Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....So the justification for military and war is that we are humans, ....
The Nuremburg Trial results disagree with your justification. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity and being human is irrelevant to that fact.
Quote:
....but what justification a God has for the same.. i mean we are the "humans" the sinners, the "primitive" and god is all divine.
The difference between us and God is that he can delve deeply into human hearts ad judge based on that.
Quote:
Ps:44:21: Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.
Gen:6:5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
He can also ressurect from the dead which means he can view death as a temporary condition, such as sleep and we can't.
Quote:
Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep." The disciples therefore said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover." Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead". Jn 11:11-14 Ps 90:5
Thou hast swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep Mt 9:24
He began to say, "the girl has not died, but is asleep." And they began laughing at Him. Mt 27:52 tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; Mk 5:39; Lk 8:52 The child has not died, but is asleep Ac 7:60
"Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, Stephen fell asleep. Ac 13:36
"For David ... fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay 1 Co 15:6,18,20
Quote:
So how do you explain a all divine, accepting either now or 2k years ago, rape.Is your argument that what I posted, word for word from the bible is not true or not mean what it say
An explanation showing that God does not condone rape and that the verses used to support that notion are being misunderstood has already been provided and you people refuse it. So there is really nothing more that can be rationally discussed from that point onward.
Ancient ignorance pervades the bible . . . but it is the OT that corrupts the CONTEXT for interpreting the spiritual significance of scripture by presenting a savage and incorrect picture of the true nature of our loving God. That savage picture corrupts ALL the interpretations in the bible.
I understand that there are Christians who do not believe my witness. That is OK. I am not Christ. It is Christ and His commands to "love God and each other" that matters . . . all else is vanity and human hubris.I understand that many (most) have been indoctrinated by the "precepts and doctrines of men" to believe that . . . but ONLY Jesus is the Word of God . . . NOT the scriptures. They are useful (profitable) for instruction and to give us hope. If you do not believe that our knowledge has progressed from that of 2000+ years ago (and more for the OT) . . . I do not know how I could convince you of their ignorance.
God should have insisted on editing the bible before it was published or, at least, have written a disclaimer.
Ancient ignorance pervades the bible . . . but it is the OT that corrupts the CONTEXT for interpreting the spiritual significance of scripture by presenting a savage and incorrect picture of the true nature of our loving God. That savage picture corrupts ALL the interpretations in the bible.
I understand that there are Christians who do not believe my witness. That is OK. I am not Christ. It is Christ and His commands to "love God and each other" that matters . . . all else is vanity and human hubris.I understand that many (most) have been indoctrinated by the "precepts and doctrines of men" to believe that . . . but ONLY Jesus is the Word of God . . . NOT the scriptures. They are useful (profitable) for instruction and to give us hope. If you do not believe that our knowledge has progressed from that of 2000+ years ago (and more for the OT) . . . I do not know how I could convince you of their ignorance.
And this hypothesis that you have, where is it? what religion is it?
Is it your opinion alone, or not?
I am asking because I have never heard of it before.
The Nuremburg Trial results disagree with your justification. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity and being human is irrelevant to that fact.
yes, but not all war are crime against humanity...
there is a difference.
Quote:
The difference between us and God is that he can delve deeply into himan hearts ad judge based on that. He can also ressurect from the dead which means he can view death as a temporary condition, such as sleep and we can't.
So we can see into our human hearts and judge based on our heart that killing, raping, etc is ok??
also words on the bible is not actual fact... that is the main issue here.
Quote:
An explanation showing that God does not condone rape and that the verses used to support that notion are being misunderstood has already been provided and you people refuse it. So there is really nothing more that can be rationally discussed from that point onward.
Where it was proven that it doesnt mean, because I posted the whole thing, where the context con the word rape can't change in the same subject...
So can you explain this to me...
what about the others about women during war?
this is the bible,
If a man rapes a virgin who is pledged, that person should be killed but no punishment should come to the virgin..
But if a man rapes a virgin girl who is not pledged, that person should pay, and marry the girl....
did we missed something...
Or what about the son raping a slave.. should the slave be cut in 12 pieces?
Explain to me how the meaning of the word is different and how the context is different:
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Another:
In Judges 19:22-30 .... Some sons of Belial came on a house and raped a concubine slave and she died and the master cut her up in 12 pieces and sent one piece to each of the tribes of Israel to show how evil a sin this is in Israel in these days. were in Judges 20 they planned war against some of the people and fought these people before going to the House of God and wept and had repentance, fasting and peace offering before the Lord ...... See this people took the sin of rape as serious infraction against the Lord ....
