171 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Karlis, on 01 December 2009 - 12:37 PM, said:

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 by Beckys_Mom, 01 December 2009 - 12:53 PM.

[Goblin-5]

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

[Beckys_Mom]

Goblin-5, on 01 December 2009 - 08:33 PM, said:

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 by Beckys_Mom, 02 December 2009 - 03:55 PM.

[Goblin-5]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 03:52 PM, said:

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

[Beckys_Mom]

Goblin-5, on 02 December 2009 - 07:26 PM, said:

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

[Goblin-5]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 07:31 PM, said:

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

I think that homosexuality is mentioned more in passing than as a cardinal sin unlike murder or adultery isnt it?. I think the absence of a vile act such as child molestation would indicate that it was either condoned as normal or very hidden and rare indeed. When you have dietary restrictions taking precedence over sexual matters I would think that the latter would be very low on the totem pole of issues of import to societial functioning no?

[Beckys_Mom]

Goblin-5, on 02 December 2009 - 07:47 PM, said:

I think that homosexuality is mentioned more in passing than as a cardinal sin unlike murder or adultery isnt it?.

The word IF might be small but it has a big meaning......you read my post wrongly...I said IF homosexuality was never mentioned, would it mean they didnt have gays back then?  IE if it didnt read - he who lays with another male may the blood be on his head<---obviously seen like a crime against god....but say IF it were never mentioned...does that mean there were no gays back then?

Same with murder...IF murder was never mentioned in the bible...would that mean they just didnt do that back then?

Please direct my actual questions...thanks

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 December 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[Goblin-5]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 07:51 PM, said:

The word IF might be small but it has a big meaning......you read my post wrongly...I said IF homosexuality was never mentioned, would it mean they didnt have gays back then?  IE if it didnt read - he who lays with another male may the blood be on his head<---obviously seen like a crime against god....but say IF it were never mentioned...does that mean there were no gays back then?

Same with murder...IF murder was never mentioned in the bible...would that mean they just didnt do that back then?

Please direct my actual questions...thanks

If it were not mentioned that obviously does not preclude its existance, but equally it does not mean that it existed. Lesbianism is not mentioned but I am reasonably sure that it existed. For sure every sexual more existed in Roman cities so one would expect that tye would be found in Roman occupied territories

[Beckys_Mom]

Goblin-5, on 02 December 2009 - 08:18 PM, said:

If it were not mentioned that obviously does not preclude its existance,

There you go then...my point exactly....therefore just because the bible doesnt speak directly against child rape, doesn't mean it did not ever take place

Quote

but equally it does not mean that it existed  

How so?? I mean the bible is not a document of the days and lives of every last hebrew that ever lived back then.... seem to me you are throwing in an arguement for the sake of it... when you know I made a perfectly good point

Quote

Lesbianism is not mentioned

Lesbians are gay..aka homosexuals...and yes that cover it all..............

Quote

but I am reasonably sure that it existed  

Well i could adopt your attitude and say... it doesnt mean they existed   <------but I don't think like that...I work with what is logical ..not trying to sound offensive but seriously...

Jesus actual birth date is not mentioned...so I guess he never existed  <-----LMAO talk about turning the tables eh?

Or  The bible doesnt mention how often moses went to the toilet, does this mean he was forever constipated?...maybe ancient hebrews just didnt poop?

Jokes aside..you saw my point and you just proved it.....just because the bible has not documented things that goes on naturally in an everyday life...doesn't mean it didnt ever happen

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 December 2009 - 08:39 PM.

[Goblin-5]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 08:37 PM, said:

Jesus actual birth date is not mentioned...so I guess he never existed  
No it could just mean he was not born by your logic but we do know that he existed or at least someone with the name Jesus existed in Judea since the Romans executed a man of that name. Whether Jesus was God or simply a deranged Jew is an open question

Or  The bible doesnt mention how often moses went to the toilet, does this mean he was forever constipated
Might explain why they are so irritable killing and plundering every which way   . You could argue that this is proof that ExLax did not exist back then  

Jokes aside..you saw my point and you just proved it.....just because the bible has not documented things that goes on naturally in an everyday life...doesn't mean it didnt ever happen

True enough but you have taken that premise and taken it further to say that it is possible that they were expunged from the document by other people/institutions. To assume that because it was not mentioned that an act such as child rape was so common as to not warrant either mention or censure is an unjustifiable leap of logic no? The Bible equally does not give recepies for cooking meals but that doesnt mean that they were expunged by the early Church. I am sure that the Hebrews had their own version of Julia Child or indeed Gordon Ramsey  

Edited by Goblin-5, 02 December 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Sherapy]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 08:37 PM, said:

There you go then...my point exactly....therefore just because the bible doesnt speak directly against child rape, doesn't mean it did not ever take place



How so?? I mean the bible is not a document of the days and lives of every last hebrew that ever lived back then.... seem to me you are throwing in an arguement for the sake of it... when you know I made a perfectly good point



Lesbians are gay..aka homosexuals...and yes that cover it all..............



