Mr Walker Posted November 28, 2009 #101 Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) name='Beckys_Mom' date='27 November 2009 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1259319689' post='3185994']Who is he or anyone to judge who has everything or not... I mean define - everything? Each person has their own life and to them, what they love and what they have if its everything to them....... then who is he or anyone else have the right to make a judgemental statement putting others down Logically, how can a person who does not have god have everything? ANd logically, a person who has god plus all the things the other person has, has more than the one without god. Its just common sense not judgement. By the way guyver made an apology for his post...and I admire him for it I mised tha tbit but when youre right you dont have to aplogise. In general - To tell another human being you dont have everything.. I dont believe you.. <---all because of a religious path? do me a favour Tough. A person without the physical presence of god in their life is missing a large part of what a human being can have. They may be happy and content, and they may want to tbe that way. Their life may offer other compensations but, literally, they are missing something, and thus dont have everything. then you contradict yourself and him by adding... So you say the bloke has a right to pass judgement ..after all telling another human being who believes they have everything.in their heart and mind.. that they do not have everything... <--- explain how he or anyone would know this?...ESCPECIALLY when the bloke has no right to judge ones heart and mind when he doesnt know him... but still has the nerve to tell him he has not got everything Above I have bolded the contradiction... you say one thing and then say so yes me make judgements There was no contradiction and i went to some trouble to make that clear. We CAN properly, judge physical things (like the quality of a persons life or whether they are harming someone.) We CAN NOT judge their motivations, their intent, and their feelings etc. Ie we cant judge their hearts and minds. Their actions might look bad to us but they might be acting from good intent Thus we might lock them up for killing yet god might save them because of he nature of their heart . God wil lknow and he will judge He is the only one who sees inside our hearts and minds(because he lives there) anyou cant seem to make up your mind .................but wait... Isn't this yet another contradiction.. read above mate... you said we can't judge the hearts and minds and now you claim the bible doesnt say this... my my you are in a bit of a tissy there MW Im perfectly clear. If im not making it clear to you im sorry. God and the bible say we must judge and punish the actions o f people who do harm and go to great lengths to lay out punishments/consequences. But we cannot judge their hearts minds or immortal souls In other words we can say "that person acted destuctively" but we cant say "that person is a destructive person/being /soul. We can say that an adulterer causes pain and harm, and needs to be prevented from doing this, but we cant make the judgement that an adulterer is evil or damned. Only god can. I did......and I gave my definition of it.... if you paid attention to the post, you would have seen this... you are a school teacher arent you? then you would understand that paying attention is important.. I did say child rape.... and child abuse.. for violence is part of it too..... No you didnt and you arent now. Define child. Are you defining a child by age(say under 18 under 16 , under 14 ), or physiologically? Do you see adulthood as a psychological, physical, or other state of being? And all this makes a difference. In a society where there are good reasons for people to get marrired and have sex after biological sexual maturity then that is not paedophilia even if those involved are 13 or 14. However, in a modern society, where different conditons apply, it is. If people i past millenia didnt start having children until there 30s like women do now humanity would have died out because peole didnt live long and most children (nearly 80% died in chilldhood.) It was simply necessary for every productive human to have chldren from as soon as they could(one of the reasons why both homosexuality and m********ion were frowned on as a waste of seed/fertility. You bible does not I repeat NOT... direct anything about child abuse or child rape.. and I mean directly at that point not it does not.....key word is direct How do you know? But lets say it does not. As others have pointed out, very few people probaby had sex with non sexually mature children, because of the nature of families and society then. If they ddi they were probably killed without recourse to law. And so laws against such an alien concept werent needed. Correction MW... the 10 commandments is talking aobut covet thy neighbors WIFE...not childThis does not mention children... it does not direct anything about how child abuse is wrong and how rape on a child is wrong..... what you have done here is tried to find a loophole.. and one that I dont buy into Oh so it is logical tha t a married man cant lust after another woman, but its ok for him to lust after a child? Not likely is it? the bible doesnt direct anything about child rape or child abuse <--- key word is direct Again, whose word are you taking for that, or did you read the whole thing underlining the relavant bits? Copy and paste the exact passage in the bible that actually states men were killed for having sex with a child <--------bare in mind Mr Walker I did say the word CHILD... not young woman that hasnt gave her consent....a child doesnt understand anything aobut giving sexual consent...a young woman does...................so paste in here...were it actually says men were painfully killed for having sex with a CHILD..............remember it must state child.........not young woman First, how do we translate accurately the words. For centuries translators assumed the hebrew word for unmarried woman meant prostitute and so the bible described all unmarried women as prostitutes womwe have never really recovered from that bit of bad press.Secon im not a bilicla literalist We can work out a lot about bible times from the contexts and logicall y the contexts are as i described them.. Finally let us suppose you are right. Tha t is still meaningless,if the reason this was not proscribed in the bible is because it never really was something that happened enough to be recognised. The laws the bible deals with were about common problems. If this was not an issue, then it was either very rare or non existent within the culture of the time. The bible doesnt specifically talk about car theft either, but one can logically extrapolate from other property laws how it would vies car theft. The same is true for child abuse. I tis not an act of love and it is not a constructive social practice Thus the bible would oppose it in principle just as it opposes adultery According to Karlis, he claims they just didnt do those things back then... lol... hmm dont seem to make sense now does it? Why not? The scale and nature of societies regulates the practices of people in those societies. People back then could not get away with wha t people in large complex societies today, can. That is why a woman in a town was expected to cry for help if she was being raped, because someone would hear her and go to help. In the country she was allowed to stay silent if crying out risked her life because there was a good chance no one would hear her. Same thing MW.....you are still KILLING No it s not the same thing. Not then. Not now. Not in law. Not ethically or morally. No matter what i think, abortion today is not murder. Humans and societies have always divided killing into legal/sanctioned killing and unsanctioned /illegal killing ie murder The bible is clear on this and the actual words of the ten commandments are thou shalt not kill unlawfully(murder) the bible does not say, thou shalt not kill. The mother who gives her consent...then by law she has a right to rid of a fetus before it is born... I dont agree with it.. but thats the lawbesides the religious used to kill babies anyway... making mother abort because the babies were concieved with no father... that was against their faith.....dont sit and tell me thats wrong....my own grandmother told me that how it was done... they used to get the young girl and make her sit in a very hot bath ect tried all sorts to make her loose the baby... and yet a bunch of christians complain about mothers who give their consent? All of this illustrates my point on the division into legal and illegal killing. No it is not always ethical, but it is legal. It also sounds as if those people were going against both the law and bilical principles, but thats humanity for you. But taking a baby at birth were a mother is crying to KEEP her baby and due to a religious belief...killing the baby before it can so much as touch its mother... is SICKmorals...my my they sure went out the window in a lot of killings and violence in the name of religion And without religion; and sometimes religion creates great human virtues morals and ethics. Which brings us back to the topic. Religion is not harmful any more than science. It is the purpose humans put both to which can be harmful but can also be wonderful. Edited November 28, 2009 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted November 29, 2009 #102 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Logically, how can a person who does not have god have everything? ANd logically, a person who has god plus all the things the other person has, has more than the one without god. Its just common sense not judgement. Who is anyone to pass that judment? after all we cannot prove that god exists.. so therefore, as we cant prove god to those with no faith... then we can't pass judgment I mised tha tbit but when youre right you dont have to aplogise. Looks to me like he saw how wrong it was as a christian to throw judgment... and he apologized, as its the right thing to do... for it is so very arrogant to pass judgment onto peoples lives if you don't know them.....but you seem to think he was right...you should take a leaf from Guyvers book... Tough. A person without the physical presence of god in their life is missing a large part of what a human being can have. Tough? You make such an arrogant judgment and then think that its the right way to approach it.... see this is one of the main reasons why I reject religion... for when I see people making some of the most arrogant judgments.. then it tells me the path they have chosen, isn't all that good nor does it seem to make them a happy person... live and let live... .........but when I see a christian who's attitude is happy...and they are not judgmental over someone's life all because they don't follow god... and they say – What ever makes you