God's will [#2682]

[Albert2523]

Have you read the reasons in the books of Deutronomy, Exodus concerning why God had all the living in these cities killed? save for RAhab the prostitute in Jericho(who consequently became the great grand of David and Jesus?(another shadow picture of grace))

Kinda funny how you asked him this and still didn't answer my question. Deut 22 How to properly punish a raped woman. I didn't say it was god's will for women to be raped though it's ok as long as you let her mourn for a month the death of her parents you murdered as per the bible. I asked, "What do you think of God's All-Loving punishment?" I also asked about the magic potion in Numbers 5.

You see something else.
I post : DMV says, "You stop at red ligh and go at green light."
You post: Nuhuh, DVM also says this, "Go at red light, stop at green light! So you do what I just said!"

Don't you understand that this is a contradiction?  If you say something about god's "love" and "free will", don't you understand that in order for it to be "freewill" there cannot be a reward for one choice (bribe) and/or punishment (coercion) for the other. If I offer a piece of candy to you but tell you that I'm going to beat you up if you don't eat it, what are you going to do? Eat it, of course! Why? Because you HAD NO CHOICE.  A person's primal instinct is to survive and protect themself, pending a few factors, at all costs. This is not "free will". It is not love. This is a big bad mafia don.

Edit: One other thing. Isn't God supposed to be unchanging, "the same yesterday, today, and forever"? I thought god was "Perfect"? Did you know that if something changes from perfect it's no longer perfect? So what's up with "perfect unchanging" god changing his mind after a thousand years or so?

Second analysis:"Do not swim in the river, you will drown, swim in the pool, I will join you and we shall play water polo." Now its up to me to choose what to do, but if I drown, whose fault is it? Somehow you have left out the responsibility bit.
And about changing,
consider Hebrews8

 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[Albert2523]

In addition, Deuteronomy22 did explain why the woman raped in the city did also face the death option. But do remember, that before two or more witnesses was a matter supposed to be decided. It wasnt just execution without protocol.

[Quesi]

I do hate to digress, but I was googling Deuteronomy 22 and rape, and I came across this site.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4419

Seriously.  Read some of these posts.  Are these poes?  What is this site?

[kin hell]

So a theist who cannot see how by acknowledging that god had no choice but to demand the murders, he is actually describing a limited god.
Or a god of shifting morals.

G'day Albert, welcome...

....let me just say to have you publicly state that you would murder women and children in your god's name is a chilling reminder of the absolute extremes religion causes.

So what tool do you use to verify god's message when someone who claims to be acting in god's name has murdered their kids?

If precedent has been set for god demanding these murders and rapes, how come any such claim made today, of acting in his name while killing kids, is ALWAYS adjudged an insane act?

What obvious evidence do you believe separates the insane (hearers of murderous suggestions) from the actually "blessed" god commanded killers?

What tool can you possibly use to verify god's word, because there are any number of people who have acted in gods name and killed their own children let alone others. So it is not as if they weren't really convinced they were hearing god direct them, they really knew they were doing the right thing, for god.


Only modern society just doesn't believe them, and thus calls them insane, do you agree that they've all been insane people who've made horribly tragic mistakes?
Or do you think some of them may have heard god's words?

......either way, what tool do you use to come to your answer?

[jetson]

I have read them, and I have been told by Christians what those reasons were.  But I still cannot understand how an infant, for example, should be a part of this plan.  Can you?

Well, interestingly enough, there is an incident where the Israelities had the same mentality and spared the infants and the beautiful women. Ofcourse infants do grow up, and guess what they did when they were old men? I will look up the actual record in the scripture and post it thats if you dont already have it

Indeed, I have been told that these wicked infants would have grown up to be the sinners that God said they would be.  Better to kill them now, and prevent them from their wickedness (so much for free will). 

Gods will is an interesting issue when we have only scripture to consider.  And with humanity ever divided on what scripture is supposed to mean, progress seems futile (with respect to understanding it).  I've often said that no human alive can claim true understanding of scripture, since the entirety of the writings took thousands of years to complete. not to mention be officially codified by humans acting on behalf of their particular beliefs.

