carried this as far as it can go. If you take the outrageous position that the flesh eating analogy is apt, then it looks like the false premise will stand in the way of any further progress.

ShackledNoMore said: That is not a parallel comparison. If a guy were entering the town square with spears and armor to mass murder as many people as possible and god (or a swat team member, or even some guy on the scene, for that matter) took him out, then it would be different. The human race will not self destruct because some guy picked up sticks. Have you ever jaywalked, or driven 5 mph over the speed limit? Do you think you should have been executed for your transgression? After all, you broke the law, willfully. Does evil now abound because you were not executed? Remember, we're talking about a civil penalty prescribed for this offense.

Thumbelina: I know it can't be a parallel comparison, we're dealing with God here; it's an analogy. Yes evil would have abounded

Analogy: A comparison based on such similarity. OK, analogy: fine with me.

In any case, we seem to be having difficulties agreeing on our analogies. You need to frame things differently to defend outrageous atrocities attributed to your god as acts of love and mercy.

Thumbelina: The bible is a book of myth to ShackledNoMore, there, I finished your sentence

Well, yes, just as you could say, "Star Trek is a work of fiction to ShackledNoMore."

The point is the question of whether some god exists or not aside, the bible is a compilation of ancient tales which contain many contradictions, and its claims have systematically fallen to what we have learned from archeology, geology, cosmology, etc. That would be a book of myth. I don't go around qualifying a statement that stories of Zeus are mythical stories (to me).

I believe what the bible says. You cannot prove anything, it's all based on faith, it was not observable, demonstrable, repeatable,

Which is no different than saying "I believe what the Koran/I Ching/Tao-te-ching/Veda/Book of Mormon/Dianetics/Star Wars/man preaching on the corner says. You cannot prove anything, it's all based on faith, it was not observable, demonstrable, repeatable..."

If the bible were true, I would have expected it to corroborate more and more of what we learned about the world and the universe over the past 2600 years instead of sending the faithful scrambling for the god of the gaps. If I told you that the entire universe as we know it exists inside of some alien child's closet in a shoebox as a home project, I could make the same claims, and I should not expect you to believe it. Same story with the proverbial invisible dragon in the garage, for whom I could propose explanations for every objection to make unfalsifiable.

science has been wrong myriads of times (like recommending smoking for emphysema)

Science differs from religion. It does not claim to have all the answers a priori. It is a process of questioning things, testing hypotheses, refining our view based on discoveries, and learning. It has proven to be a most effective of understanding of things. It has delivered results through recorded history. It has brought us from living as goat herders 2,600 years ago to having people walk on the moon. Throughout recorded history, it has brought us from a state of greater ignorance to greater knowledge whenever it has not been suppressed by religion. Since it never claimed to be above criticism, it has followed a consistent general pattern of honing in from being more "wrong" (e.g., Newtonian physics, which already had things pretty much nailed within its own domain) to less wrong (e.g., Relativity). As it has moved from more to less wrong, our ancient superstitions are left far behind as being more and more ridiculous, or to look at it in a better way, to show how far we've come.

Now, as for science recommending smoking for emphysema, I was skeptical, because I knew that the tobacco companies used to dishonestly market cigarettes by claiming they had health benefits, just like quacks today make all sorts of fantastical claims about the miraculous powers of their untested herbal supplements. Therefore, I googled to try to find out whether the scientific consensus ever touted cigarette smoking improves emphysema. I found nothing, and I usually turn up information I google for, so if this is indeed the case, I will rely on you to point me to (a) credible source(s). Remember, we're looking for consensus among the scientific community.

I believe (know based on my personal experiences with God and therefore trust His word) that they are wrong about the age of the earth; that is my faith. I don't care to go into that...

I believe we have for the most part, talked out the original topic, and in your last posts you have more and more appealed to the inerrancy of the christian god and the bible to back up your claims. You will never be able to successfully support your case unless you address this issue, which will be much, much more difficult than what you needed to do within the more limited debate we have been having: if the christian god loving and merciful to all, including women and foreigners. By arguing for why ever we should believe the bible/claims of xianity as the Ultimate Truth^TM to begin with, you would be (generally speaking) meeting us on our turf (our being many of the skeptics here, not defining anybody else's turf for them). I have been leading up to suggesting you need to do this if you want to further advance your argument, and other members, such as Par, have called upon you to prove that god exists. He's right: unless you provide something there, I won't have any more reason to believe in your god than in faries at the bottom of your goldfish pond.

I was thinking of starting a new topic to invite you to argue why we should believe the claims of the bible or that the christian god exists to begin with, including a rebuttal to common objections about things that we have to be wrong about if biblegod IS The Truth, such as the age of the universe and the value of pi, but I'll leave that to you since you seem to not want to go there. If you make a good case, you will have succeeded where nobody in history has before you, if you do not try, you will not be able to cite the bible as an authority and expect it to mean any more than if I quoted Twilight to make my case.

Constantine apparently saw a miracle and the pagans flocked into the church and look at what happened, the church became a blend of Christianity and paganism therefore they are not truly worshiping God the way God wants

Yes, there is one person who has told me that she saw Jesus in the flesh and spoke while taking a bath, and another person who told me that he spoke with Satan during a NDE. While I don't know them personally, there are those who claim that they have spoken to Elvis Presley (after 1977) and that he is still alive. Like "I spoke with Jesus/Satan" and "Elvis lives," Constantine's burning cross is an unsupported claim, 1700 years old, apparently first reported after his death, and while he may or may not have seen something in the sky (anyone care to think about the numerous reports of UFOs today?) there is as little or less reason to believe that he saw an inscribed burning cross in the sky, than the Joseph Smith spoke with an angel named Moroni.

