One may even have to make Biblical marriage illegal...like what's practiced in Ethiopia. See, good Bible believing men know that in Deuteronomy, the following passage can be found (Deut. 22:28-29).
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So, what do you do if you want a woman to be your wife? Well, you simply take her, rape her, and then she has to marry you by Biblical law.
Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230@GCT:
"It's already been done. (Note there are three different links chock full of evidence attesting to the fact of evolution.)"
All three links led to the same site. (A site I'm familiar with) Again, the error you make is in trying to make something concrete out of something which is far from concrete. Taking a car apart and analyzing the parts is far from a complete treatment of discovering where the parts came from. Even if you were to suggest a scenario in which the parts could exist, it does not prove the parts came to be of their own accord or that those conditions ever existed as proposed. It's unproven gas and that you fail to see it proves YOUR blindness.
"Typical science denial...why is it that anti-evolutionists also tend to deny some other type of science? Please educate yourself."
Dig your head out of the sand and read up on what's been happening in the IPCC. A great example how people can become indoctrinated by so-called science. Even science that consists of made up information. Evolution is a lie driven by political and social agendas. It just isn't true.
"Oh, so close...yes, Abraham asks that the whole city be spared, but the idea is that he doesn't wish to see innocents killed due to the sins of others "
I've read through a few of your older forums and find that you always refuse to comment on what the Bible actually says. Continue on with your straw men. But do so with the knowledge that you're attacking a religion (and book) that doesn't exist.
"I was pointing to the fact that in light of the number of manuscripts, there is less room for scribal editorialism than in other ancient texts."
First, you would have to show me that the texts in the 20,000 manuscripts are the same.
Secondly, repetition doesn't make a claim valid.
If that were true, then the claim that significant global warming is caused by humans is true because far more scientists say its true than don't.
I'm glad to know that you've now changed your position on global climate change.
Oh, you haven't? Why am I not surprised.
This is just another example of your inability to keep your stories straight. You'll rationalize forever to hold to your absurd central tenants.
Third, "editorialism" isn't a valid word.
@Dave:
"First, you would have to show me that the texts in the 20,000 manuscripts are the same."
Granted.
"Secondly, repetition doesn't make a claim valid."
Which claim? The claim of the text itself or the claim that we can know which words were most likely in the original text? I'm arguing for the latter with this statement, not the former. (see "textual criticism")
@Dave:
"Third, "editorialism" isn't a valid word."
It should be.
Anon 2 wrote:
"Taking a car apart and analyzing the parts is far from a complete treatment of discovering where the parts came from."
This is why we can't take what you say seriously. You simply regurgitate all the rejected shibboleths of religious fundies.
Despite your conflation of the two concepts, the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and vice versa.
Anon 2 wrote: "A great example how people can become indoctrinated by so-called science."
You also wrote "The claims of the Bible regarding the earth and it's function show amazing scientific accuracy."
I guess you were indoctrinated by science. ;-)
You again contradict yourself. In fact, I'm tempted to put some of your responses on my blog, if you don't mind, as a teaching aid to demonstrate how bankrupt Christianity is of original thought, and how immoral its precepts can be.
I know my readers would love to learn, for example, that a good Christian like you believes that forced marriage is moral. They'd love to know that Hitler was judged righteous and "safe" by your god if he simply had faith.
@Dave:
"Despite your conflation of the two concepts, the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and vice versa."
So then I can believe in evolutlion while at the same time believing God created man and woman and that we have not arrived in our current state through a series of genetic mutations? Evolutionary theory does not require an alternate 'source' of life (other than God)?
Your arguments are shallow at best and my suppossed 'conflation' is an attempt to sidestep my point which remains valid and remains unaddressed.
I love (again) how the atheist has not turned this into a conversation about evolution when the discussion had been about Deut. 22. This is the atheist trump card, your greatest bunker to fall back to... so I guess I would expect no less... unless I were expecting a real discussion regarding Deut. 22...
I helped you get to 205 comments... enough.
Anon 2, you think GCT won't comment on what the Bible says.
He wrote: "the idea is that he doesn't wish to see innocents killed due to the sins of others "
You don't think it's easy to catch your mistake. You don't you read your own Bible (whichever version that is).