Are you sure it's wise to follow scripture as though it has real meaning today?

[pianodwarf]

I do hate to digress, but I was googling Deuteronomy 22 and rape, and I came across this site.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=4419

Seriously.  Read some of these posts.  Are these poes?  What is this site?

Landover Baptist is a satirical "church", but as you've noted, those engaging in the satire take it very, very seriously.  Unless you look closely, it can indeed be hard to tell that it's satirical -- there's only the very occasional tip off, such as the one I saw when I clicked your link: "Jesus' Custom Bible Selection for You: Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. (Romans 16:16)   Always kiss your brethren. In a non-homo way, of course."

[jynnan tonnix]

Second analysis:"Do not swim in the river, you will drown, swim in the pool, I will join you and we shall play water polo." Now its up to me to choose what to do, but if I drown, whose fault is it? Somehow you have left out the responsibility bit.

It seems more, to me, like "Do not swim in the river or I will drown you". Besides, if we have a dangerous river, there will be a history of drownings there to give us evidence. We can see and judge the currents for ourselves. Making a choice whether or not to follow advice that there is no way to judge the truth of until it is too late, and there is no evidence at all to show that it is anything but nonsense before then is hardly the same thing. Especially when there are so many versions of precisely WHICH pool is actually the safe one.

[Graybeard]

The reason all the people were killed was because when left alive, they would teach the Isrealities their ways and customs which would lead them away from the ways of God. This is evident in the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings where Israel sacrified to Baal and other gods, as well as child sacrifice and temple prostitution.

Let us not forget the human sacrifice demanded by God - J'g:11:31 - 40

Now this complete elimination in a time when remission of sins was impossible was the only was God would keep the nation of Israel from following after the practices of the nations around them, which where an abomination to God.

Well, Yahweh said they were an abomination, but no one heard him say it.

There were many gods around at the time until King Josiah, a rabid fundamentalist Yahwist, through his Rush Limbaugh figure, Jeremiah, ordered that only Yahweh should be served.

Baal is not a particular god but a translation of "Lord/Master/Sir" in this case, it was the goddess Ashera/Ashura/Asherah^Wiki, whose symbols were the trees and long Asher poles (see various Biblical references to poles, groves and trees.)

Yahweh never actually says that these gods and goddesses do not exist[1], He simply threatens the people of Israel that if they do not follow Him, then they will die. As it turns out, the Israelites get taken into captivity anyway.

So finally, would I have gone ahead with this. Having the reason and purpose for it as God told the people of Israel, I would have done so for that purpose. Know this, GOd never had pleasure in the perishing of the wicked

Oh dear, not much of a Christian are you?

Psalms:37:13: The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.
Psalms:52:6: The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:
Psalms:59:8: But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.
Psalms:80:6: Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves.
Proverb:1:26: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

You know that Thomas Jefferson had a bible from which he had removed all references to God or anything "mystical". Do you also know that removing God from any argument, always improves it.

You want to try it.

1.	Note the reference to "other gods" in the Commandments

[Ivellios]

In addition, Deuteronomy22 did explain why the woman raped in the city did also face the death option. But do remember, that before two or more witnesses was a matter supposed to be decided. It wasnt just execution without protocol.

Well, this isn't the one I was hoping you would notice but it works. A woman taken against her will to be stoned to death. The reason: If she was raped within city limits, IF se called out loud enough, she wouldn't have been raped, therefore she was raped because she willfully and wanted to commit adultry. Remember, this is comming from an All-Knowing God. He knows about: clubbing a woman over the head, poisoned darts, knife to the throat, "Holler and I'll kill you," date rape drugs, taking her while she's asleep... and in each and every case, she's complicit in it because she didn't, "call out loud enough." You're also wrong on the witnesses, because if there were witnessess (because she called out for help loud enough) she wouldn't have been raped. Seriously, you're just going to stand by and watch your wife get raped? Or want your buds to watch her be violated?