With or without a burning cross, Constantine was crafty and influential enough to turn the corner xianity and allow it to take root.

The devils can perform supernatural acts but not even them can make a leg grow, they can perform some seeming miracles that will FOOL anyone who does not have a complete dependence on God.

By all means, show me any documented, verified, supernatural acts of Satan or his minions that prove that principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual forces of any kind exists, since such a demonstration of god's miracles has not been forthcoming. (Update for all on but one of those opportunities: as of today, my father-in-law still has only one leg.)

As I say, I think that for the most part, we have both presented the bulk of our respective cases, and we have lodged on your core premise: that the christian god exists, and that the bible is inerrant. We know this by faith, and it is justified with no evidence. As part of your faith, you attribute ultimate love and ultimate mercy to this god, despite the genocidal track record of this god provided in the bible, and that fact that under christianity, he will throw the vast majority of the people that ever existed in human history into a burning hell forever for not believing in him and asking him to save them. From here, there is nothing left but to go around in circles with you perpetually defending why your god is all loving and all merciful by heaping on unfalsifiable rationalizations, much the same as I would if we were arguing about the existence of that dragon in my garage.

March 6, 2011

Before I waste time reading about what god does, doesn't, and says, prove he exists. I wouldn't waste time reading about the easter bunny's antics either.

One tiny shred, one crumb, anything, and I'll read all your ramblings.

Well, Florduh, I read through the posts and here is the evidence I found could be extracted from what I read:

Yikes!!! Par! I am so sorry! I don't know why I called you Florduh! I only now noticed as I was replying the the rest of Thumbelina's posts. The scatterbrain effect hits again!

March 18, 2011

Shack you don't have to address everything I write, only the parts that really interest you OK.

Part 1a:

Thumbelina said: (numbers inserted by Shack) 1The messages may SEEM mixed to us but the closer one gets to God then one sees that God is love. There are commands to kill others but... emphasis mine 2--- "Where There Is No Love There Is No Justice". You don't see rules in there where if a person lies on another person and accuses them of a crime worthy of death that the accuser had to stone the accused? I think that right there, though it seems barbaric to us, was a MAJOR deterrent from people bearing false witness against their neighbor. There are also cities of refuge in the bible where people (whether Israelite or stranger) could run to if they killed someone or hurt someone by accident. A long time ago, I read that Israelite justice system was set up in such a way as to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. There are also places where a newly wed man who was supposed to be fighting battles can have an entire year off with his sweetie (wife).

3We are selfish sinners and God could have eradicated the human race but He didn't; He gave us a shot at redemption. There is love and mercy in both testaments and there is a lot of wrath (righteous indignation) in both testaments.

Shack said: These are classic rationalizations made by people in an abusive relationship--the only difference being that the abusive partner is real and god is not. The pattern of the argument is even the same: 1My husband may SEEM harsh, but if you were only close to him like I am you'd see how much he loves me. He does have to hit me sometimes to keep me in line, but 2 if he didn't love me so much he wouldn't care enough to correct me. He is a fair and reasonable man because <insert several reasons here, and provisions to argue that he makes the relationship a good one>. 3The truth is, I really deserve much worse than I get, but my man is kind, patient, and very forgiving.

The fact is, the god of the bible frequently zapped the thunderbolts himself before there was an opportunity for his people to enact social justice (or not). According to xian doctrine, he will zap the ultimate thunderbolt at the vast majority of people who have ever lived by mercifully torturing them eternally instead of doing something else, say letting them cease to exist.

Thumbelina: You say rationalizations, I say explanations just like I can't prove God is real (I have my own testimony and each individual needs to get theirs) you can't prove that He isn't. Since you spoke about God I don't think you will mind me doing so; also this topic is about God. God is our parent and He has a right to chasten us, however, it is Satan who causes the majority of hurt on this planet. Satan and his agents are ever accusing us (and harming and killing us A LOT) and he stakes a claim to us and if we do not choose God then Satan becomes our leader. Humans cannot chasten other humans the way God can, they are NOT the resurrection and the life. We do deserve non existence but we have an opportunity to gain eternal life. The bible likens our afflictions to a woman giving birth, while a woman is in labor it is not joyous at all but after, when she holds that bundle of joy in her arms, the pain would have been well worth it. http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-17.htm When God meted out justice in the bible it was after the people received a lot of warnings and/or after they have seen Him there and they still decided to rebel. Have you ever read in the OT where the Israelites were at war and the Ark of the Covenant was stolen by the pagans, the pagans who did not have all of the Law did not drop dead when they touched the Ark but ( (they got plagues) Uzzah who knew all of the Law, dropped dead when he touched the Ark? Evil, sin and death WILL cease to exist ---> http://bible.cc/revelation/20-14.htm

ShackledNoMore said: Of course the edict [Lev. 19:18] is limited to one's own fellow Israelites.