Genesis 18-23:
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?"
18-25:
That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
See, Anon 2? (Of course you don't). Old Abe wants the Lord to spare the innocent, just as GCT explained to you.
Anon 2 wrote:
"So then I can believe in evolutlion while at the same time believing God created man and woman "
If you want to. The former doesn't exclude the latter. If a god started it all off, then it could be said that God created man and woman, or at least the constituent parts of them.
But that's not what I said, so there's no need to try to insult my intelligence by changing my words.
It's possible to believe in a god and evolution - I didn't say it's possible to believe in evolution and that humans as we know them today were created without going through evolution.
Anon 2 wrote:
"So then I can believe in evolutlion while at the same time believing God created man and woman "
If you want to. The former doesn't exclude the latter. If a god started it all off, then it could be said that God created man and woman, or at least the constituent parts of them.
But that's not what I said, so there's no need to try to insult my intelligence by changing my words.
It's possible to believe in a god and evolution - I didn't say it's possible to believe in evolution and that humans as we know them today were created without going through evolution.
Anon 2 wrote:
"Evolutionary theory does not require an alternate 'source' of life (other than God)? "
My deluded friend, evolutionary theory does not require any particular source of life. It only requires that life begins. From that all follows.
Whether life was created by a god's command, by the Devil, or by chance, has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution.
In other words, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only with the changes in life over the course of different generations.
That you think otherwise just shows us that you haven't read anything directly about evolution. You've only read or watch discussions of evolution and Darwin that have come from fundamentalist Christians.
Your ignorance, I'm sorry to say, shines through. I'm not saying your not intelligent, you seem to be. But you've closed off your mind to anything other than you want to hear.
On the other hand, in addition to trying to make sense of concepts like evolution, and algebra, and what ingredients make for a good hamburger, I've also read the Bible, and I've tried to plow through the different versions of the Bible.
I've also had discussions like this one over and over again. And what I find is that people like you confuse the Theory of Evolution with the origin of life. That explains much about your mind set: you can't think for yourself, no matter how bright you might be.
By the way, Anon 2, since we got off - so to speak - on Lot, I'm assuming you are at least unconsciously aware that he may have been a homosexual.
The word "unto" is used many times in the Bible as code for "sexual penetration."
What happened when the angels visited Lot?
"And he pressed upon them greatly [that alone sounds more than a bit gay]; and they turned in UNTO him"
And what do the men of Sodom want to do with the angels? That's right, they want to anally penetrate them, Anon 2. The theme of Lot's story is tied up - so to speak - nay, drenched with gay sex. So it's no leap of faith to realize that Lot is a homosexual, too.
Let's not forget Noah, who slept in his tent in the nude: "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done UNTO him." Noah was really annoyed - that Ham was a pain in the ass, wasn't he? - but God was silent, so apparently incestuous and homosexual rape is not necessarily condemned.
And so on and so on, with lots of coming - so to speak - "unto" of one person with another.
I can only assume you are not opposed to gay sex per se, just as you're not opposed to forced marriage, per se. After all, your god condemns neither acts, at least on occasion.
Anon 2 wrote:
"I love (again) how the atheist has not [sic] turned this into a conversation about evolution when the discussion had been about Deut. 22."
Hoo ha! There you go again, stepping all over yourself, tarring all atheists with the same brush after complaining that's what atheists do.
"This is the atheist trump card, your greatest bunker to fall back to."
Hardy, har, har!
YOU first turned the conversation toward evolution. I quote you:
"following this logic all I would have to do is enter this blog in the future claiming to be an atheist and then offer a variant interpretation of DARWIN'S WORKS to discredit them entirely."
Surely, Anon 2, you are this way on purpose. You're pulling our legs. Could you be so inconsistent by accident.
Anon 2,
I'm still interested to hear your answer/reply to a question/statement I posed/made a little while back:
"Then you would be in favor of forced marriage today, right? If two 14 year olds have sex, they should be forced to marry. If a 30 year old man entices a 14 year old girl into sex, they should be forced to marry. If you wouldn't agree with those, then you're rejecting absolute morality and defeating your own argument."