I was actually refering to the virgin who is raped. If there's a witness[1] he must pay the victim, her father, 50 shekels of silver[2] under the "you break you buy" policy for denying the property owner the right to negotiate a price for his daughter. Then she must marry him and spend the rest of her life with the man who raped her because a woman without an intact hymen is worthless.

If she's raped and there are no winesses? It never happened, because a woman's word means ****. If her father isn't willing to speak for her, she must remain silent. So what happens to her? Well, when her father sells her later and the guy has sex with her, he notices there's no blood spot on the sheets. He cries "Foul!" The sheet gets taken to the town elders by her parents and they lift her skirt to make sure he plugged the right hole. If yes, the right hole was plugged and no blood spot, the guy sues her father 300 shekels for selling defective merchandise and she gets stoned to death on her father's porch. God also knows there are more ways to pop a woman's hymen outside of sex. His obvious opinion? "So effing what!?"

You see, a woman is property. She's only allowed to ever have sex with one man, unless she's "properly" divorced. (Even then it's still adultry, for her but not the guy.) A woman that ever 'knows' more than one man deserves death, as per the bible.

This is how you "properly" punish a woman that got herself raped. In another book, it tells how to properly punish a woman that gets herself gang raped. I'll let you figure how she's supposed to be punished for commiting that heinous unforgivible sin. If you need a hint, I think it's on the 'Women' page from the main site.

1.	clearly they'll stand by and watch a virgin get raped but not a married woman.
2.	the maximum price a woman is worth. no intact hymen?  keep reading.

[Albert2523]

So a theist who cannot see how by acknowledging that god had no choice but to demand the murders, he is actually describing a limited god.
Or a god of shifting morals.

G'day Albert, welcome...

....let me just say to have you publicly state that you would murder women and children in your god's name is a chilling reminder of the absolute extremes religion causes.

So what tool do you use to verify god's message when someone who claims to be acting in god's name has murdered their kids?

If precedent has been set for god demanding these murders and rapes, how come any such claim made today, of acting in his name while killing kids, is ALWAYS adjudged an insane act?

What obvious evidence do you believe separates the insane (hearers of murderous suggestions) from the actually "blessed" god commanded killers?

What tool can you possibly use to verify god's word, because there are any number of people who have acted in gods name and killed their own children let alone others. So it is not as if they weren't really convinced they were hearing god direct them, they really knew they were doing the right thing, for god.


Only modern society just doesn't believe them, and thus calls them insane, do you agree that they've all been insane people who've made horribly tragic mistakes?
Or do you think some of them may have heard god's words?

......either way, what tool do you use to come to your answer?

This is the reason I need you to understand what I said earlier, in that covenant, given the lack of propitiation, then the killing to remove negative influence would be done. But now this is very different, I am in the new covenant!!!!!! Please get this one thing: I will use an analogy; if I have a very expensive suit that I really like id now extremely dirty but lets say that detergent does not exist, you dont expexct me to store it. It will get mold, stinky and will always be useless!!!!!
But ~(cheers!) detergent is invented, and now I can have it washed completely clean, good news, I no longer have to throw it away, burn it etc.
This is what Jesus accomplished on the cross (now dont say he came for suits, that wont be funny). Now redemption is available. God will never kill a person to eliminate corrupt tendencies. Its like if I asked you a qn,:If you are a soldier and you see the enemy attacking you, would you shoot him or would you start reading them their human rights? (Well then?) But if it is a peaceful time, and you saw enemy soldiers, but the war is over, killing them would then be inhumane and wrong. It is therefore very wrong for you to have me answer a qn given a completely different historical and situational context and then apply the juddgement of that context in a present tense. It would be like calling all Germans anti-Semetic just because Hitler was a German. Please understand the importance of the atonement of Christ, otherwise you will keep referring to me as

....let me just say to have you publicly state that you would murder women and children in your god's name is a chilling reminder of the absolute extremes religion causes

Context, context, CONTEXT!
Oh, and thank you for your welcome message.

