Uprising wrote:
LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.
You're turning yourself in knots, but go ahead and indulge me - how does that passage endorse incest/pedophilia?
"save for yourselves every girl ["women children" in KJV] who has never slept with a man"
What do you think they save them for?
You're taking it totally out of context, just as you said you did!..... Nowhere does it say to rape or diddle the girls......which was punishable by death under Jewish law. In the rest of the chapter, the girls are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, highlighting the fact that they were seen as captives. There was also a command to purify themselves(the soldiers) and their captives, which would have prevented intercourse according to Jewish custom. Also, God did allow Israelites the opportunity to marry women they captured, or they could be servants. There were also Jewish laws that prohibited mistreatment of wives AND servants......Try again.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
RiverguyVT wrote:I have never seen Uprising ever come remotely close to accurate or appropriate biblical interpretation.
That said, am I the only one that sees irony in his taking this topic up with Hokie Ham?
You have a good point. No wonder he hates God with that ignorant and silly view of him.
With your great understanding of your inerrant book, then you should be able to explain why it was OK for Noah's family to have incestuous relationships but not these folks from NM... It is clear that is what your god wanted because he did murder every other living person. So if your god wanted it, it must be moral. That's how your morality works, amirite?
With Noah, they were cousins and not brother and sister as wives were brought onboard the ark.
Murder is an unjustified killing. He flooded the earth to kill the wicket for the same reason a farmer pulls weeds from his garden, they choke out the good.
Uprising wrote:
LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.
You're turning yourself in knots, but go ahead and indulge me - how does that passage endorse incest/pedophilia?
"save for yourselves every girl ["women children" in KJV] who has never slept with a man"
What do you think they save them for?
You're taking it totally out of context, just as you said you did!..... [emoji38] Nowhere does it say to rape or diddle the girls......which was punishable by death under Jewish law.
You ought to be able to provide that passage then. We know this is exactly what happened to the spoils of war at that time. Not this war because it is a make believe war, but in actual wars.
HokieHam wrote:In the rest of the chapter, the girls are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, highlighting the fact that they were seen as captives.
I'm not sure what you think this means. They were treated as property, just like the animals and goods.
HokieHam wrote:There was also a command to purify themselves(the soldiers) and their captives, which would have prevented intercourse according to Jewish custom.
People and objects that killed someone or touched something dead were purified. Nothing about those passages prevented intercourse with anyone.
HokieHam wrote:Also, God did allow Israelites the opportunity to marry women they captured, or they could be servants. There were also Jewish laws that prohibited mistreatment of wives AND servants......Try again.
So they could either marry the "women children" and then sleep with them, or they could enslave them. Great source of morality you have there. [emoji106]
awesome guy wrote:With Noah, they were cousins and not brother and sister as wives were brought onboard the ark.
Your good with first cousins then?
awesome guy wrote:Murder is an unjustified killing. He flooded the earth to kill the wicket for the same reason a farmer pulls weeds from his garden, they choke out the good.
LOL...
You must at least be upset about all the children in the womb that died then? Not to mention all the newborns, toddlers, children, etc...
awesome guy wrote:With Noah, they were cousins and not brother and sister as wives were brought onboard the ark.
Your good with first cousins then?
awesome guy wrote:Murder is an unjustified killing. He flooded the earth to kill the wicket for the same reason a farmer pulls weeds from his garden, they choke out the good.
LOL...
You must at least be upset about all the children in the womb that died then? Not to mention all the newborns, toddlers, children, etc...
No, but they're not brother and sister either. Why would I be upset over the wicket being removed?
Uprising wrote:
LOL...
Pointing out that his religion, which he claims is the source of what is eternally moral, has condoned pedophilia and incest (but not homosexually) since it's inception, is making his argument that homosexually is a slippery slope to pedophilia and incest?
Good stuff.
You're turning yourself in knots, but go ahead and indulge me - how does that passage endorse incest/pedophilia?
"save for yourselves every girl ["women children" in KJV] who has never slept with a man"
What do you think they save them for?
You're taking it totally out of context, just as you said you did!..... [emoji38] Nowhere does it say to rape or diddle the girls......which was punishable by death under Jewish law.
You ought to be able to provide that passage then. We know this is exactly what happened to the spoils of war at that time. Not this war because it is a make believe war, but in actual wars.
HokieHam wrote:In the rest of the chapter, the girls are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, highlighting the fact that they were seen as captives.
I'm not sure what you think this means. They were treated as property, just like the animals and goods.
HokieHam wrote:There was also a command to purify themselves(the soldiers) and their captives, which would have prevented intercourse according to Jewish custom.
People and objects that killed someone or touched something dead were purified. Nothing about those passages prevented intercourse with anyone.
HokieHam wrote:Also, God did allow Israelites the opportunity to marry women they captured, or they could be servants. There were also Jewish laws that prohibited mistreatment of wives AND servants......Try again.
So they could either marry the "women children" and then sleep with them, or they could enslave them. Great source of morality you have there. [emoji106]
1. Deut. 22:13-23 is one such passage.
2. They were captured. Thus viewed as property and as captives. Not sexual objects.
3. You obviously have no idea about the cleansing ritual prescribed.
4. This was the spoils of war based on Jewish tradition. The treatment of wives and servants was clearly written about in their law. Also, if you were to look at context....I know, so very hard for you......you would know that in chapter 25 there was a plague and an execution brought about by the Israleites relations with Midionite women. More than likely, they wanted nothing to do with them.