Thumbelina said: No, the edict was not limited to only fellow Israelites. There were other people that were adopted into the fold ---> Num 9:14; Ex 12 48, 49 http://www.biblegate...,49&version=KJV . God promised to bless ALL nations through His chosen people ( http://www.biblegate...:18&version=KJV Gen 12:3; 22:18 ; they were supposed to be evangelists AND produce the Messiah). The adoptees had to follow the same rules as the Israelites.

ShackledNoMore said: It is limited to fellow Israelites! Reread that verse. It directly specifies those among your own people. You make the case, citing other verses that the law also immigrants and visitors. Fine. It does not erase all the direction from biblegod to obliterate the Israelites' enemies. It remains tribal, ethnocentric. It also stands along side the harsh mandates for punishments of minor offenses.

Thumbelina said: No it is not! You do know in order to form a doctrine and to understand scripture one has to compare scripture with scripture, right? One also needs to look at the bible thematically (John 3:16 is the sum of the bible), contextually, culturally, grammatically etc. http://bible.cc/isaiah/28-10.htm so that one can get the big picture. One is NOT supposed to take only one verse and form a doctrine out of it. Following the biblical model for how to understand it also helps to prevent wresting the scripture to ones destruction and it also prevents fanaticism. That being said, please look at the cross references to Lev. 19:18 http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-18.htm and you will see that it means your neigh brother, neighbor, be it an Israelite or not.

ShackledNoMore said: No, I do not understand that you need to look in Matthew or Romans to frame the intent of guidance given in the Torah. The bible was not inspired by a deity with a consistent message, it was compiled from a conglomeration of sources, each having somewhat different goals and agendas. It was up to editors to make certain decisions according to their own agendas, such as what became cannon.

Thumbelina: Well that is the method the bible stipulates in order to understand it. I beg to differ, God is consistent http://bible.cc/hebrews/13-8.htm

That is why in order to prevent the following: "Scripture is usually interpreted or emphasized to support the doctrine of the sect.", one needs to let scripture interpret scripture; if every Christian church were to do that in conjunction with submitting to God then there will be unity.

ShackledNoMore said: Read the bible thematically, contextually, culturally, grammatically, etc. and that should show. As the bible was redacted from multiple sources, often for the same book, inconsistencies and contradictions remained. Forming doctrine out of a single verse? Scripture is usually interpreted or emphasized to support the doctrine of the sect.

Thumbelina: The bible does harmonize and here is some information that attests to its reliability:

"The 66 books of the Bible were written:

1. On three continents.

2. In three languages.

3. By about 40 different people (kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, an army general, fishermen, priests, and a physician).

4. Over a period of about 1,500 years.

5. On the most controversial subjects.

6. By people who, in most cases, had never met.

7. By authors whose education and background varied greatly.

B. Yet, though it seems totally inconceivable,

1. The 66 books maintain harmony with each other.

2. Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject.

C. Talk about astounding!

Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind. And, indeed, it was: "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Ghost "moved" them all. He is the real Bible Author. The four Gospels do sometimes differ in the way they report the same event, but they complement each other."

ShackledNoMore said: Re: Lev. 19:19 on mixing seed, livestock, and fabrics:

Thumbelina said: Didn't you look at the commentaries? Here's an excerpt: ...

...

There were some strange and immoral things going on there and the pagans indulged in bestiality so I guess God did not want those deviant behaviors among his people. A couple of months ago I heard that a person reported their goat missing (not in the USA) and when the police tracked it down they caught a 14 year old boy having sex with the goat; they killed the goat. So, I am like, 'why did they kill the goat, wasn't the goat the victim?' then I thought about it and realized that that goat was perverted and spoiled and it will continue to try to have sexual relations with humans.

ShackledNoMore said: Yes, I looked at the commentaries. The one you included was a good example. For mixing fabrics the conclusion was that god had some secret moral reason why it was wrong. For mixing seeds, the commentator erroneously seemed to think that it was necessarily bad farming practice, when in fact, there are benefits planting properly choses plant species in alternating rows. Mixing livestock, I guess is just perverted. Well, look at all those lascivious cockapoo breeders and their perverted bestiality orgies!

Did you just blame the GOAT for getting raped by some adolescent????? You think that the GOAT will go around seducing young farm hands????? This was the boy's doing--the goat had no more to do with this than my last rabbit had to do with becoming dinner on my table. Please be careful on how you justify some things--it can lead to some pretty nasty stuff in god's name.

Thumbelina: At that point in Israelite history God wanted to distinguish Israelites from the surrounding nations, they were supposed to be a beacon. Mixing some types of crops can be disastrous to getting the intended results. Mixing livestock can sometimes be dangerous (or lead to perversions as the commentator mentioned) eg breeding pitbulls, people are keeping those things as pets and they can be so dangerous and they can pose more of a risk than regular domestic dogs.

I did not blame the goat, God gave man dominion over the animals (man was supposed to take care of the animals but in a fallen world man may have to eliminate animals that pose a threat) and the goat was tainted, who would want to eat that or be around that? Also I have seen a few clips on the nature channel or one of those other channels of animals who wanted to get too "friendly" with humans. God does esteem us highly, we are not mere animals, we are creatures (created beings) but not animals.

Thumbelina said:Heroic skeptic on the other hand may be full of pride and only want the praise of men:

ShackledNoMore said: You are inventing motives for heroic skeptic, and not terribly plausible ones. I promise you, if I ever sacrifice my own life to save someone else's, it will not be so that people will say nice things about me at my wake!