happy as a person at heart, so be it...live and let live, you have a right to your own choices, I cant throw judgment at you ...........then I would think- wow this christian sounds like someone who understands what their savior has said by not judging others...and their faith seems to have made them very happy...because we know that when people throw arrogant judging remarks, they don't sound that happy There was no contradiction and i went to some trouble to make that clear. We CANproperly, judge physical things (like the quality of a persons life or whether they are harming someone.) We CAN NOT judge their motivations, their intent, and their feelings etc. Oh you sure did contradict yourself completely.. you said you cant judge , then said its ok as long as its not judging hearts and minds...its still judging Ie we cant judge their hearts and minds What do you suppose lays in a non believers mind with no god? Obviously in their hearts and minds they are happy without holding a faith in any god... after all isnt it in our hearts and minds to feel its right to follow god?....... so you are so very much wrong But we cannot judge their hearts minds or immortal souls In other words we can say "that person acted destuctively" but we cant say "that person is a destructive person/being /soul. Repeat - Obviously in their hearts and minds they are happy without holding a faith in any god... after all isnt it in our hearts and minds to feel its right to follow god?..How can you say they have acted destructively? What can a non belief possible do that is so destructive? That is a very arrogant thing to say... No you didnt and you arent now Thats strange.. you totally blanked it all out and you have for................because when we look at your previous question that I have addressed also... here is what you did ask...see below... = Mr Walker...says...Who says the bible does not condemn paedophilia? (what is your definition of paedophilia by the waycharacter: So I told you yet again that pedophilia = child rape /sexual abuse... and still here you are saying I didnt explain it like you asked... my my Mr Walker your attention span isn't fully up with this now is it? Define child. As we currently know many have raped / sexually molested children as young as 6 months old... back in those days even up to 13 – 14 yrs old is still a child Where as in modern day its up to 18 Or if you like Becky is still a child and would have been considered a child back in those days too...........get it now? How do you know? Ohh I dunno, most likely because having read the bible and was taught it myself... I don't see it direct anything about child abuse and sexually molesting little children....and the fact that none of you were able to copy and paste where it DOES direct attention to child abuse and sexually molesting children or even directing anything towards child rape... that's how I know Mr Walker Oh sure the bible will direct attention to other crimes - like murder, theiving...even adultry... but not directed at - child abuse and child rape... Oh so it is logical tha t a married man cant lust after another woman, but its ok for him to lust after a child? Not likely is it? I didn't suggest it were logical for any married man to lust after any other woman...........but your bible doesn't DIRECT itself on to lusting after a child...and if you like as it was ok to marry a 13 – 14 yr old...lusting after children UNDER the age of 13 – 14................you tried to use one of the commandments lol I know the commandments off by heart...and covet another mans wife says nothing about lusting after a child... Again, whose word are you taking for that, or did you read the whole thing underlining the relavant bits? Read above mate... as I said my own word and the fact you all have failed to copy and paste anything that shows where the bible directly aims at child abuse/ sexually molesting / rape a child First, how do we translate accurately the words. For centuries translators assumed the hebrew word for unmarried woman meant prostitute and so the bible described all unmarried women as prostitutes womwe have never really recovered from that bit of bad press. So this must mean you cannot copy and paste where the bible says – he who rapes a child will be painfully killed... okie dokie then.. I thought as much lol man didnt seem to have trouble translating what suited though lol Why not? The scale and nature of societies regulates the practices of people in those societies. People back then could not get away with wha t people in large complex societies today, can. Come on you honestly think that sexually molesting and raping a child is now just some new crime trend? Ohh please that is so weak to think that man never felt the urge to have sex with a child back then...very weak ...... all crimes as we know of have been going on since man begun to walk the earth... I mean rape is mentioned in the bible on women... you are now saying... that back then man only felt the urge to rape a woman but never felt the urge to rape a child? And yet it speaks out against homosexuality too..so back then according to you.....man only ever felt lust for another woman or if gay another man? Gimme a break Mr Walker, to state that is just silly... rape crimes of any sort has always been going on...........its only now that the law make a bigger deal out of it...back then they turned a blind eye... hence as to why the RCC have covered up so many sexual molesting cases on little boys For me to believe that they didn't lust after little children and rape them back in those days.. I would be very dense and blind Mr Walker says - No it s not the same thing. Not then. Not now. Not in law. Not ethically or morally. Killing = taking another life...ending a life... so yes its the same thing like it or not..it used to read - thou shalt not kill <--was soon changed to murder... as I recon a lot where killing in the name of god so to justify it..they changed it to murder...thats my own theory Mr Walker Says - All of this illustrates my point on the division into legal and illegal killing. No it is not always ethical, but it is legal Killing an infant the sec its born because its born out of wedlock or born with abnormalities is so very wrong and so very twisted and evil... For god has blessed a woman with a baby...yet the religious took that little blessing and killed it over a religious belief..........that makes religion look harmful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted November 29, 2009 #103 Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) Im not in denial. Medical science saved my life. I love science it. But so did god save my life and just as physically as science did, and i love him for it too. Electric heating warms my body and i love that. God warms my heart and soul and i love that Science is great but in a world where i could only have one, i would take god because in a world with god i have no need for science(i wont get ill feel pain etc. i wont need comuters to communicate round the world and i wont need machines to fly. I wont even ned clothes and heaters to keep warm.) But in a world without god, science only provides for my body, and then id rather be dead (now that i understand what being truly alive as a human being is like.) I wouldnt want to live in a world of science, without the qualities god brings to the world and to my heart. Ps in the world god created(real or not) we had no need of the bible. God and we were one, and gods love, and his laws, were written into our genetic makeup. The bible, and all other religious books, are a poor but necessary substitute for having god in your heart and soul, and having all his knowledge wisdom and understanding at your command. No one who has god, really needs a book of his thoughts, rules and laws, although it provides a codified summary for those who do not. And often, for many, it is a stepping stone to finding god and allowing him access to your heart. There are, however, many other stepping stones as well. So you admit it was the work of medical science that helped you recover and get better along with the aid of god So science was there for you... Tell me Mr Walker.. what about those who are deeply religious and they do not believe in any use of medical science and yet we read how they thought that by just using god and praying, still in the end their loved ones died as a result without medical treatment... a few have posted these stories on this same board.... ....how come their prayers didn't cure the sick children? They obviously poured all heart and faith that god would miraculously cure their kid...but evidence tells us this did not happen..........My own child fell really ill too, and although I hold a firm belief in god... I knew she wouldn't have a hope in hell of surving without medical science... so I had to pray that the meds given to her would work...as the previous meds didnt do the trick........ I mixed BOTH, for I am not that stupid to think praying does it alone!! Question for you Mr Walker... – Do you not think that god has in fact gave some of us the abilities to create medicine that aids cures? After all isn't each of us born with a gift? Then if we believe that some are born with the want to help sick people that they were smart enough to seek cures and experiment to see what works right? That is a gift I for one don't have... but doctors and men/ women of science do have it... Another thing Mr Walker... if you would rather live in a world with no science what so ever, then why aren't you living in a cave somewhere? (we all know the avarage cave man age was 26)....... making your own clothes...killing animals using what you can to kill these animals to feed yourself, and if you get sick, then you would have to sit and pray it away with no other help....constantly digging holes to burry your poop...sooner or later would pop up and cause a disease....which is most likely another factor that points to why cave mans avarage age was just 26........they had no real hope without science Even if you got sick and relied on the plants of the earth to treat you, you would still be using science, for that is you curing yourself, finding ways to make yourself better, that's science...its experimenting..again all points to the art of science God from what I believe, put each of us here for a reason... and if you like to believe he created a planet that held natural plants that can aid us to get better..... then isn't it obvious he expected man to seek what is there and experiment from these plants to create cures?.I mean he did give man a brain to think and figure things out yes?..by doing this experiments, is still science So if you can live in a world with no science.....then you may as well be a cave man and do without any treatments....and hope for the best in the coldest winders you can survive with your warm heart!! But somehow I get the feeling you would not even dream of living like some caveman eh Mr Walker? you need science as