[Albert2523]

Well, this isn't the one I was hoping you would notice but it works. A woman taken against her will to be stoned to death. The reason: If she was raped within city limits, IF se called out loud enough, she wouldn't have been raped, therefore she was raped because she willfully and wanted to commit adultry. Remember, this is comming from an All-Knowing God. He knows about: clubbing a woman over the head, poisoned darts, knife to the throat, "Holler and I'll kill you," date rape drugs, taking her while she's asleep... and in each and every case, she's complicit in it because she didn't, "call out loud enough." You're also wrong on the witnesses, because if there were witnessess (because she called out for help loud enough) she wouldn't have been raped. Seriously, you're just going to stand by and watch your wife get raped? Or want your buds to watch her be violated?

I was actually refering to the virgin who is raped. If there's a witness[1] he must pay the victim, her father, 50 shekels of silver[2] under the "you break you buy" policy for denying the property owner the right to negotiate a price for his daughter. Then she must marry him and spend the rest of her life with the man who raped her because a woman without an intact hymen is worthless.

If she's raped and there are no winesses? It never happened, because a woman's word means ****. If her father isn't willing to speak for her, she must remain silent. So what happens to her? Well, when her father sells her later and the guy has sex with her, he notices there's no blood spot on the sheets. He cries "Foul!" The sheet gets taken to the town elders by her parents and they lift her skirt to make sure he plugged the right hole. If yes, the right hole was plugged and no blood spot, the guy sues her father 300 shekels for selling defective merchandise and she gets stoned to death on her father's porch. God also knows there are more ways to pop a woman's hymen outside of sex. His obvious opinion? "So effing what!?"

You see, a woman is property. She's only allowed to ever have sex with one man, unless she's "properly" divorced. (Even then it's still adultry, for her but not the guy.) A woman that ever 'knows' more than one man deserves death, as per the bible.

This is how you "properly" punish a woman that got herself raped. In another book, it tells how to properly punish a woman that gets herself gang raped. I'll let you figure how she's supposed to be punished for commiting that heinous unforgivible sin. If you need a hint, I think it's on the 'Women' page from the main site.

1.	clearly they'll stand by and watch a virgin get raped but not a married woman.
2.	the maximum price a woman is worth. no intact hymen?  keep reading.

I am a bit concerned that you have conjoined two different sections of the law which has made it look like the woman was played into an abuse corner. May I ask why? For you clearly know that one section was referring to a man concerned about marrying a woman who had premarital sex with someone else and was married when the man thought her to be a virgin. (As was the way of the people, for an unmarried person was automatically a virgin) and the other section refers to abuse. DO know that their cities where nothing like current gated and detached cities where one can have a rock band play in his/her house while the neighbour sleeps in peace next door)
And read Exodus 21:10

[Albert2523]

Let us not forget the human sacrifice demanded by God - J'g:11:31 - 40

Whow, wait man, there are some things you need to remember, God never demanded a human sacrifice. Jephthath swore a vow, and because it is unclear, we assume that she was sacrificed. However, if you have studied the original Hebrew, you will find that the word that was translated and could also be translated as ''or''. Now you think, what a wild vain attempt to justify God, but wait, not only did God forbid human sacrifice, a burnt offering could only be a male one! Leviticus 1:3,and other references.
Think about it, if she had been sacrificed, why of all things would there be such an emphasis on the fact that she mourned her virginity, for she knew no man,
So the rendering would be that " whatever comes out of the gates of my house I will offer unto the Lord, or will offer it up as a burnt offering.
As anything else, it is up to you to either follow up on what I have presented and check it up yourself or have it your way.
But do know this, Jephthah mourned for she was his only child, and he died childless, unlike the rest of the judges who had multitudes of children.

[Albert2523]

[
Indeed, I have been told that these wicked infants would have grown up to be the sinners that God said they would be.  Better to kill them now, and prevent them from their wickedness (so much for free will). 