Thumbelina: I said may! Maybe you would think you would not lose your own life and you will come out alive, besides self sacrifice is rare ---> For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. Rom 5:7 ; people generally only want to save themselves.

March 18, 2011

Part 1b:

Thumbelina said: D'uh of course I love you guys, wanting you to go to heaven and live eternally is love. I will spend eternity in the fire but it won't be hell to me because I would have surrendered to Jesus. His Holy fire (presence) will burn up the wicked people and they will eventually be reduced to ashes.

ShackledNoMore said: Still, I don't particularly subscribe to your definition of love.

Thumbelina: It matters not what you subscribe to, God's word is objectively true. Yes, you are familiar with the different types of love and the bible does go into more details with those but the last six commandments are the letter of the law. Fallen beings tend not to understand the spirit of the law.

ShackledNoMore said: We've danced around that a bit, me mentioning that the bible is a mythology, you contending that it is objectively true. We're slowly coming closer to tackling that directly, I think that it probably needs to be, but it is also such a tangent that it deserves its own topic. You would have a much tougher job on such a topic--it takes tremendous mental gymnastics to defend the bible as inerrant and objectively true.

As for love, naturally, Greek and Hebrew have different words for love. The cherished concept of Agápe love that christians are so enamored with is more infused by the classical Greek pagans than the ancient Hebrews, who are said to have worshipped the same god that is found in the New Testament.

Under the quasi-anonymity of the Internet, I will share an anecdote of a rather personal nature with you. It was a Sunday. I left the house to walk down to a local fundy church for services. My grandfather, who was catholic, asked me sadly if I was going to the other church. As I walked to the church, my mind was filled with (what I believed was) the reality that my grandfather would spend an eternity burning in exquisite, unrelenting agony. I ducked into a bathroom along the route and started crying. I started really crying, agonizing that the grandfather I loved so much was going to be in hell forever. Maybe it was my state, I just didn't think through that walls won't magically block sounds. I started wailing. Some guy popped in on me asking if I was OK. I tried to act as if I were in a normal state, that I didn't have copious tears rolling down my face. "Yes, I'm OK," I said. "Are you sure?" "Yes, yes, I'm fine." I dashed off, and avoided that location after that.

Do you cry yourself to sleep every night in total belief that I, that Phanta, that Par, that Ouroboros, that Webmaster Dave, that so many of the people you see and interact every day, maybe some who you are quite fond of, maybe even some who are close family members are going to agonize forever in a pit of unrelenting fire? If you have rock solid insight that this fate awaits us and you truly love us all, then you should. (Of course this would be hideously abusive to your own sanity--I'm glad that you almost certainly have defense mechanisms in place to spare you from this horror.) If you see a friend smash her finger, and she's in terrible pain, and it's so bad she has to go to the emergency room and get stitches or a cast, and it continues to hurt for weeks, I assume you empathize and feel distraught for your friend to a degree. The difference in pain between plucking a single hair from your head and bearing a child is imperceptible compared to the difference in pain between your friend's smashing her finger and somebody spending an eternity in hell. Why don't you experience that kind of distress knowing the fate of all these people you love? Is it that you don't love them? Is it that you don't really believe? Or do you have defense mechanisms in place to protect your psyche from this kind of horror? It has to be one of them, or a combination.

If I smashed my finger, would you empathize as much as if your best friend smashed his or her finger? You should empathize more with your friend: one cannot bear the pain of the world. Let me reiterate what you said about love: "What is love? If one is good and loyal to one's fellow man it is indeed love. Love is an action word." Sure love manifests itself in actions. (Ugh! "Manifest" is kind of a fundy word. I think I have been talking to you too much! ) But love is not just actions. Love is an emotion. Love is a kinship, a camaraderie. Love involves personally caring for a person. If I give a meal to a hungry stranger in need, I have displayed compassion, empathy, concern, care, kindness, and generosity. There is no kinship.

The first two definitions for love from dictionary.com are:

1.

a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.

a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

The first definition from merriamwebster.com is "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties."

As you read various lists of dictionary definitions you will find many nuances. The bible is not the authoritative source from whence springs the definition of love.

Thumbelina: Agape love requires respecting other humans by keeping the commandments, specifically the last 6. A victim, through God's power can agape love their abuser but they can't philio love them unless the abuser becomes converted into a genuine believer and God still has to give the victim that power. I am sorry you were hurt by that erroneous teaching of God being an eternal torturer. I do worry about the folks on this ws among others from other ws ( (you are right they are interesting and I do like some ) and I have a lot of family members who are not seeking after God and I do pray for them and for my friends and for you all too. I pray that my family members who are so often in danger, that they will not go down into Christ less graves. Even if someone whom I really really love chooses to neglect salvation I do realize it will be their choice, God will reward them according to their works http://bible.cc/revelation/2-23.htm but eventually God will wipe away the tears of the redeemed http://bible.cc/revelation/21-4.htm . The bible calls God's destruction of the wicked His stange act http://bible.cc/isaiah/28-21.htm ; He does not want to destroy the wicked http://bible.cc/ezekiel/18-32.htm but He has to, He has to protect His other children from wicked, selfish beings; besides, the wicked won't be happy in heaven. You have man made definitions for love and they are good ones but the fact is this world is a mess and we do not love each other or love each other enough. You say "The bible is not the authoritative source from whence springs the definition of love." and I and it says what love is http://bible.cc/1_john/4-16.htm .