Well i could adopt your attitude and say... it doesnt mean they existed <------but I don't think like that...I work with what is logical ..not trying to sound offensive but seriously...

Jesus actual birth date is not mentioned...so I guess he never existed <-----LMAO talk about turning the tables eh?

Or The bible doesnt mention how often moses went to the toilet, does this mean he was forever constipated?...maybe ancient hebrews just didnt poop?

Jokes aside..you saw my point and you just proved it.....just because the bible has not documented things that goes on naturally in an everyday life...doesn't mean it didnt ever happen

Excellent counter, Sis!!!!

Edited by S♥ ♥ ♥, 02 December 2009 - 08:58 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Goblin-5, on 02 December 2009 - 08:57 PM, said:

True enough but you have taken that premise and taken it further to say that it is possible that they were expunged from the document by other people/institutions. A leap of logic no? The Bible equally does not give recepies for cooking meals but that doesnt mean that they were expunged by the early Church. I am sure that the Hebrews had their own version of Julia Child or indeed Gordon Ramsey  

Fact is simple... it is absurd to think that what seems natural to man  (even the sick things that sick people find natural) if not mentioned in the bible, then it just didnt happen  .that is illogical and absurd......for it mentioned rape on a woman...so rape was  in the minds back then but only limited to an adult female? this is why it is absurd and illogical to claim it might not have ever happened.....I say it did...and I dont need proof..

When we speak of what comes natural to the minds of man... its not like we are speaking of objects...IE Cars... the bible doesnt mention that Mary and Joesph travelled to the stables in a Ferrari F 50....for we know cars didnt exist back then...get me now?

Quote

No it could just mean he was not born by your logic but we do know that he existed or at least someone with teh name Jesus existed in Judea since the Romans executed a man of that name. Whether Jesus was God or simply a deranged Jew is an open question

  

It was a joke but hey.....if his birth date is not mentioned... then logic tells us that maybe he just was never born and they speak of some other guy...but I don't believe gods son has walked the earth..

Quote

Mightt explain why they are so irritable killing and plundering every which way

.Well it does explain a lot with the stories that just don't make sense

the authors suffered from constipation  LMAO

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 02 December 2009 - 09:17 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

S♥ ♥ ♥, on 02 December 2009 - 08:57 PM, said:

Excellent counter, Sis!!!!

Hee hee scroll back a page or two...the tears will streem down your face with laughter when you are done reading

[Bluefinger]

Quote

It's this: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

Religion is not dependent on belief in invisible things. Religion is dependent on people to make of it what their culture or ruler wants to. Religion is a culture maker (or destroyer.)

When it comes to the Gospel, it's different. The Gospel isn't supposed to create culture or destroy it. The Gospel is supposed to refine cultures everywhere. Religion is about what we do to get to God. Therefore it makes no sense when it comes to us trying to actually to get to something we can't see. We lack the terminology to describe God when we approach Him from religiocity.

The Gospel says that God got to us. The effort is on God's part and therefore it is up to God to reveal Himself, instead of us approaching Him. The crazy catch is made often evident in science: That there are uncontrolled forces that shape us and control us, yet we are ever so responsible for the misdeeds we do. It's a catch 22.

Religion makes no sense. I agree. That is because it is coming from people.....who live in futility of thought.

[Goblin-5]

Beckys_Mom, on 02 December 2009 - 09:11 PM, said:

Fact is simple... it is absurd to think that what seems natural to man  (even the sick things that sick people find natural) if not mentioned in the bible, then it just didnt happen  .that is illogical and absurd......for it mentioned rape on a woman...so rape was  in the minds back then but only limited to an adult female? this is why it is absurd and illogical to claim it might not have ever happened.....I say it did...and I dont need proof..

So you take it on faith them? How is that different from religion?  

When we speak of what comes natural to the minds of man... its not like we are speaking of objects...IE Cars... the bible doesnt mention that Mary and Joesph travelled to the stables in a Ferrari F 50....for we know cars didnt exist back then...get me now?


That assumes that rape, child molestation etc come naturally to the mind of man (and woman lets be fair to the cougars out there) Somehow I dont think that is a valid point/assumption. I still hold that you are drawing unsupported conclusions based on your own inherent bias(es) The sexual practices of peoples are seldom mentioned in any ancient texts (except the Kama Sutra which is not a religous text) so why hold the Bible to a different standard?

Edited by Goblin-5, 03 December 2009 - 04:04 PM.