Gods will is an interesting issue when we have only scripture to consider.  And with humanity ever divided on what scripture is supposed to mean, progress seems futile (with respect to understanding it).  I've often said that no human alive can claim true understanding of scripture, since the entirety of the writings took thousands of years to complete. not to mention be officially codified by humans acting on behalf of their particular beliefs.

Are you sure it's wise to follow scripture as though it has real meaning today?

Well Jetson, your concern is a very serious one, for there are many times when it has been misused due to one person saying that "this is my understanding and hence this is what I want to do" hence your questioning its relevance today.
What i shall say is that I have to stress God's will. Remember, it was God's plan to send Jesus Christ to redeem us. God loves us, and if I am going to live according to his will, then I shall do what he requires. I can assure you that he doesn't want the amputees to remain amputees, or the sick to be sick. So if every christian is just doing his will, saying more "I thinks" than "God says". I have heard this statement and painfully it has a lot of truth:" we see more character in non-christians than we see in many christians" and I can surely tell that you agree with that statement with basic life examples around you.
It comes back to what Jesus said in Matthew 7 where he says many will come and say to him, Lord, lord did we not do these things for you (I am paraphrasing), and he said to them {these 'christians'} depart from me you that work iniquity.

Until we understand the true nature of God, we are bound to keep accusing him of all atrocities under the sun, and the moon.

[nogodsforme]

Hello Albert2523;

According to you, Jehovah God did a lot of what we today would consider bad things, like drown the entire world's population including evil infants and baby panda bears. And tell people it was okay to kill entire towns of people, including evil infants and pregnant women. And take the virgin girls home to party with after killing their families.

Nowadays, you say Jehovah God would not do any of those things because of some new, kinder gentler rules.  But people still die from massive floods and armies still kill entire towns full of people. Why does Jehovah allow this, if we are under new rules now.[1]

1.	He could have just started out with the nice new rules, since he can do whatever he wants, it being his world and all.

[Albert2523]

Hello Albert2523;

According to you, Jehovah God did a lot of what we today would consider bad things, like drown the entire world's population including evil infants and baby panda bears. And tell people it was okay to kill entire towns of people, including evil infants and pregnant women. And take the virgin girls home to party with after killing their families.

Nowadays, you say Jehovah God would not do any of those things because of some new, kinder gentler rules.  But people still die from massive floods and armies still kill entire towns full of people. Why does Jehovah allow this, if we are under new rules now.[1]

1.	He could have just started out with the nice new rules, since he can do whatever he wants, it being his world and all.

Hello, did you read my previous post concerning why it was done? And, it wasnt God who told them to take the girls and party with them the way they did with the Midianities and the Amonities. He did though, and this he did; put an instruction that if they desired to marry the women, they should give them a full month of mourning plus a whole new cultural assimilation. He did not, and I repeat NOT HAVE THEM USE WOMEN AS PARTY PROPS!!!!! Infact, there is a recorded incident where the men who took this approach that you mentioned were killed for this. Surely you knew this.

[Albert2523]

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Surely you have heard of the discovery of the ark in Turkey around mount. Ararat, the chariots found in the gulf of Aquaba, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah covered in brimstone and ash. Look these things up.

[Azdgari]

Thanks, Albert.

When you bust down the door to a home, under orders to kill everything, and there is a woman and her 5 year old daughter and 6 month old son, which of these evil creatures do you kill first? The mother first, so she doesn't have to watch you kill her infant son and toddler? Or, do you try to make swift work of the wicked baby and child before turning your sword on the evil mother.

Do you say anything to them while they beg you to not kill them?

Do you do it with glee? Would yahweh have a problem with it if you felt shame or hesitance in killing the baby and little girl?

Following God's will, it being perfectly good, should evoke righteous glee...in a righteous person.  Shouldn't it?

[Nam]

Hello. I recently read your article

Which one?

...and I would like to clarify somethings if you are willing to have me do so.