Thumbelina said:Fallen beings...

ShackledNoMore said: ...have no place outside of mythologies such as the one where believers like you are assumed to have insight to the objective truth of their sacred texts.

Moreover, the belief by those who consider themselves privy to the ultimate truth, that those outside their belief system are damned has not worked out well in Western history over the past 2000 years.

Thumbelina: The bible predicted that God's own professed people will deem to take over God's job of meting out judgment but the bible says not to do that. John wrote about that: "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." Revelation 17:6.

The people who decided to exterminate others who do not share their views, took a prerogative upon themselves that they had no right to.

"In 1 Corinthians 4:5, Paul says, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." Notice here that the things we are told not to judge are the "hidden things." We cannot judge what we cannot see. But elsewhere Paul clearly teaches that we must judge the sinful things that are open to our view-what we can see and hear. Concerning an individual in Corinth who was engaged in open sin, Paul wrote, "Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)."

God will judge dissidents, therefore Christians cannot force their religious beliefs on others. All they can do is dis-fellowship people who sin openly but even then they are supposed to try to win back the erring person. God is not willing that ANY should perish.

Thumbelina said: Today's golden calf would be soap operas, going to the mall, being on facebook all the time, playing video games ...

ShackledNoMore said: Soap operas are not gods. The bible is very clear specifically on the topic of idol worship/worship of competing gods. The bible specifically calls out the competition: gods like baal, astarte, asherah, molech, and chemosh. Folks just didn't draw the wrath of biblegod for engaging in pastimes like they did for worshipping the competition.

Thumbelina: Whatever one puts before God is a god to that person.

Thumbelina said: I was looking at a show by Christian ex-Muslims a few months ago and this guy was saying that he grew up in a Muslim culture and he did not know about Jesus

ShackledNoMore said: That's truly odd, since the muslims consider jesus to be a prophet.

Thumbelina: That doesn't mean that he knew of Jesus, just like Christians, some of them don't read up on their doctrines or study their holy books; some don't even know that Easter is of pagan origin.

Thumbelina said: We are sinners and we received a pardon and that means we are guilty

ShackledNoMore said: There is little more I can say. You believe that we all deserve infinite punishment for finite transgressions. You believe it is not even possible for a human to be virtuous enough to not be a sinner deserving of infinite torture. You disagree with me that this in not a cruel and horrendous premise to invent a religion on. If you do not recognize how horrible this is, then I can't think of anything more to say about that.

Thumbelina: Nope, finite crimes will get finite punishments.

March 18, 2011

Installment 2a:

Thumbelina said: In a sinful and dangerous world the man is supposed to PROTECT the woman and not harm her.

ShackledNoMore said: And what happens if/when he does harm her?

Thumbelina said: He's not obeying God and will pay for it if he does not repent. God comforts the hurting who cry out to Him and He also commands His disciples to comfort the afflicted.

ShackledNoMore said: Does that mean that none of the three women per day (on average) who die cry out to god? Do the millions of women who continue to be victims of domestic violence bring it upon themselves by not calling out to god? It almost kind of reminds me of the biblical law for death to women who get raped and don't scream (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Thumbelina said: Maybe some do cry out to God and God comforted them and eventually they will be with Him in the resurrection. In the meantime, those of us who are deeply saddened by their predicament should therefore become utterly appalled by sin and seek to look for its source (being apart from God) and rectify it (by drawing near to Him). About Deut 22 ..., I went through that already in another thread, the women (betrothed) were in a position to get help by screaming but they WILLINGLY went ahead with the man. God did not want a bunch of Jerry Springer episodes in His camp and that is what fornication and the like causes.

Thumbelina said: Shack, we are made in God's image and He gave us the ability to think even though we degenerated a lot. We are to obey God rather than men (in other words, put God first) and as far as it is possible with the wife, she should live peaceably with her husband. The passage is talking about a reciprocal GODLY relationship but Christianity also teaches GRACE. By exhibiting grace (not taking abuse, a wife needs to get out if that is the case) she may sanctify her wayward husband.

ShackledNoMore said: I'm glad you feel that way, it is a reasonable position to acknowledge that a woman should get out of an abusive relationship. You will find a variety of positions on the matter from your fellow christians, though, and members of every camp will jump to defend their respective positions with scripture. Many will key in on the NT: the gospels agree that except in cases of adultery, if you divorce and then remarry, it is adultery (Matthew 19, Mark 10, etc.). The only biblical reasons I can think of that allows divorce are if a man is not happy with his wife and thinks she is "unclean" he may divorce her (Deut. 24:1-2--notice that the man can divorce the wife, but the wife cannot divorce the husband. Notice, too, that this provision for divorce in the OT would run counter to your argument that marriages needed to be protected to maintain a blood line hoping to produce a messiah. For most xians, this is superseded by jesus' rule change in the gospels), certain instances in the OT where men needed to divorce their wives because they were in interracial marriages, or if the non-believing spouse (not the believer) wants to divorce. Any god that inspired the bible would have done a great disservice to humanity by giving such narrow specific guidelines for when divorce is permissible, and not including cases of spousal abuse and physical violence, especially since he knew that many xians would follow the written divorce guidelines verbatim.

Thumbelina: Eh, marriage was becoming a farce back in those days, people were marrying and given in marriage just like in Noah's day and just like today except in Western society women can now divorce the men to their heart's "content" because they are independent. The commentaries do explain these things you know:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 24

De 24:1-22. Of Divorces.