Anon 2,
"All three links led to the same site. (A site I'm familiar with)"
Then, you should realize that all three links go to different discussions of different sets of data that show evolution.
"Again, the error you make is in trying to make something concrete out of something which is far from concrete."
I'm sorry but you are flat out wrong here. It is concrete. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the volumes of evidence presented to you, but it's not very honest of you, is it?
"It's unproven gas and that you fail to see it proves YOUR blindness."
Incorrect again. We have the transitional fossils, we have the homologies, we have the DNA evidence, we have so much evidence that you wave away...and why? Well, because you put faith in the Bible. It's not because there are actual flaws in the evidence. It's not because you have counter evidence. No, it's because you have an a priori belief which forces you to deny the mountains of evidence in front of you.
"Dig your head out of the sand and read up on what's been happening in the IPCC."
You mean "climategate?" I suggest you get your head out of the sand and actually learn what it's all about and how it doesn't affect the science.
"I've read through a few of your older forums and find that you always refuse to comment on what the Bible actually says."
OK, that is simply false as attested to in this very thread. If you are going to spout falsehoods, at least try to make them believable.
"But do so with the knowledge that you're attacking a religion (and book) that doesn't exist."
Once again, the book that you think I'm not attacking doesn't exist, except in your mind. You can't sugar-coat the Bible and then claim that all others are wrong.
Anon 2,
"So then I can believe in evolutlion while at the same time believing God created man and woman and that we have not arrived in our current state through a series of genetic mutations?"
No, you can not. There are, however, theistic ideas that do not necessarily clash with evolution. Either way, you've completely missed the point once again.
"Evolutionary theory does not require an alternate 'source' of life (other than God)? "
No, it does not. Evolution starts from the first living, self-replicating lifeform and explains how life changed to become what we see in the world around us.
Why oh why am I not surprised that someone who doesn't even understand evolution is so sure it is wrong?
"I love (again) how the atheist has not turned this into a conversation about evolution when the discussion had been about Deut. 22. This is the atheist trump card, your greatest bunker to fall back to... so I guess I would expect no less... unless I were expecting a real discussion regarding Deut. 22..."
I'm sorry, but I believe it was you who brought evolution into this. I believe it is because you want to avoid having to defend the obvious errors in your sources.
Dave,
"By the way, Anon 2, since we got off - so to speak - on Lot, I'm assuming you are at least unconsciously aware that he may have been a homosexual.
The word "unto" is used many times in the Bible as code for "sexual penetration.""
I've never heard of this before. Do you have a link or source?
"Dave,
"By the way, Anon 2, since we got off - so to speak - on Lot, I'm assuming you are at least unconsciously aware that he may have been a homosexual.
The word "unto" is used many times in the Bible as code for "sexual penetration.""
I've never heard of this before. Do you have a link or source?
--------
GCT - I must claim complete authorship of that line of thought. Not that someone else hasn't, although I've never seen it anywhere.
I think it makes sense, as much sense as can be made from the Bible (and depending on which version).
I think the gods of the OT and NT are unconscious projections of the people who wrote them. It doesn't seem a stretch to think that, even unconsciously, certain ambivalent thoughts about sex might have crept into the Bible.
However, I was really just trying to yank Anon 2's chain. All those "unto" words made the proverbial lightbulb turn on - so to speak - inside my head.
There's there's the weird coda of Lot's daughters getting him drunk enough to fall unconscious (yeah, right) to have sex with him. Maybe they knew something only hinted at - that Lot was a homosexual and not likely to mate while sober with a woman, even if she was one of the last two left alive (which is what the daughters thought). And of course they'd think that Lot believed there were no other men, too.
In Genesis, Adam and Eve's kids mated incestuously; it was the only way to carry on the line. So maybe the story of Lot, which also appears in Genesis, is just another way, maybe unconsciously, of explaining that sex between siblings and parents is, in extraordinary circumstances, necessary to survive. And maybe it's just a way of discussing "deviant" sex in general.
By the way, I enjoy this blog immensely, and of course reading nutty comments by fundamentalist Xians drives me nuts, which is part of the fun.