It's expected.
 

It is true that God has a plan for each of our lives, he has thoughts of good, and not of evil, to give is an expected end (Jeremiah 29 :11-14)

Yeah, thoughts not actions.

...but you have to note another Scripture as well in 2 Peter 3:9 which says that "for God is not willing that any should perish but for all to cone to repentance, acknowledge his love and choose Him and have a personal relationship with him.

If I acknowledge anything, it definitely isn't love.

What you pointed out is actually true in this regard: the false sovereignty teaching that had been attributed to God. Time and again the events mentioned in the Bible show God giving the people options and telling them to choose his ways and righteousness paths so as to have his plan accomplished. The old testament is full of accounts of where Isreal rebelled and rejected God which led to them been conquered by their neighbours since they had rejected God and his ways.

What about all those times that they attacked tribes that had no war with them, at all? Those don't count: they were enemies of Biblegod.

If you have taken time to examine the new testament

I've read 14 versions of it, they all seem to change to put Biblegod and Jesus in a less "evil" light.

...you will find that Jesus never forced anyone to be healed.

Do I laugh now, or later?

Even when the blind man came to him (who was obviously so) Jesus asked him : What do you want me to do for you? Now this seems very stupid at first since his need was obvious but you always have to remember that God is a God of principle who has sworn to regard human free will and will not change.
Now think about it, if God was half the tyrannt that many claim he is, would they even breathe those statements?

Idiotic nonsense.

To conclude, whatever view you hold, I just want you to be basing it on the right information. We always slap the monitor when the pc is slow yet the monitor has nothing to do with core performance. This has happened a lot with God and I just want to bring these simple facts to your attention. Have your verdict, but endeavour to have a right on not hindered by a lack of knowledge or one based on misguided precepts.

I don't.
 

Finally I hope above all things that this will at least stir you up to seek the truth on this matter.

The truth in whose mind?

No one ever blamed gravity for plane crashes, how much more judgement on the character of a loving and merciful God without fair analysis!

Are you equating your deity to gravity?

-Nam

[Nam]

But before I go into this, I would like to know this; do you understand the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant?

Do you?

Jesus didn't come in the NT to abolish the OT but to fulfill it. Matt.: 5:17

[Nam]

Albert,

You come here and try to make us understand that Biblegod is nothing but loving and kind yet you keep defending each passage we present to you that shows Biblegod in a distasteful manner, and then you state that if Biblegod told you to kill babies, you'd do it. And, you see that as loving? It's not.

Then you give examples about looking up things that you assume we haven't already, and saying it's true without providing evidence that it is. And, we're to believe you because Biblegod is love.

Nonsense.

As a side note: when quoting a specific passage from the Bible, don't post the entire chapter. If we want context, we'll look ourselves.

Another thing: try using spaces between paragraphs. No one likes a wall of text.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Surely you have heard of the discovery of the ark in Turkey around mount. Ararat, the chariots found in the gulf of Aquaba, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah covered in brimstone and ash. Look these things up.

Noah's Ark? Never happened. For many, many reasons. Could be that remains of a very old wooden boat was unearthed in Turkey. But how would you determine that it was Noah's? Would it have "Noah's Ark" painted on the side in English? It would have to be dated by scientific methods that you probably don't believe in....

When these discoveries show up in Science News, National Geographic, or Discovery Magazine, or my Jewish archeologist co-worker calls me up in the middle of the night delirious with joy, I might take them seriously. Believe me, working researchers and scientists and professors have no vast international conspiracy to hide dramatic findings from the world. I know them. I am one. They are nerds, with no hidden agendas, no political or financial motivation to lie or to participate in secret grand frauds and coverups. When there is some fraud (cold fusion) or mistakes (mislabled fossils), it is the scientific community that uncovers it.