"1-4. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes-It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [Lane]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Mt 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her."

Those Jewish men did look for loopholes and they were giving women a hard time then Jesus came to show them the right way and what did they want to do? Kill Him.

Thumbelina said: God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

ShackledNoMore said: If women are so addle minded that they do not even have the capacity to keep from harming themselves and their loved ones, then how are you able to debate these things with me more effectively than the average xian on this site, including the men, who are the ones who are actually supposed to be allowed to teach? You know that women are not that stupid and that the judgement of men is not so vastly superior.

Thumbelina said: (This portion relates to the topic we strayed away from) I said TEMPORARY.

ShackledNoMore said: Then lets go back to the parent thread to review the "temporary" law:

Thumbelina: It was all part of Moses' law, I am trying to discuss that with Centauri so I have my hands full right now.

SNM: Yes, yes! Nabals abound, and they are still have authority over the wife under biblical law. Your bible passages say for the wife to submit to the husband AND for the husband to love the wife. It doesn't let one spouse off the hook because the other doesn't follow the biblical command.

Thumbelina: God commanded that temporary law to PROTECT women from harming themselves and their loved ones.

ShackledNoMore said: We both agree that the law we are talking about was that the wife was to submit to the husband and be under his authority, right? When did that get rescinded? The concept is reiterated in the NT.

Thumbelina: Christ came and died so in the NT couples are admonished to let a Godly husband be the leader of the home. That NT council was not strongly enforced like it was when it was written down in Moses' law and enforced by the old covenant. The people made a covenant "What the Lord said , we will do" they voluntarily entered into that contract, they had blood sprinkled on themselves to seal the deal but they kept on breaking the covenant and they had to do certain rituals and a LOT of animals had to be sacrificed for their sins. Regarding the NT covenant, the Law (ten commandments) was supposed to be written on the hearts of the believer for the Messiah had finally come and laid down His life for man and that reality is what wrote or will write the Law (Ten Commandments) on the hearts of A LOT of people.

Thumbelina said: OK I'm speechless here, I usually get only ad hominems and insults from skeptics so a compliment is strange to see.

ShackledNoMore said: Merely credit where due. Some of your xian cohorts who have braved this site could not write a coherent English sentence. I believe that somewhere out there, you have the capacity to apply real thinking skills to the information you have available to you. You might make a good ex-christian (whatever that is).

Thumbelina: I have no desire to embrace worldliness. My Jesus gives me such love and comfort.

ShackledNoMore said: I could not claim to make a persuasive argument if I attacked you as a person rather than your position.

Thumbelina: I'm impressed again, that is quite nice to see, I would usually say God bless you but ... .

ShackledNoMore said: Moving on to other skeptics: No doubt you have received insults and ad homs from some. This is a place of healing for many who have been abused by your xianity, after all. However, I think there are other ex-christians on this site who are kinder in their discussions with believers than I.

Thumbelina: As far as I have been observing before I came to this website, atheists tend to like to insult others and generally are calling religious people stupid. I have had my user name used by an atheist and he wrote gibberish and cuss words so others will think I did it. He also trolled my posts (I usually addressed others in biblical discussions) and he always put out virtual APBs whenever I post. He is EVER calling believers uneducated and stupid and his words are repeated by atheists all over the web. He takes the usernames of believers and he puts his username as " smarter than ... (the person's username)" and if another believer joins in the convo' he writes another username of " much smarter than ... and ... ". He is really, really naughty but I love him; he's crazy though and yet there is something about him; I think God gave me a burden for him.

So it's OK for abused people to lash out at other people, even people who weren't directly involved in harming them? What if everyone did that? (and no I am not minimizing their pain) A natural course of action I guess for people who do not have a transcendent moral absolute and who rely on human feelings. The bible teaches that God says "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" so you see God does care about how we relate to each other. That is why I TRY not to address the people who are too emotionally disturbed, for their verbal attacks suggests that they don't have peace. Yes there are kind unbelievers on the web They make me understand why Jesus liked to spend time with the unbelievers. Though some seemingly mean skeptics I have encountered did turn out to be very likable, they were just hurting and unsure of themselves.

Thumbelina said: Women can teach, they are not supposed to dominate and some women can be so utterly obnoxious and it just does something to them.

ShackledNoMore said: 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women[ should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Thumbelina: You need to look at what events were happening in the church at that time. I discussed this already when I was new to this website; you can check it out if you like ---> (#215) AN EXEGESIS OF A DIFFICULT TEXT

March 18, 2011

Installment 2b:

Thumbelina said: You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself when you said: " This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself ..."

ShackledNoMore said: Whoa! I made no such concession! I said the verse includes certain vows. Now we may have discussed the "oath to afflict the soul" phrase, where I may or may not have made such a concession, but we did not.

Thumbelina said: We did discuss it, here's the quote: "Let me rephrase: I think that this is more likely to pertain to a vow to abstain from food for a period of time,This verse clearly includes vows which only involve herself and neither place her in danger nor impact her husband, such as fasting for a day."The professor whom I quoted had mentioned the vow may include sexual abstinence and you did not think so but you did say that it was a vow to afflict herself.

ShackledNoMore said: Change that from "You already conceded that it was an oath to deny herself" to "You already conceded that this can include an oath to deny herself" and I will agree with you. But I think we're squabbling over trifles here.