well as god... god created science and gave man the ability to seek, discover and experiement with the sources god has planted on this green earth EDIT - If you believe god created the earth and the universe and all that is living...he created plants ect for use to use and experiemnt with along with so much more, we are part of gods own experiemnt...so that makes god out to be the ultimate scientist of them all Edited November 29, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted November 29, 2009 #104 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I disagre vehemently withthis and worry that you genuinely believe this. While recognised and supported through raligion, marriage and commitment is essential, sociologically, in a species like humanity which has a long gestation period and a lenghty period of dependent childhood. Without marriage who supports dependent women and children? And for a succesful long term marriage, human psychology and sociology demands/expects faithfulness and commitment i ti s not a religious principle but a basic human one. You're saying marriage? A human made concept is an essential part of life? What a strange thing to say/believe. That's even completely ignoring the concepts of monogamy/polygamy. While some animals show they are intrinsically monogamous (albatross, some parakeets/parrots) These are mostly species where everyone looks the same. There are more animals/species where there is no monogamy to speak of. While some ppl prefer a monogamous lifestyle, others don't. Marriage could be out of the question..not everyone yearns this. It's not essential to life. Without marriage who supports dependent women and children? Are you seriously asking that question? NOW? in 2009? Really? True but while rules may evolve via social econonic and other change they also need to continue to recognise and respond to the unchanging basic needs of human beings. And that basic need is completely independant from religion. Love etc is not something that is necessarily intertwined with religion, at all. Sure men wrote the bible(and a couple of women) but under what circumstances is not clear. They certainly came up with some perceptive and wise guidelines for the societies of that time.It is a book where great thinkers set down ideas which readers would be wise to follow and which stengthen individuals and societies This is exactly what the bible is yes. A book of mythological stories, each representing a moral of some kind. Something that was maybe more effective back in the ages...but can hardly be looked at as a book of Law. The book and the morals come from the same source. Im not going to argue with you just what hat source is. the stable? Good parenting has rules and effectively manages them. It does punish and reward as necessary because of the nature of children. One has to only look at the world today to see how childish humanity remains and how much moral guidance and authority most individuals sadly require. i would much prefer that they learned self discipline and internalised their values and ehtics but mos tpeole dont. And again, the bible should not be looked at as a book of rules/law. It could be looked at as nighttime story for the children with a moral in it. But not something as important as some ppl would like to believe it is. And you say that humanity is still childish and needs this book for guidance. Well I'd rather say that using a book like that for guidance in this world is the childish thing to do. + it causes a lot of unnecassary missery all over the place. Like i said, just suppose the parents were right and they get to spend eternity withtheir child. That is the significance and powere of belief nad who can logically argue factually that their belief is impossible? And like I said, this was clearly the consequence of a lack of education. They cried, saying they had no idea this would kill her. C'mon..burning someone doesn't just "happen". You know what the consequences are....you know that even if you pray the person wont stop burning/dying. That's just not how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted November 30, 2009 #105 Share Posted November 30, 2009 So if thats the case...from your logic........... rape on a child only happened more recent? thats absurd Child rape has been going on forever... its not as if man only descided to do it now because its the going trend... You say feel free to provide evidence that man didnt rape/molest children back then...........yet you have nothing that suggests they didnt Hey tell me something karlis... do ya think that maybe back then they didnt care to look at it like we do now ya know like a horrible crime? yes? no? Beckys Mom – sometimes when you answer a post, instead of answering the specific point, you address something else. In this instance you have done that again. The subject was how ancient Hebrews regarded child abuse -- you changed that to how MANKIND in general sexually abused children, throughout history. I hope you can see the difference. ~~~ Of course, you are free to believe that the Hebrews were no exception, if you like. To clarify what I mean I’m copy-pasting our short exchanges. How come your bible doesnt speak out directly (as it does with its commandments) about one of the most foulest most evil of crimes we know of? - Peadophilla? ... (snip). Perhaps because paedophilia was not practiced by the ancient Hebrews. Ohh I get it...so sexually molesting children (rape on a child even) is just some new trend eh?Along with abusing children? Do me a favour lol As I wrote: Perhaps because paedophilia was not practiced by the ancient Hebrews. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to provide evidence that ancient Hebrews did practice child molestation. Becks Mom, please note how -- instead of addressing what I wrote (Hebrews specifically not practicing child abuse during their 40 year wandering in the wilderness) -- you go off at a tangent, and write about Mankind's rape of children through history in general. So if thats the case...from your logic........... rape on a child only happened more recent? thats absurd Child rape has been going on forever... its not as if man only descided to do it now because its the going trend... You say feel free to provide evidence that man didnt rape/molest children back then...........yet you have nothing that suggests they didnt Hey tell me something karlis... do ya think that maybe back then they didnt care to look at it like we do now ya know like a horrible crime? yes? no? Beckys Mom, look at your following statement from your above post: You say feel free to provide evidence that man didnt rape/molest children back then........... yet you have nothing that suggests they didnt Beckys Mom, I was writing specifically about the ancient Hebrew culture, amongst whom there is zero evidence of pedophilia ~~~ you ignore that and write about man in general. = Two differentthings altogether. As to your statement that I, "have nothing that suggests they [the ancient Hebrews] didnt" sexually abuse children: In a post (December last year) I wrote about this very point -- how the ancient Hebrew tribes treated young children. QUOTE from my previous post: … the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event. … 1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn’t a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as ‘sex slaves’ seems quite incongruent with their ages. And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as ‘slaves’ at all! Children raised in Israelite households were ‘put to work’ around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family’s existence and survival. Also note that ‘slavery’ in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from “New World” slavery, which we normally associate with the world ‘slavery', and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation. 2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the Ancient Near East [ANE] was not very ‘into’ using slaves/captives for sexual purposes … 3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY: “This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. ***Except among the Hebrews,*** where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged … 4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41): “Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. ***This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior;*** rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.” for yourselves” phrase (31.18) is NOT actually referring to “for your pleasure”, but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was ‘delivered over to YHWH’ was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to ‘for yourselves’, then, in this passage, means simply ‘do not kill them’. This can also be seen in that this ‘booty’ was not ‘for themselves’ actually, but was distributed to others within the community.] END QUOTE Beckys Mom, you may not agree with what I posted there, but please don’t go off at a tangent by writing, “... So if thats the case...from your logic........... rape on a child only happened more recent? thats absurd Child rape has been going on forever ... its not as if man only descided to do it now because its the going trend ... -=-=- So once again Beckys Mom: Perhaps paedophilia was not practiced by the ancient Hebrews during their forty-year travels in the Wilderness period. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to provide evidence that ancient Hebrews did practice child molestation. That said, since you now don't have the time or inclination to get involved in serious discussions, I'll understand if you choose to drop this subject. Regards, Karlis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted November 30, 2009 #106 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Beckys Mom – sometimes when you answer a post, instead of answering the specific point, you address something else. In this instance you have done that again. The subject was how ancient Hebrews regarded child abuse -- you changed that to how MANKIND in general sexually abused children, throughout history. I hope you can see the difference. ~~~ Of course, you are free to believe that the Hebrews were no exception, if you like. Hebrews are no exception what so ever...... Hebrews are part of the hiuman race even the ancient Hebrews were part of the human race also known as - MAN (mankind) Whats this about A tangant? So because I disagree with your statement on how you seem to think that ancient hebrews didnt molest children back then... I address that with a disagreement and you call it a tangant? So I guess if I was all – ok Karlis you are so right great post that's not a tangent? Gimme a break ...if you don't like it when your posts get challenged in return...then why bother addressing my posts? I mean if you call me disagreeing with you and asking you to provide evidence ect...a tangent... then you doing the same with me is going off on your own little tangent... I do expect people to disagree with me and I like it, as its a challenge...it makes the topic more interesting.... As to your statement that I, "have nothing that suggests they [the ancient Hebrews] didnt" sexually abuse children:In a post (December last year) I wrote about this very point -- how the ancient Hebrew tribes treated young children. Ancient Hebrews believe it or not are in fact part of man-kind... like all humans...human beings ancient or not are all part of man (mankind) it covers all... I thought you would know this...obviously you have put mankind and ancient Hebrews into two separate categories When I stated - You say feel free to provide evidence that man didnt rape/molest children back then........... That includes ancient man don't matter if it were hebrew or english...African...muslims even...... it don't matter... all point to man kind As to your statement that I, "have nothing that suggests they [the ancient Hebrews] didnt" sexually abuse children: In a post (December last year) I wrote about this very point -- how the ancient Hebrew tribes treated young children. And I was right...you don't.you where not able to present me with anything that states ancient hebrews did not sexually molest (or rape children)... you presented nothing..when I 1st asked you.......... and now you have gone and typed out something that you think proves you are right...but see you are missing one vital thing here Karlis... the source as to where you took the info you just posted below........no source....nothing 1. Most girls were married soon/immediately after they began menstruating in the ANE (circa 12 years of age), and since infant and child mortality was so high, the average age of the girls spared would have been around 5 years of age or slightly lower (life expectancy wasn't a straight line, with childhood risks so high). Of all the horrible things ascribed to Israel in the OT, pedophilia is the one conspicuous omission. That these little kids would have been even considered as 'sex slaves' seems quite incongruent with their ages. And, at this tender age, they would not have been very useful as 'slaves' at all! Children raised in Israelite households were 'put to work' around this age, sometimes doing light chores to help the mother for up to four hours per day by the age of 7 or 8 [OT:FAI:27], but 5 is still a bit young. Instead, the Israelite families would have had to feed, clothe, train, care, protect, and shelter them for several years before they could make much contribution to the family's existence and survival. Also note that 'slavery' in the ANE/OT generally means something quite different from "New World" slavery, which we normally associate with the world 'slavery', and most of what is called that in popular literature should not be so termed. See qnoslave.html for the discussion and documentation. 2. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the Ancient Near East [ANE] was not very 'into' using slaves/captives for sexual purposes … 3. And the Hebrews were different in this regard ANYWAY: "This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. ***Except among the Hebrews,*** where a husband's infidelity was disparaged … 4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out ["The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel", Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41): "Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the "young girls who have not known man by lying with him" (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. ***This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior;*** rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence." is NOT actually referring to "for your pleasure", but is a reference to the opposite condition of "for YHWH" which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or 'ban') specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was 'delivered over to YHWH' was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to 'for yourselves', then, in this passage, means simply 'do not kill them'. This can also be seen in that this 'booty' was not 'for themselves' actually, but was distributed to others within the community.] END QUOTE See all of the above........ you failed to leave the source... this forum requires all members to post up a source...........I for one want to see the source...for all i know you clould have typed this all out from your own head...just saying .............And if you don't mind I would like a source... I am curious as to what web page you took this info from...forum rules after all... Beckys Mom, you may not agree with what I posted there, but please don't go off at a tangent by writing, "...So if thats the case...from your logic........... rape on a child only happened more recent? thats absurd Child rape has been going on forever... its not as if man only descided to do it now because its the going trend Again I stand by that statment....and no its not a tangent... its my honest answer and opinion... for as long as man has walked this earth (yes this includes ancient man as in ancient hebrews).....then rape (child rape) was going on Perhaps paedophilia was not practiced by the ancient Hebrews during their forty-year travels in the Wilderness period Ancient Hebrews were around a lot longer than the 40 years of traveling lol.... I mean come on Karlis.. by reading that it looks as if they only begun to exist when they travelled into the wildreness for 40 years..........they were around long before that and after it... I still believe that man back then ( including ancient hebrews as man)... did lust after children and did sexually molest them... I fail to believe that this type of crime is something new.... no its not Take a look at the RCC..(Roman Catholic Church). look how they have turned a blind eye to peado acts done by priests....from what I have learned, a lot did in fact turn a blind eye to it As it was the RCC that put the bible together... and with them turning a blind eye to molesting children...it would not surprize me if I found out that it was written in the bible that sexually molesting (or raping) a child is against god...<---like I said, it would not surprize me if the RCC took that out and made sure it was not put into the bible........again this is just my own theory....as quite often, I keep seeing more things with the RCC that is very corrupt...come to think of it...I recall a number of born again christians that say the same thing, on how the RCC is corrupted............so yeaa it wouldnt surprize me at all For i find it very hard to believe that the bible as itself directs at many horrible crimes...murder...theft...ect... and leave out one of the most horrible and evil crimes - child rape/abuse ... <--- it doesn't make sense..........therefore it leads me to beleive the RCC saw it and took it out ...as they were the ones that 1st put the bible together Also if it were addressed directly in the bible Karlis.... I would dare say that - that quote above..the long one you presents as evidence to claim ancient hebrews didnt rape kids ...I would dare say that, if the bible spoke out against child rape.. then that article you pasted above wouldnt have been written......as it looks obvious that someone else has caught on to how the bible has left it out and not directed anything towards child rape and abuse...so I recon they made up their own views and published them...to make it look as though man back then didnt do that.... As if lusting after a child would never enter a man/womans head? (even ancient man kinds head)... that is absurd and very hard to beleive That said, since you now don't have the time or inclination to get involved in serious discussions, I'll understand if you choose to drop this subject. I am very busy...but for this I will make time...as i take this subject of child rape ect very seriously ... in fact I support a charity on that very thing.. so you can be sure I will address it Everything I state is my own opinion and I am very much entitled to them...not tangents as you like to call them...I call it how I see it... not my fault you dont like it mate Edited November 30, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted November 30, 2009 #107 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Let's also not forget about the numerous cults in the world. Claiming they're religious. One mind ministries cult. Where a baby died..and probably a lot of other stuff happened. It died cuz the brainwashed irrational mother didn't feed it for 2 days, which all the rest agreed uppon. Because the child didn't say "amen" once after dinner. So they assumed it was possessed. Ahum. Or other cults where child rape was practically the rule. "In the name of the Lord" of course. How in the hell are ppl sometimes so gullible they'd let all that happen to their own children/themselves? Giving themselves up to a higher power..their brain first. Preposterous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted November 30, 2009 #108 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Hebrews are no exception what so ever...... Hebrews of the time-period we are talking about, had a rather unique culture, going by what is written in the Bible about themYou asked why the Bible does not mention peadophilia as a sin. I answered you using Bible sources. ~~~ ... ... you where not able to present me with anything that states ancient hebrews did not sexually molest (or rape children)... you presented nothing..when I 1st asked you.......... and now you have gone and typed out something that you think proves you are right...but see you are missing one vital thing here Karlis... the source as to where you took the info you just posted below........no source....nothing Beckys Mom, I gave you the source from the Bible, and I gave you an explanation of the historical background involved. If you can not be bothered to read that, that is your problem ... not mine. ~~~ ... ... b]you failed to leave the source... this forum requires all members to post up a source...........I for one want to see the source...for all i know you clould have typed this all out from your own head...just saying .............And if you don't mind I would like a source... I am curious as to what web page you took this info from...forum rules after all... The source was in the post. If you can not see it, please let me know.EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here Edited November 30, 2009 by Karlis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted November 30, 2009 #109 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) name='Triade' date='30 November 2009 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1259508912' post='3188633']You're saying marriage? A human made concept is an essential part of life? What a strange thing to say/believe. I appreciate your opinion but having studied humanities studies from history through to politics and a couple of years of psychology, as well as living for nearly 60 years, i think the