Damn - did we scare off Anon 2?
The more I think about it, the more I'm thinkin' Lot was homosexual. All the men in the town were gay, after all, so why wouldn't Lot have been the same?.
There are some odd details to the story. (Anon 2 - take note. Details!)
- Lot tells the townsfolk who are banging on his door that he has a couple of virgins who he can offer up to them.
- Later, we're told these women have husbands.
Surely the men of Sodom would have known Lot's daughters were married. And just as surely, Lot would have known his neighbors were aware of the marital status of his daughters.
I assumed this was a mistake in the Bible, or that Lot was lying to his neighbors. But now I'm thinking that, as all the men in Sodom had become homosexuals, Lot's daughters could indeed have been virgins.
After all, they were married but didn't have children, not until they got their father to impregnate them.
It's a stretch to say Lot was gay. But again, maybe the story exists on more than one level, and in part, it is the unconscious projection of psycho-sexual dynamics that existed a few thousand years ago.
OK - I'll let go of this topic, at least here.
"
Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide? "
Yes, this is very good for the man: he gets the sweet YOUNG GIRL that he wanted :D ! The father gets some money, he can go buy another little wife of his own.
It's very good for the men.
Sadly we live in a woman's world.
And if you doubt it's rape, and you doubt it's about girls:
Passage mechanically translated from hebrew:
[quote]if he-meets man girl(hebrew word here means boy/girl/young) virgin who not being-pledged and-he-forces-her and-he-lies with-her and-they-are-discovered then-he-shall-pay the-man the-one-lying with-her to-father-of the-girl fifty silver and-to-him she-must-be as-wife(hebrew word is:woman) because that he-violated-her not he-can to-divorce-her all-of days-of-him[/quote]
Word study:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1775059&postcount=2
Hindupushup said:
""And she SHALL be his wife" aren't even in there!""
It is, however, in the original hebrew.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 with mouseover for the hebrew
http://qbible.com/king-james-1769/deuteronomy/22.html#28
Passage mechanically translated from hebrew:
[quote]if he-meets man girl(hebrew word here means boy/girl/young) virgin who not being-pledged and-he-forces-her and-he-lies with-her and-they-are-discovered then-he-shall-pay the-man the-one-lying with-her to-father-of the-girl fifty silver and-to-him she-must-be as-wife(hebrew word is:woman) because that he-violated-her not he-can to-divorce-her all-of days-of-him[/quote]
Christians are feminists and liars. They hate the old testament's opinion on girls.
"He must marry the woman...
Show me where it says that the woman must marry him? Nowhere? Excatly. "
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 with mouseover for the hebrew
http://qbible.com/king-james-1769/deuteronomy/22.html#28
Passage mechanically translated from hebrew:
[quote]if he-meets man girl(hebrew word here means boy/girl/young) virgin who not being-pledged and-he-forces-her and-he-lies with-her and-they-are-discovered then-he-shall-pay the-man the-one-lying with-her to-father-of the-girl fifty silver and-to-him she-must-be as-wife(hebrew word is:woman) because that he-violated-her not he-can to-divorce-her all-of days-of-him[/quote]
Hindupushup said:
""And she SHALL be his wife" aren't even in there!""
It is, however, in the original hebrew.
Go to hell you christian pro-women's rights piece of shit.
--MikeeUSA--
Um, where did you get the idea that Xians are feminists? The Bible doesn't particularly stand for women's rights in any testament.
Pathetic.
I removed the racist messages into the spam filter. Sorry - not really - but repeating the N-word over and over in 2 comments in a row is not welcome here.
Different cultures, different rules. Islam STILL treats women as property.
Also, the Old Testament in general was a lot harsher than the New.
"Anonymous said...
Different cultures, different rules. Islam STILL treats women as property.
"Also, the Old Testament in general was a lot harsher than the New."
In general, yes. On the other hand, the NT has this place called Hell. It doesn't get any harsher than that.
Many Xians still follow their holy texts' treatment of women as property as well. It's only those Xians who have moved away from the teachings of their holy book to embrace modern morality that do not.
Post a Comment