Thumbelina said: Done, *virtual handshake*

ShackledNoMore said: ... or to cook healthier meals for her family?"

Thumbelina said: As aforementioned, it was a vow to afflict HERSELF. Besides, Israelite meals were basically healthy;

ShackledNoMore said: Even as I was typing that I was thinking that this is more applicable to modern culture than to the Israeli culture of the time, but the husband is still the head of the house: that did not change between testaments. Wouldn't this apply in a timely manner today?

Thumbelina said: What are you talking about?

ShackledNoMore said: Recall the original context, now lost in antiquity, was that I was making a point that the husband could overrule a vow that the wife made that was in the best interest of the family. This in response to your claim that it was the husbands role to veto vows so that the best interest of the family would be maintained. The example I used was really more relevant to modern times, but the NT still give the man authority over the wife, which presumably includes the authority to override her broccoli casserole with a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Thumbelina: Eh, we keep going over this and I said that veto law was temporary. In modern times a Godly husband should be acquainted with the biblical health laws and should know that God made fruits and vegetables etc and He did not make fried chicken trees and when He did allow people to eat animals He forbade them from eating blood and fat so they can be healthy. I told you God loves us and He cares about our well-being physical and spiritual) : "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."

March 18, 2011

Installment 2c:

Thumbelina said: I was saying that in a Godly home roles can work and the husband can be the priest of the home. As long as the wife is treated well she will be happy to submit to her husband and allow him to lead.

ShackledNoMore said: Pity that's an xian mandate. I for one, don't want to be married to a puppy dog, I want to be married to an equal. I can see where a lot of women would want to be married to an equal rather than a master, even one who treats her well. I don't know about biblegod, but I appreciate equality in a marriage.

Thumbelina said: I said in a Godly home; maybe I should have said a TRULY Godly home. I did not say the woman is not equal, she's just different.

ShackledNoMore said: So what's the difference between a Godly home and a TRULY Godly home? The essence of not being equal is where one person is in authority and the other is subservient. Were the slaves "equal but different" from their masters, or was a condition of inequality imposed upon them?

Thumbelina: Some women are living with purportedly Godly husbands and they are living in virtual hell. In a truly Godly home the husband is living up to his profession. Christ is subject or in submission to the Father but they have different roles and the context we were discussing is not a slave master role. Slavery came about because of sin.

Thumbelina, said: I once had a guy tell me that atheists don't believe in marriage because marriage is holy matrimony and atheists don't believe in God.

ShackledNoMore said: Looking at me and the many other married atheists on this site, I guess that guy's claim is shot down, notwithstanding that there are some atheists who are not interested in marriage. I see nothing "holy" about marriage in a religious sense. I thought of getting married as a sort of statement that my wife became my closest immediate family member, and that were in it together from there. Other atheists may feel differently about it (or may not, there is no dogma they must follow).

Thumbelina: That guy was cherry picking beliefs because he wanted to play the field and a marriage limits that. It is called holy matrimony and to the Christian, two people become one; a married couple represents God's image and that is why a marriage should not be entered into casually and which is why God HATES divorce.

Thumbelina said: Atheist marriages can work because : For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Rom 2:14,15 or maybe some have open marriages (negotiated infidelity) where each spouse is given permission to cheat, I think I saw that on National Geographic Channel on a show called taboo.

ShackledNoMore said: It almost sounds like you are saying that I, and a whole bunch of the other heathens, are not dirty sinners, but virtuous!

Thumbelina: The bible says it and I do see it among the irreligious and I was surprised when I came to this website and saw so many atheists or the like talking about their spouses, I liked that. I usually see well, I don't want to say but I must say I did like seeing the irreligious having good family values (well, according to the world i.e.)

ShackledNoMore said:I don't know if you can really call it infidelity if it is negotiated, and I certainly would not use the term "cheat" if done with the blessings of the spouse, but I would certainly support the right of a couple to decide matters such as this between themselves (I personally have no interest in such an arrangement in case you were wondering). I doubt that "negotiated infidelity" strengthens a marriage by precluding the possibility of betraying your spouse with an affair.

Thumbelina: That is what it is called, I did not name it. I did use the word cheat and I'm sticking with that even if the silly couple do not realize that they are cheating themselves out of a special bond. Th couple who was interviewed said they indulge in negotiated infidelity because each of them were hurt really badly in previous relationships. Why would hurt have to come about if a couple waited till they were married to seal the deal and then love and respect each other till death do they part?

ShackledNoMore said: ...Born of a virgin, so the tale goes, as I mentioned above. I'm afraid that explanation is not valid.

Thumbelina said: I meant the line that can produce the Messiah.

ShackledNoMore said: Little chance of that. The line seemed established enough. It seems like a lot of other bloodlines survived all over the world without the benefit of OT law, and they didn't even have the benefit of biblegod there to supernaturally ensure that his promise would be fulfilled (not that christians and jews would agree on the matter of the messiah).

Thumbelina: There has been a lot of mixing bloodlines, in order for the prophecies to be fulfilled Messiah had to be Jewish. How many truly Godly homes are there in the world? We can't judge people's hearts but the evidence of how morale is in the world makes it seem that truly Godly homes are in the minority.The people were hoping to be chosen so maybe the not knowing into which specific family the Messiah would be born into kept some people from straying or kept them even more devout. Mary was most likely born in a Godly, law abiding home and Joseph too, while he was not Jesus' biological father, he did have an influence on Jesus.