reverse is true. To argue that a form of marriage is not an esential ingredient for any succcessful human society is very strange thing to believe. Being sapient, most things essential to humans are not just material. For example, children require love (as do all humans) to survive and prosper and to become well adjusted. Humans require speech for survival, which is entirely a construct of our sapience. And humans require all the physical constructs created from using their minds and hands in tandem, like fire clothing shelter etc, for survival in most places. The concept of creating fire or making a shelter is a human construct, just as faith and religion are. That's even completely ignoring the concepts of monogamy/polygamy. While some animals show they are intrinsically monogamous (albatross, some parakeets/parrots) These are mostly species where everyone looks the same. There are more animals/species where there is no monogamy to speak of. Humanity's need for mariaege is based on two things. Our biology(long gestation and long period of infant child dependency ) and our sapience. Humans have the ability to construct symbols, and their emotions are a combination of attachment to these symbolic concepts and bilogical emotions. Thus humans love and hate. Something no other animals have been shown to do. And so commitment etc plays an emotional part in human relationships We learn and value emotional attachments from birth. There is no way tomake a relevant comparison with animals, even though many animals are monogomous for life. While some ppl prefer a monogamous lifestyle, others don't. Marriage could be out of the question..not everyone yearns this. It's not essential to life. Tough. If you are going to have kids, you owe it to them to be in a stable long term relationship while they are in the years where they require nurture and teaching by parents. If you dont want to have kids you still need to consider the emotional and medical risks of non monogamous relationships. Suicide and stds are both the result of personal relationships gone wrong. Fortunately the first is much rarer than the second. Plus, men "naturally" prefer a different form of relationship to women, for biological and practical reasons . Marriage equalises and makes fairer the natural imbalance in these needs/requirements. Are you seriously asking that question? NOW? in 2009? Really? Absolutely and with great relevance The break down in marriage (aside from the use of alcohol and drugs) has probably contributed more to human suffering and pain than any other single factor in modern society. I speak from observations of "local"societies and as an observer of world society. Of course my opinion is based on my value judgements and value lines. For example, I value the right of a child to a loving and caring parenting by two parents, as more important than the individual rights of adults who have made their choices and have many other freedoms within their lives. I counsel, and have to deal with the consequences of every day, both personally and, professionally, children from very young to approaching adulthood, who are being destroyed from within by the nature of modern family relationships and the breakdown of stable monogamous relationships. And that basic need is completely independant from religion. Love etc is not something that is necessarily intertwined with religion, at all. But ethics and morality have historically been intertwined with religion, and in the case of, say, christianity, it recognises and supports the need to construct social relationships in a way which protects the most vulnerable. This is exactly what the bible is yes. A book of mythological stories, each representing a moral of some kind. Something that was maybe more effective back in the ages...but can hardly be looked at as a book of Law. The bible and judaeo christian moralities evolved together, but not via cause and effect. ie civil societies recognise the values recognised within religions such as christianity for good reasons. the stable? Id laugh except im afraid yopu are serious. And again, the bible should not be looked at as a book of rules/law.It could be looked at as nighttime story for the children with a moral in it. But not something as important as some ppl would like to believe it is. It is both. It is a guide of moral stories But thiose moralities to be useful also need to be enshrined in civil law, as long as this is done with democratic process. And you say that humanity is still childish and needs this book for guidance. Well I'd rather say that using a book like that for guidance in this world is the childish thing to do. + it causes a lot of unnecassary missery all over the place. Look around you at the actions of mankind Of course we are still in the childhood stage of our evolution Worse we are more like adolescents. not mentally or socially matured yet with physical strength untempered by logic or empathy. Mankind in general needs not just rules but laws and enforcemet of those laws in every area until each human being grows up and begins to act like an adult Then we still need rules /laws for guidance, but we are mature enough to recognise their value and the need to obe y them and holefully dont need police and sanctions to punish us. And like I said, this was clearly the consequence of a lack of education. They cried, saying they had no idea this would kill her. C'mon..burning someone doesn't just "happen". You know what the consequences are....you know that even if you pray the person wont stop burning/dying. That's just not how it works. Not personally aware of the case, or contextual relevance here. We all act on what we believe to be true. Sometimes knowledge does not go far enough and we have to act on belief. Othertimes we have to make a judgement between two values. For example we cant know what will happen upon death. Thus a person who believes that by certain actions they may gain immortality will see the mortal life with different values to a person who believes this is all we get. For such people saving an immortal existence is a logically higher priority than saving an earthly physical existence of several decades. I dont believe this myself but i can empathise with people who do . Edited November 30, 2009 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted November 30, 2009 #110 Share Posted November 30, 2009 name='Beckys_Mom' date='29 November 2009 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1259500305' post='3188515']So you admit it was the work of medical science that helped you recover and get better along with the aid of god So science was there for you... Sure. Thats the point im making. Science is invaluable it saved my life But so did god. Science alone would not have saved it because science was unable to detect i had a heart problem. God informed me of this. God also watched over me, sent an angel and messages to tell me he was doing so and created withinme peace calm and tranquilty. Along with oxycodein, god ameloriated my pain making it something i could look at from outside rather than suffer through. Tell me Mr Walker.. what about those who are deeply religious and they do not believe in any use of medical science and yet we read how they thought that by just using god and praying, still in the end their loved ones died as a result without medical treatment... a few have posted these stories on this same board........how come their prayers didn't cure the sick children? They obviously poured all heart and faith that god would miraculously cure their kid...but evidence tells us this did not happen..........My own child fell really ill too, and although I hold a firm belief in god... I knew she wouldn't have a hope in hell of surving without medical science... so I had to pray that the meds given to her would work...as the previous meds didnt do the trick........ I mixed BOTH, for I am not that stupid to think praying does it alone!! I would always use medical science as well as faith. Having said that, i know faith can heal where science cannot and have had this happen to me as well. Again, a sensible and logical person will make use of both to maximise their recovery. God and faith CAN cure everything; from cancer dow,n without the intervention of science(although i accept lt ripleys point that it does not directly regrow limbs It is only in very recent years that medical science has recognised its limitations and accepted alternative methods such as meditation mnd positive thinking/faith, in the treatment of things like cancer. Question for you Mr Walker... – Do you not think that god has in fact gave some of us the abilities to create medicine that aids cures? After all isn't each of us born with a gift? Then if we believe that some are born with the want to help sick people that they were smart enough to seek cures and experiment to see what works right? That is a gift I for one don't have... but doctors and men/ women of science do have it... God gives us all our gifts and talents, but we chose how much to use them. Another thing Mr Walker... if you would rather live in a world with no science what so ever, then why aren't you living in a cave somewhere? (we all know the avarage cave man age was 26)....... making your own clothes...killing animals using what you can to kill these animals to feed yourself, and if you get sick, then you would have to sit and pray it away with no other help....constantly digging holes to burry your poop...sooner or later would pop up and cause a disease....which is most likely another factor that points to why cave mans avarage age was just 26........they had no real hope without science[/quoteYou are thinking like an athiest A believer in a real and physicla creative god would not see them selves living in a cave Why would they In gods created world there was no rain or lightning No dangerous animals Thus no need for protection or shelter. WE would not wear clothes First the climate was created to suit our needs, second we were not separated but as one. Thus we were not ashamed of nakedness and did not need clothing to cover it Nor did we need clothing to separate and identify us. God gave all humnas needed. And life was not 26 years, but millenia. No one got sick. No one felt pain. Not even in childbirth. I dont "believe" this scenario, but in a world where god is real, present and connected to each person humans dont require much of the physical Water, nuts and berries, and fruit were about all our physical requirements.You are thinking in human terms rather than in spiritual terms. OEven if you got sick and relied on the plants of the earth to treat you, you would still be using science, for that is you curing yourself, finding ways to make yourself better, that's science...its experimenting..again all points to the art of science See above. No getting sick. A person in spiritual balance with, and connected to an entity like god would not get ill. God from what I believe, put each of us here for a reason... and if