[Ambassador Pony]

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Surely you have heard of the discovery of the ark in Turkey around mount. Ararat,

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Ivellios]

[nice new rules, since he can do whatever he wants, it being his world and all.[/nb]

Hello, did you read my previous post concerning why it was done? And, it wasnt God who told them to take the girls and party with them the way they did with the Midianities and the Amonities. He did though, and this he did; put an instruction that if they desired to marry the women, they should give them a full month of mourning plus a whole new cultural assimilation. He did not, and I repeat NOT HAVE THEM USE WOMEN AS PARTY PROPS!!!!! Infact, there is a recorded incident where the men who took this approach that you mentioned were killed for this. Surely you knew this.
[/quote]

Yeah, you kill her family but as long as you give her a month to mourn them, then you can 'play' with her because God says so, because every girl wants to sleep with her parents murderer and her kidnapper. Stockholm syndrome anyone?

I am a bit concerned that you have conjoined two different sections of the law which has made it look like the woman was played into an abuse corner. May I ask why? For you clearly know that one section was referring to a man concerned about marrying a woman who had premarital sex with someone else and was married when the man thought her to be a virgin. (As was the way of the people, for an unmarried person was automatically a virgin) and the other section refers to abuse. DO know that their cities where nothing like current gated and detached cities where one can have a rock band play in his/her house while the neighbour sleeps in peace next door)
And read Exodus 21:10

The whole, "When you sell your daughter as a slave, know that the man who buys her does so with the intent to have sex with her, so make sure you get a good price for her.... and when you tell her to get lost, make sure she leaves without a penny to her name." A slave one intends to have sex with? A sex slave. There is nothing in that passage about rape. One could have a rock band play next door and no one would hear? What? The houses are half a mile a part? or more? B. S. You're just making stuff up. It was a city, everything close together and cramped.

So tell me, what recourse is there for a woman that was raped where there were no witnessess? There is no other place where anything is mentioned. If her father doesn't back her, then her word means ****. If the rapist isn't caught 'in the act' he goes free and the woman must deal with the consequesnces like pregnancy without being married. Know what happens to them? To say god is pro-Life is a joke. What do you think happens to the baby when you stone the mother to death? A woman without an intact hymen is worthless, you cannot charge for her if she doesn't have an intact hymen. Yet, there's a clause for selling your daughter, if she doesn't have an intact hymen. You know what this means? God knows some men would try. With a woman's life on the line, of course, she didn't willingly have premarital sex.

[screwtape]

and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

bold mine.

Do me a favor and kindly stop using archaic language.  You would never use the word "unto" in any conversation in your whole, entire life unless it involved the iron age hebrew deity.  You may think it makes you look impressive with your lofty sounding language, but no one's impressed.  Instead, it obscures what you are trying to say, or, if I am being uncharitable, obscures the fact that you don't know what you are saying.

So please speak in plain, contemporary language.  Thanks.

[screwtape]

Now this complete elimination in a time when remission of sins was impossible was the only was God would keep the nation of Israel from following after the practices of the nations around them,

1. remission of sin was impossible because...?  Wasn't yhwh omnipotent then?  It was yhwh's own rule, so why did he not make it a more reasonable rule?  Could he not do it?

2. the only way to get jews to do something because...?  Wasn't yhwh omnipotent then?  He couldn't have come up with another way to do it?  After all, that is kind of what "omnipotent" means.

[Astreja]

It is true that God has a plan for each of our lives...

So much for that "free will" shit.

We always slap the monitor when the pc is slow yet the monitor has nothing to do with core performance.

I'm a recovering IT technician.  I don't think I've *ever* slapped a monitor.

This has happened a lot with God...

Please tell your god to stop beating up on poor innocent monitors, unplug the computer and count to 30 before restarting the system.  Oh, and your god should probably also defrag the hard drive now and then.

...and I just want to bring these simple facts to your attention.

<Arthur_Dent>Ah.  This is obviously some strange new definition of the word 'facts' that I wasn't previously aware of.</Arthur_Dent>

[Graybeard]

Let us not forget the human sacrifice demanded by God - J'g:11:31 - 40

Whow, wait man, there are some things you need to remember, God never demanded a human sacrifice.