March 18, 2011

Final installment, Part 3a:

Thumbelina said: I am a woman and I realize He was not being a bigot. It's like a parent teaching squabbling children a lesson. It's reverse psychology, picture having children picking on a kid because they are fat and the parent over hears them, the parents talk to them and explain how that is unkind. A really obese person comes to the house one day selling something and the kids are there. After the person leaves the parent says 'so you're gonna call that person "fats"?' Their response would be oh no, oh no it is not nice to call people names.The parent would have taught them a lesson. Don't forget the Jews were quite bigoted against Samaritans, they called them dogs and unfortunately Jesus was deprogramming them from that mindset and when Jesus called that woman puppy, not dog, he was testing those disciples as well as making the woman give an outward display of how badly she wanted her petitions answered.

ShackledNoMore said: No, It's more comparable to the obese salesman coming to the house, and the parents say, "why should I buy anything from a fat loser like you?" Then the salesman grovels and begs and says that even fat losers have to pay their mortgage, and the parent says, "You've impressed me with how much you want to make this sale that I'll buy your product." Later, when the salesman leaves, the parent says nothing to frame the "lesson" s/he had taught.

Thumbelina: Oh my, I was trying to be gentle like Jesus with my analogy so here we go again. It would be more like 'Why should I buy anything from a "thoroughly blessed" person like you?' all done with a compassionate look in the eye of course. I should have picked on myself since I am small so I am sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody. Shack, we made a mistake, the woman was a Canaanite woman and the Canaanites were GENERALLY horrible and evil; that woman was one exception most likely among others. I told you it was also a spiritual lesson, in bible prophecy a woman represents a church so to the Christian, it is telling us to pursue righteousness, to persist in prayer. Also this renegade planet is being watched by other unfallen worlds and we have to give outward evidences of wanting to be saved so they can see it; just like Jesus wanted the Canaanite woman had to speak in front of witnesses. No one else can read minds like God can you know.

ShackledNoMore said: Puppies? Not in any of the bibles I looked in. This does not seem to be the consensus of those who have translated the bible:

Matthew 15:26

NIV: "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

English Standard Version: "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."

KJV: "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."

Young's Literal Translation: and he answering said, `It is not good to take the children's bread, and to cast to the little dogs.'

Thumbelina: Dude, you have to go a digging! Jesus wants us to diligntly seek after Him just like the woman he called PUPPY! You go to the text and then look at the Greek http://biblos.com/matthew/15-26.htm then you click on the word dogs to see the original word http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2952.htm

Cognate: 2952 kynárion – properly, puppy, a diminutive of 2965 /kýōn ("dog").

ShackledNoMore said: I don't know any other way to say this, but that's preposterous. I believe Barack Obama exists because I have evidence. The stories in the bible are just stories: there was never any observable god on the scene. If biblegod gave proof of his existence of course I would believe, and I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on this site would believe, too. I am a better person not believing in biblegod. As per our discussion, I don't have to think that women are subordinate to me. I don't have to think that those with other religious beliefs are heathen sinners while I know the ultimate truth. I don't have to believe that gays are an abomination. I don't have to believe that slavery is OK or ever could be OK. Why would I want to not believe so that I would not have to submit to a god if the god was actually good?

Thumbelina said: The bible says so and the amount of rationalizing that people do because they don't want to take up their crosses and follow Jesus (deny their lustful inclinations) really shows that is true. Even the devils believe, so what? http://bible.cc/james/2-19.htm

As I said, in the OT the people had miracles and they still apostatized.

The bible also says: A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

http://bible.cc/matthew/16-4.htm

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. http://bible.cc/luke/16-31.htm

The bible says that when Jesus raised Lazarus the people were so blinded by jealousy that they even wanted to kill Lazarus to destroy the evidence; all they wanted to do was follow their own inclinations!

The bible says that the carnal mind is enmity against God, people who are bent on being carnally minded will not and cannot follow God.

(emphasis mine in the above quote)

You've just utterly failed to support your claim. The bible is filled with contradictions, absurdities, and claims that are unsupported outside of the bible. The bible also says that donkeys have been known to talk, insects have four legs, ostriches neglect their young (contrary to their actual behavior), the value of pi is 3 and volume is NOT equal to depth times pi * r2, the earth is 6000 years old, and the earth was quickly deluged several miles deep with water which quickly disappeared leaving behind a fertile world to repopulate (globally) with one breeding pair of each species.

Prove that the bible is a correct, reliable source before using it to support your claims. THEN we'll talk.

Thumbelina: The misunderstanding is on the part of man. Apart from the talking donkey and the young age of the earth and the flood where the clean animals went in by sevens and the unclean animals (like rabbits ) went in by twos I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't prove the bible to people who are bent on not believing it no matter what, even if God were to somewhat veil Himself, a person who does not want to submit to Him won't do it; they will block their ears and pinch their eyes shut and say "la la la la" as loud as they can so they won't have to acknowledge Him. For me, I loved that the bible teaches good morals and it has great prophecies like the prophecy in Daniel 2.

Dialogue Between Shacklednomore And Thumbelina

Recommended Posts

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

par4dcourse

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Darklady

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Galien

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dagan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ShackledNoMore

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Thumbelina

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Main Blog

Browse

Activity