you like to believe he created a planet that held natural plants that can aid us to get better..... then isn't it obvious he expected man to seek what is there and experiment from these plants to create cures?.I mean he did give man a brain to think and figure things out yes?..by doing this experiments, is still science Perhaps eventually, but that was part of the tree of knowledge, and originally god did not want us to eat of it until we were spiritually mature and wise enough to do so withput causing harm and havoc. In tasting physical knowledge and knowing the good and bad results possible by applying physical knowledge when he did, man redirected his life. Humans had no need to build anything until they evolved to that stage of their maturity. And god explicitly forbad them from aquiring the ability to do so because he recognised what would happen (again this is not fact but what the bible and many other creation stories say) Fro loki to pandoras box, man has recognised the duality and dangers inherent in physical knowledge and the need to temper it with wisdom or spiritual knowledge. So if you can live in a world with no science.....then you may as well be a cave man and do without any treatments....and hope for the best in the coldest winders you can survive with your warm heart!! But thats not how i see it. I would never be cold or hungry in a world where god provided. More to the point There would be no anger, lust, greed, hate, etc I would never be depressed or lonely because i woul,dbe connected not just to god but to all humanity. Rather than individuals, divided by our separate minds and bodies, we would be one in many important ways But somehow I get the feeling you would not even dream of living like some caveman eh Mr Walker? you need science as well as god... god created science and gave man the ability to seek, discover and experiement with the sources god has planted on this green earth Only in the world as it is. not in the world as god may have created it EDIT - If you believe god created the earth and the universe and all that is living...he created plants ect for use to use and experiemnt with along with so much more, we are part of gods own experiemnt...so that makes god out to be the ultimate scientist of them all This is a fair opinion, but there are other alternatives. It is a human hubris to believe the rest of the natural world was created for our use. It may simply be a part of gods creation A home and habitat for humanity( which biblically he created only after the natural world.) In eden, man did not have to cut down a single tree , disturb a single blade of grass, harm a single animal, light a single fire. He did not even have to skin animals, or cut down plants to provide for his needs. Eden, and god, combined provided fully for them all. We were able to understand and appreciate the natural beauty of the world and synchronicity of nature without having to do anything at all to despoil it. Adam and eve had a deep knowledge and understanding of the natural world, but no need to do anything but enjoy it and learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #111 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Hebrews of the time-period we are talking about, had a rather unique culture, going by what is written in the Bible about them You asked why the Bible does not mention peadophilia as a sin. I answered you using Bible sources. 1st of all it doesn't matter what culture man came from....still part of mankind... 2nd There is no way in hell anyone can possibly claim that way back a few thousand years ago, hebrews did not lust after children and rape them.... why? becuase in order to do that, there would have to be someone back then to document each person each day that passed.....and the chances of that ..well put it this way, you'd have a better chance in winning the national lottery... Just because man didnt make it out like a crime or a big deal...doesn't mean it never happened To even think that back then a certin kind of people just never thought of lusting after children is absolutely absurd......and I seriously mean absurd There is no way in hell anyone would know what an entire population over a long time period could document day to day lives of hebrews...impossible...they would need to report every last hebrews lives and all that went on in private.....no way When you think about the amount of children even in modern times, that kept quiet about the sexual abuse adults did.......too scared to speak out........so I would darwe say that happened back then too It would be rather ignorant of me to think that only a handful of crimes were newly invented by modern man..........I can't bring myself to say that let alone post it lol.... IE - If homosexuality where never addressed in the bible....not a word on homosexuality was ever mentioned in the bible.....(and I did say IF) .........what's the bet a number of christians would say... aha but back in those days man never did that sort of thing, this is proof its just a choice and a bad one at that? <--I wouldnt put it past them......but truth is homosexuality existed back then.... so did murder, and rape of all kinds. heck it used to be OK to lust after a family member before the bible outlawed it.... I mean come on Karlis.... you cannot convince me that it didnt take place.........especially if its impossible to document every last hebrew that ever lived back then on a daily bases<--would have taken forever...and not everyone reported what went on behind closed doors either...heck they still don't, and yes a lot of kids are too frightened to speak out, too many threats...some wind up being murdered after the sexual assualt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #112 Share Posted December 1, 2009 EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here Thank you for finially postig the source for me to read.......... Karlis.........if ancient Hebrews did not ever think of lusting or having sex with children......... then explain to me why Moses ordered man to do it? Taken directly from the source you posted --> Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: Moses was part of the ancient hebrews wasn't he? So Karlis if Hebrews didnt do that sort of thing back then....why would he encourage it? To add..moses was born a hebrew... later adopted but went back to his hebrew roots later This gets worse..from the source you presented......--> Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime… The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves? Absolutely disgusting and down right evil...and how the heck can one test a girls virginity? ....reading through that source was absolutely disgusting and horrible.............. and you say hebrews didnt do rape on children...yet you present me with a source that disproves your own point........moses encouraging men to do it to children.........totally horrible this is so much clearer now Karlis.....you have just presented me with something from the bible that shows how one of gods chosen people encouraged child sex.....as sickening as that sounds....its no bloody wonder priests think its ok to do it..........sick!! http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html OMG!!! talk about pure evil back then....any wonder I don't like bible stories and its characters... that was just sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #113 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Sure. Thats the point im making. Science is invaluable it saved my life But so did god. Science alone would not have saved it because science was unable to detect i had a heart problem. So according to you, those that don't hold the same beliefs as you...but take ill just the same as what you did... medical science wouldnt have saved them? thats is nonsense and ignorant to say the least Again, a sensible and logical person will make use of both to maximise their recovery. God and faith CAN cure everything; from cancer dow,n without the intervention of science(although i accept lt ripleys point that it does not directly regrow limbs Then that makes me out to be a sensible and logical person....for I did suffer from cancer....but used science and prayer for treatment...still do .. (only becuase I havent reached the 5 year all clear as yet) BUT.....there is no way a person can b cured from cancer without science...impossible You are thinking like an athiest No I was thinking like any other logical person would think... thinking about the real world - reality...and as I know the history of the caveman, it helped me with my line of thinking....... besides I dont know how an atheist would think...i've never been one... But like I told you previously.......if you want to live in a world with no science what so ever...then you may as well go live your life in a cave....I meant that seriously....for its the only way to do it A believer in a real and physicla creative god would not see them selves living in a cave Why would they In gods created world there was no rain or lightning No dangerous animals Thus no need for protection or shelter. What? lol Walker with no rain what so ever.how do you suppose man could survive without water? So according to you.........if man wanted to live in a science free world.....it would need to be on a different planet..because even your own bible speaks of all weathers lol..... and no dangerous animals <---- you wouldnt be living on gods green earth......... so you would need to be on another planet..one that has nothing but friendly little animals, sunshine non stop and all is dandy......and can survive without drinking water......now thats a perfect description of dream land.seriously!!! You are thinking in human terms rather than in spiritual terms. Probably because I don't live in a dream world.....I live in reality and view things in reality Mr Walker...LOL And the reality is Mr Walker, you would not survive in your dream world with no rain ect... key words are reality not a dream world... But thats not how i see it. I would never be cold or hungry in a world where god provided. More to the point There would be no anger, lust, greed, hate, etc I would never be depressed or lonely because i woul,dbe connected not just to god but to all humanity. Rather than individuals, divided by our separate minds and bodies, we would be one in many important ways Ahhhhhhhhh to live in a little dream world.... I guess utopia would be great, pity its not part of the real world then eh? Hey Mr walker...when I challenged you, I challenged you in reality terms not what you dream of with out reality...I speak about the real world, you speak of something you dream of!!... and you still try and debate it? this doesnt remotely make any sense Lets all make up little dream worlds..were reality doesn't exist..hey get the atheists involved...they too can dream up a world with no rain, no cold weather, no dangerous animals, no bad things happening... anyone can dream of a world like that Mr Walker... but its just wishful thinking!!! Mr Walker with respect, if you wish to take this further, can you at least address it in the terms of a real world that we do actually live in and not some dream land like utopia? I'm not being funny..im serious...... My daughter would love to live in a dream world too filled with sweets non stop and a massive trampoline, and she can fly like Supergirl .........but see she is a child and can be excused for these ideas... Edited December 1, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted December 1, 2009 #114 Share Posted December 1, 2009 ~~~ ... ... Karlis.........if ancient Hebrews did not ever think of lusting or having sex with children......... then explain to me why Moses ordered man to do it? Taken directly from the source you posted --> Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: Beckys Mom, please show me Scriptures where this is written. To my knowledge there are no such Scriptures.Moses was part of the ancient hebrews wasn't he? So Karlis if Hebrews didnt do that sort of thing back then....why would he encourage it? I think you are misreading scriptures. ... This gets worse..from the source you presented......--> Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime… You have not read the relevant chapters in Numbers, have you? Or, if you did read, then you paid no attention to the reasons given there (and which reasons are explained in detail in the article I provided). The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves? Beckys Mom -- it seems you do not understand the explanation as to why these killings were ordered. More importantly: The idea that the young girls were given to their captors as sex-slaves comes directly from your imagination, Beckys Mom. There is no basis for that in the Bible. Absolutely disgusting and down right evil... That's your opinion, again ... not sourced from Scriptures. and how the heck can one test a girls virginity? .... Ask any nurse or doctor how this can be checked. How do you think it was done? ... and you say hebrews didnt do rape on children...yet you present me with a source that disproves your own point........moses encouraging men to do it to children.........That's from your imagination, Beckys Mom. There are no Scriptures to support what you write.this is so much clearer now Karlis.....you have just presented me with something from the bible that shows how one of gods chosen people encouraged child sex.....Your opinion again, Beckys Mom, based on nothing more than on your imagination. There is no support in the Bible that shows, "how one of gods chosen people encouraged child sex". http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html OMG!!! talk about pure evil back then....any wonder I don't like bible stories and its characters... that was just sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #115 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Beckys Mom, please show me Scriptures where this is written. To my knowledge there are no such Scriptures. I think you are misreading scriptures. Your memory must be short...for it was you that sent me that link...when you wrote....see below.. EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here <------------so I clicked on that link you provided and low and behold to my horror I read......Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html<--- thats the link you Karlis posted previously... so you ask where did it get the info from...I got it directly from you!!!!!!! Seriously read the links you provide Karlis... you presented me with a link that makes it all sound a lot worse and it proved my point ...Moses encouraging sex on to children... i mean if that don't take the biscuit i dunno what does!!! Go ahead....scroll back up to your post and click on your link..I think its safe to say you will see just what I posted lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #116 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Beckys Mom -- it seems you do not understand the explanation as to why these killings were ordered. So one needs an explaination to kill infants? wtf? That's from your imagination, Beckys Mom. There are no Scriptures to support what you write. Karlis you gave me all that info that I posted up..it came from you.... did you bother to read your own link?? The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves? <-----------I copied that from the link YOU provided above... seems to me you dont even look at the links you post!!! Click on your own link you will find all of what I posted in there... if you claim you dont see it..then it would be wrong of you .. you were the one that posted the link that contained this info...in post 108 it was the last line you posted saying -> EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here <------------so I clicked on that link you provided and low and behold to my horror I read......Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: here is YOUR link again the same link you present above --> http://www.christian...com/midian.html My imagination eh?? LOL not bloody likely LOL Edited December 1, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted December 1, 2009 #117 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Your memory must be short...for it was you that sent me that link...when you wrote....see below.. EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here <------------so I clicked on that link you provided and low and behold to my horror I read......Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html<--- thats the link you Karlis posted previously... so you ask where did it get the info from...I got it directly from you!!!!!!! Seriously read the links you provide Karlis... you presented me with a link that makes it all sound a lot worse and it proved my point ...Moses encouraging sex on to children... i mean if that don't take the biscuit i dunno what does!!! Go ahead....scroll back up to your post and click on your link..I think its safe to say you will see just what I posted lol Becky's Mom, you really need to concentrate on what you are reading.Please go back to the source I provided and read the first paragraph of the article (the one preceding the paragraphs in bold type). I'm copy-pasting it here: The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God’s cruelty or His “nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds”. The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the statements people have sent into me about this event: The sourec once again http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html Beckys Mom, the paragraphs in bold that follow are what people who want to discredit God in the Bible have written to the author of that article. THAT is the information you posted. Those are false accusations, which the author debunks in his articles. Hope that is helpful, Karlis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #118 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Becky's Mom, you really need to concentrate on what you are reading. Please go back to the source I provided and read the first paragraph of the article (the one preceding the paragraphs in bold type). I'm copy-pasting it here: The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God's cruelty or His "nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds". The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the statements people have sent into me about this event: The sourec once again http://www.christian...com/midian.html Beckys Mom, the paragraphs in bold that follow are what people who want to discredit God in the Bible have written to the author of that article. THAT is the information you posted. Those are false accusations, which the author debunks in his articles. Hope that is helpful, Karlis Don't run of in a tangent over a link that YOU posted... you were the one that posted that exact link.. were I got this so called info from....anyone here reading will see exactly what it says... they will read how it says moses encouraged sex on to children <---------LOL you provided me with the info...I clicked and I read it and now you are complaining over a link you provided? not my fault you felt the need to post it Something tells me you glanced at your own link and pasted what suited you...and left out large areas that make your points look invalid I would ask anyone that reads this...to go to post 108...and read the bottom of your post Karlis where you post up a link that does state...moses encouraged sex on to children and the rest of the horror that goes with it So all this talk on how ancient hebrews didnt do that sort of thing.well moses was a hebrew and according to your source he encouraged sex on to kids thank you Karlis for proving my point and disproving your own... for your post 108 at the bottom link provided by YOU just showed me exactly what I was talking about.. lol Edited December 1, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #119 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) EDIT: Sorry Beckys Mom, there is a source in my post, but that was specifically forthe subject of 'slavery'. The source from which I copy-pasted into my post is here Once again from the link you gladly provided............and if anyone else cares to click on your link they will read this...which BTW just looks like a bunch of opinions from someones blog...and you call that a reliable source eh? you must have thought it was...honestly Karlis..you should have looked for a more educational website to back up your claims not some blog of opinions... and if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see the author of the entire thing is - Glen Miller <-------all of what you tried to use as evidence came from a guy called glen miller!!!!!!.....and that is supposed to prove you were right? really?.....................so if I go into non chrisitan web sites and post stuff written by other that would make me right too? "Speaking of which, isn't this the same God who commanded the genocide of the Midianites? The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves? "In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god. First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2) Moses and the children of Israel obey: And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. (vs. 7, my italics) The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and all the unvirginal women: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17) Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: Now this is taken from your own link... and yeaa anychrisitan will call it lies and not correct blah blah..........but pick up a bible..reading the OT..its filled with horror...and if you wish to dig into those verses in the bible that the author was talking about..feel free...and hey why not complain to the author?? Honestly Karlis I thought if you wanted to prove your own points, you should have used a sourse that doesnt make your ideas look wrong....the idea is to look up