Hey! Hold your horse my friend! You need to know that God made His part of the deal with Jephtah and thus Jephthah thought he had no choice but to comply with his promise to God!

Jephthath swore a vow, and because it is unclear, we assume that she was sacrificed.

There's nothing unclear about it in my Bible son, I read KJV 1611, what do you read?

However, if you have studied the original Hebrew, you will find that the word that was translated and could also be translated as ''or''.

But it wasn't, was it?

Now you think, what a wild vain attempt to justify God, but wait, not only did God forbid human sacrifice, a burnt offering could only be a male one! Leviticus 1:3,and other references.

You're struggling here Albert - you're in difficulties. The reason you're in difficulties is that this is the verse:
J'g:11:31: Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

See that? whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, the operative word here is "whatsoever".

Albert, this was no normal ritual sacrifice.

Think about it, if she had been sacrificed, why of all things would there be such an emphasis on the fact that she mourned her virginity, for she knew no man,

Well, Albert, I have already thought about it, which is why I know you're barking up the wrong tree. Back in the day, it was a woman's purpose in life to bear sons (Think of Abraham and his wife Sarah) Hence her purpose in life would never be fulfilled. For a woman to die a virgin was a great shame. All fathers ensured that their daughters were married off.

So the rendering would be that " whatever comes out of the gates of my house I will offer unto the Lord, or will offer it up as a burnt offering.

Albert, re-readJ'g 11:31... you are being silly.

The folk-story of Jephthah's daughter is there to teach people like you how important it is to keep a promise to God.

Ec:5:4: When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

As anything else, it is up to you to either follow up on what I have presented and check it up yourself or have it your way.

No it is not, because you are not giving accurate information. You seem to be misleading people with false prophecies. God does not like that.

But do know this, Jephthah mourned for she was his only child, and he died childless, unlike the rest of the judges who had multitudes of children.

Big fat hairy deal! He burnt his daughter to death because he thought he heard God in his head!!! I can see why he might have been upset, "Sorry daughter, I have to do this for God, it's nothing personal."

And yet, unlike Isaac, there was no voice of God saying, "Hold on there Jephthah, don't do that, I was just testing you."

And that rather goes against your misleading

So the rendering would be that " whatever comes out of the gates of my house I will offer unto the Lord, or will offer it up as a burnt offering.

doesn't it?

Why do you say these wrong things? It doesn't help at all, in fact it makes you look like someone who just makes things up as you go along.

[Ivellios]

It is true that God has a plan for each of our lives...

So much for that "free will" shit.

Yeah, funny that. Between god's plan since it's his story, like we're just acting out some book god wrote long ago... and that two people are "meant to be together," kinda makes the who point of free wll rediculous on top of what I mentioned before.

Imagine you're watching Lord of the Rings and watching Frodo in his travels. You learn about things as they happen to Frodo just as you learn about things in your life. Frodo thinks he has free will, but the story was written long ago. JRR Tolkien had a "plan" for Frodo, though Frodo knew nothing of JRR Tolkien, LotR books, and thought he had free will, reality is, he had none.

Having a "plan" makes free will meaningless, it's one or the other. You cannot have both.

[Albert2523]

Hey guys, whats up? It seems you are all angry at God. (unintelligent statement you say)
Well, I am just making conversation
Why are you so angry then? Give me your reasons please, because believe it or not(I kinda know where you are on this one), God does exist and love each and every one of you. Even if you lined up every single curse word you can throw, He shall still love you. Well its your choice.
If you have noticed, none of you has given me a single verified reason to hate God. Think about it, you(to whom it applies) say that the bible is not true, a fable book, but you use this as evidence to say that this God is evil, and "kills millions of kids", yet if you believe him to not exist, then you are claiming that a non existant one is causing all the trouble that does trouble you. Kinda like "the fairy ate the cake" line that kids give.
But give me a reason as to why you, YOU(personal) believe God is that way.