It clearly state that the HER, was raped, killed and the master cut HER in 12, not HIS or SONs. but the actual victim, was raped, killed, and cut in 12 pieces because,,, i have no Idea why... maybe because it was her fault for being raped and killed by their master...
tell me, what context should I read this, where is your key word that it doesnt mean what is actually written... I know you will find HER doesnt mean HER but actually his son the rapist.. right?
Explain to me how the meaning of the word is different and how the context is different:
I posted a link to the article that goes into detail concerning your question. In fact it explains it far more clearly than I ever could. So if indeed you read it and still disagree-then I guess you disagree my friend.
I posted a link to the article that goes into detail concerning your question. In fact it explains it far more clearly than I ever could. So if indeed you read it and still disagree-then I guess you disagree my friend.
I read it, but it makes no sense, when you put the whole thing together...
since he just cut the whole thing in half, and decided that the word in that sentence means something while the sentence before means something else..
this arguments would hold water if it was different books, or at least in different chapters, but they are not.. they are part of the same subject...
Also, he say that rape is not allow, like he said, but he still gets to live, not only that, but marries the girl, so the girl is actually the punished one, this is what he is saying...
He likes to use context word to help him, but taking out of context is what he is doing, when you take a little part of the whole picture and use that for your argument is taking it out of context, but not taking it out of context is looking at the whole picture including what was just before that sentence.
this is what the bible say, in short...
a rapist that rapes a pledged women should be punished.
a rapist that rapes a unpledged woman should marry the victim and pay 50 silver coins to the father...
this is the whole context...
what your friend did, is taking it out of context and ignoring what it say at the beginning, and only taking what is said right after...
a rapist that rapes a unpledged woman should marry the victim and pay,
oh, but rape here means sex not rape, Oh yeah that makes sense, except that the same word was used in the previous sentence to mean something else..
Your friend is the one taking it out of context...
also you havent said anything about the other one that gets raped, killed and cut in 12 pieces.
where is your argument on that one.
or is rape means sex, and killing meas falling in love and cut in 12 pieces means the heart of the master for sleeping with a slave,???
So the way I put it together made no sense, you read the article that put it together in the right way-but it still makes no sense to you and I surmise that no matter how it's put together it will never make any sense to you. Which brings us back to the fact that we disagree. Which is OK by me but is obviouisly not OK by you.
BTW
You are twisting EVERYTHING the article says. When someone does that it's a signal that further discussion is futile. At least with me it is. But maybe someone else will be willing to take on the onerous task of trying to convince you to understand it properly. Me? Thank but no thanks. I'm not a glutton for timewasting exercises in futility.
The problem with the "context" here is that rape is seen as a sex crime whereas in most modern cultures it is seen as a crime of violence. In SA we used to hang rapists.
The idea that a rapist merely "marries" the victim is indicative of the misogynistic nature of the writers and little different to the way islam treats women even today.
Women were merely walking incubators, vaginas and boobs in these cultures of yore.
So the way I put it together made no sense, you read the article that put it together in the right way-but it still makes no sense to you and I surmise that no matter how it's put together it will never make any sense to you. Which brings us back to the fact that we disagree. Which is OK by me but is obviouisly not OK by you.
So I am copy/pasting the whole passage of the bible, and not just picking one little sentence of the actual passage, but then I am the one not doing the right way??
It makes no sense because he is actually taking it out of context, something that you are avoiding...
So you say that in the same passage rape means 2 difference things?
what your friend is saying is simple, that rape doesnt mean rape in that sentence...
but on the sentence before it, rape means rape.. If that makes sense to you then ok... maybe blue means red...
and what is your discussion on the other passage where the slave is killed??? are you ignoring that one?
Quote:
BTW
You are twisting EVERYTHING the article says. When someone does that it's a signal that further discussion is futile. At least with me it is. But maybe someone else will be willing to take on the onerous task of trying to convince you to understand it properly. Me? Thank but no thanks. I'm not a glutton for timewasting exercises in futility.
I have read the whole thing, he has 2 arguments, if one doesnt work for him the other works.
first he say it is taken out of context and that rape really doesnt mean rape.. that is his argument.
Lets leave this one alone, how do you explain the raped slaved, killed and then cut into 12 pieces??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