sourses that doesnt make you look wrong LMAO... but I loved how you did it...when you 1st posted the info from that web page, you copied and pasted from that link what you wanted and you left out the link source itself....prolly htinking I wouldnt notice and ask....if you did...ohh man where you backing the wrong horse Karlis my point is...mankind back then did sexually molest little children just like mankind does in todays world... Edited December 1, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlis Posted December 1, 2009 #120 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Once again from the link you gladly provided............and if anyone else cares to click on your link they will read this...which BTW just looks like a bunch of opinions from someones blog...and you call that a reliable source eh? you must have thought it was...honestly Karlis..you should have looked for a more educational website to back up your claims not some blog of opinions... and if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see the author of the entire thing is - Glen Miller <-------all of what you tried to use as evidence came from a guy called glen miller!!!!!!.....and that is supposed to prove you were right? really?.....................so if I go into non chrisitan web sites and post stuff written by other that would make me right too? "Speaking of which, isn't this the same God who commanded the genocide of the Midianites? The same God who commanded the Israelites to slaughter all Midianite males (including infants) and all adult Midianite women? The same God who commanded that the young girls be tested for virginity and given to their captors as sex-slaves? "In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god. First, he orders Moses to lead Israel in a war against the Midianites: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... (vss. 1-2) Moses and the children of Israel obey: And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. (vs. 7, my italics) The slaying continues in verse 8. Then in verse 9, the children of Israel take captive all the Midianite women and children, confiscating as well "the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods." Eventually, the captives are brought before Moses, who condemns to death all the male children and all the unvirginal women: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (vs. 17) Moses then encourages his men to use the female children for (presumably) sexual pleasure: Now this is taken from your own link... and yeaa anychrisitan will call it lies and not correct blah blah..........but pick up a bible..reading the OT..its filled with horror...and if you wish to dig into those verses in the bible that the author was talking about..feel free...and hey why not complain to the author?? Honestly Karlis I thought if you wanted to prove your own points, you should have used a sourse that doesnt make your ideas look wrong....the idea is to look up sourses that doesnt make you look wrong LMAO... but I loved how you did it...when you 1st posted the info from that web page, you copied and pasted from that link what you wanted and you left out the link source itself....prolly htinking I wouldnt notice and ask....if you did...ohh man where you backing the wrong horse Karlis my point is...mankind back then did sexually molest little children just like mankind does in todays world... Beckys Mom, here is the first paragraph from the website:The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God’s cruelty or His “nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds”. The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the statements people have sent into me about this event: If you are unable to understand what that means, and unable to follow the rest of the article about events in Numbers 31, the problem is yours, and no amount of explanations from any source will be satisfactory to you. Edited December 1, 2009 by Karlis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 1, 2009 #121 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Beckys Mom, here is the first paragraph from the website: The incident recorded in Numbers 31 is frequently mentioned as an illustration of God's cruelty or His "nature as a human fabrication of twisted minds". The passage is a troubling one, for many reasons, but there are many misconceptions about what actually happened in the text as well. Consider some of the statements people have sent into me about this event: If you are unable to understand what that means, and unable to follow the rest of the article about events in Numbers 31, the problem is yours, and no amount of explanations from any source will be satisfactory to you. So you post someone elses opinions and you call that facts? Reason as to why I dont take it for real...is because the entire article was written by the same person... and its just his opinion You failed to present actual evidence that proves ancient hebrews (who yes were a part of mankind )... lusted and raped a child Reason why you fail to do this..is because like I was saying before is... the only way anyone can remotely gather evidence that states... Ancient Hebrews didnt sexually molets children ......is to document every last hebrew that lived back then and document every day of their lives INCLUDING what went on behind closed doors.... as this was not done and practically impossible.......... your 'point' is one I do not buy..and the opinion posted from your site either.... No man was able to document the days and lives o Jesus back then...hence the reason as to why there is a huge gap in the age from he was born then straight to his 30's... its impossible to do for a complete populations over x ammount of years...impossible... so you have nothing to prove your point...other than a bloke with a similar view and opinions on how he has intreperted the bible lol I cannot bring myself to suggest mankind back in those times didnt do such acts...and if that guy was right about Moses and we looked at the verses he was speaking about... something tells me the so called accusations would be true There is nothing much you can do to make me think something that sounds so absurd was true... Edited December 1, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-5 Posted December 1, 2009 #122 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Very curious thread this Its hard to decide who is arguing what. Is BM arguning that because paedophilia is not specifically mentioned in the Bible that it was somehow condoned or (in a later post) that the Catholic Church deliberately omitted it when it was compiling the Bible? Both POV are extremely hard to take seriously but equally impossible to disprove. I could equally argue that child sex never existed prior to the very first documented case and how can I be PROVEN wrong? Another issue appears to be the modern concept of "war crimes" What today is seen as crime was in the past seen as normal practice and was certainly not confined to the ancient Middle Eastern peoples. Documented evidence exists of the Aztecs and Incas, the peoples of Africa and New Guinea, ancient Indian civilisations all carrying out wars against their neighbours and indeed exterminating them. I am not sure about the virgin issue but I did read someplace a while back that in Roman times it was considered bad luck to kill a virgin and hence the girl captives were either kept as slaves or their virginity was taken before they were killed. Maybe such a taboo existed with the ancient Hebrews as well? Seems to me that the flavour of the thread has drifted a long ways from its starting point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 2, 2009 #123 Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Very curious thread this Its hard to decide who is arguing what. Is BM arguning that because paedophilia is not specifically mentioned in the Bible that it was somehow condoned or (in a later post) that the Catholic Church deliberately omitted it when it was compiling the Bible? Both POV are extremely hard to take seriously but equally impossible to disprove. I could equally argue that child sex never existed prior to the very first documented case and how can I be PROVEN wrong? 1st of all I am not saying because its not mentioned directly in the bible...that its condoned by all..........I did however give what I clearly stated was just my own theory, that the RCC might have taken it out.....again my theory And as for man never doing such crimes...well there is no way on earth I would buy a weird statement like that.........man has ALWAYS been committing crimes like that from man has walked the earth....................especially if the bible at the beginning tells us on how inbreeding was best .......then later on it outlaws it....if man believed in inbreeding...and if man raped others..then that includes children too... I fail to believe they never raped children...its absurd to think they didnt Its impossible to document an entire population of people..each and every day of each of their lives and what went on in private.............IMPOSSIBLE Edited December 2, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin-5 Posted December 2, 2009 #124 Share Posted December 2, 2009 1st of all I am not saying because its not mentioned directly in the bible...that its condoned by all..........I did however give what I clearly stated was just my own theory, that the RCC might have taken it out.....again my theory And as for man never doing such crimes...well there is no way on earth I would buy a weird statement like that.........man has ALWAYS been committing crimes like that from man has walked the earth....................especially if the bible at the beginning tells us on how inbreeding was best .......then later on it outlaws it....if man believed in inbreeding...and if man raped others..then that includes children too... I fail to believe they never raped children...its absurd to think they didnt Its impossible to document an entire population of people..each and every day of each of their lives and what went on in private.............IMPOSSIBLE So what it really comes down to is personal belief then. In the absence of proof positive I suppose that is what it will always boil down to and hence the argument will be rendered moot since neither side can win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted December 2, 2009 #125 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So what it really comes down to is personal belief then. In the absence of proof positive I suppose that is what it will always boil down to and hence the argument will be rendered moot since neither side can win Tel me if...homosexuality was never mentioned in the bible.............would it mean they didnt have gays back then? and gays are like a new trend? Or if murder was never mentioned....would it mean man didnt kill anyone back then? think about it mate... its not rocket science lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now