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
HokieHam wrote:1. Deut. 22:13-23 is one such passage.
No it isn't.
HokieHam wrote:2. They were captured. Thus viewed as property and as captives. Not sexual objects.
This is the most naive thing I've ever heard. At least you admit that you worship a god who confines slavery.
HokieHam wrote:3. You obviously have no idea about the cleansing ritual prescribed.
19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”
21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lordgave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron,tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.”
Drop some off your famous apologetics on me.
HokieHam wrote:4. This was the spoils of war based on Jewish tradition. The treatment of wives and servants was clearly written about in their law. Also, if you were to look at context....I know, so very hard for you......you would know that in chapter 25 there was a plague and an execution brought about by the Israleites relations with Midionite women. More than likely, they wanted nothing to do with them.
That's why instead of killing all of them, they kept the virgins only... Sleeping with captive "women children" who weren't virgins, that would have been bad.
awesome guy wrote:With Noah, they were cousins and not brother and sister as wives were brought onboard the ark.
Your good with first cousins then?
awesome guy wrote:Murder is an unjustified killing. He flooded the earth to kill the wicket for the same reason a farmer pulls weeds from his garden, they choke out the good.
LOL...
You must at least be upset about all the children in the womb that died then? Not to mention all the newborns, toddlers, children, etc...
No, but they're not brother and sister either. Why would I be upset over the wicket being removed?
Because you wanted to play croquet???
Why aren't first cousins OK? Do you think you have a better moral compass than your god?
awesome guy wrote:With Noah, they were cousins and not brother and sister as wives were brought onboard the ark.
Your good with first cousins then?
awesome guy wrote:Murder is an unjustified killing. He flooded the earth to kill the wicket for the same reason a farmer pulls weeds from his garden, they choke out the good.
LOL...
You must at least be upset about all the children in the womb that died then? Not to mention all the newborns, toddlers, children, etc...
No, but they're not brother and sister either. Why would I be upset over the wicket being removed?
Because you wanted to play croquet???
Why aren't first cousins OK? Do you think you have a better moral compass than your god?
Huh? You're really stretching here and not making sense. I suggest you read the bible so you can discuss it.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
It's willful ignorance. He can see it, he just doesn't care so long as the Jesus is stricken from society.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
nope.They were created to combat the child prostitution that you guys also think is an issue between two consenting "adults". Just look at the age of consent across western civilization, generally the more religious the population, the higher the age of consent. It's lowered as secularists take over government.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
You're mis-attributing the evolution of society/religion to secularism. Regardless, it was developed on a rational basis by society over thousands thousands of years....a handful of lawyers, politicians, and professors think they're smarter than this collective wisdom, but they're wrong.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
You're mis-attributing the evolution of society/religion to secularism. Regardless, it was developed on a rational basis by society over thousands thousands of years....a handful of lawyers, politicians, and professors think they're smarter than this collective wisdom, but they're wrong.
You're dismissing the giant leap forward that Western society took during the Enlightenment, a movement led by lawyers, politicians, and educators, i.e. the intellectual elite. There was no evolution over thousands of years. It took a skeptical look at traditions and a reliance on reason and science to transform Western society. For the most part, Western religions were dragged, kicking and screaming, along for the ride.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
You're mis-attributing the evolution of society/religion to secularism. Regardless, it was developed on a rational basis by society over thousands thousands of years....a handful of lawyers, politicians, and professors think they're smarter than this collective wisdom, but they're wrong.
You're dismissing the giant leap forward that Western society took during the Enlightenment, a movement led by lawyers, politicians, and educators, i.e. the intellectual elite. There was no evolution over thousands of years. It took a skeptical look at traditions and a reliance on reason and science to transform Western society. For the most part, Western religions were dragged, kicking and screaming, along for the ride.
LOL, you're just making stuff up. The politicians were kings in that day. Politicians are a product of the enlightenment as people sought a vote in their own fate. Lawyers and educators played no part. It was lead by philosophers and really enabled by the printing press as that enabled free ideas to be published for the first time in history. It was lead by common people, not the intellectual elites. The elites were the ones telling people to pay them a redemption for their sins because that's what the bible says. The printing press exposed their lies. It allowed people to learn without having ideas filtered and directed by the elites. Then as in now, your ilk take credit for things you had no hand in and really opposed as the idea was being developed. I'll throw out racism, segregation, and eugenics as modern examples. And no, western religion wasn't brought kicking and screaming. You're trying to manufacture a dichotomy that didn't exist as most everyone was religious in those days. The people leading the enlightenment were generally Christians, as was most all of the west. Your guys weren't even on the field.
nolanvt wrote:Not going to read through this thread, but I bet some of The Usuals believe there actually is a slippery slope to legalize pedophilia by the left.
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
You're mis-attributing the evolution of society/religion to secularism. Regardless, it was developed on a rational basis by society over thousands thousands of years....a handful of lawyers, politicians, and professors think they're smarter than this collective wisdom, but they're wrong.
You're dismissing the giant leap forward that Western society took during the Enlightenment, a movement led by lawyers, politicians, and educators, i.e. the intellectual elite. There was no evolution over thousands of years. It took a skeptical look at traditions and a reliance on reason and science to transform Western society. For the most part, Western religions were dragged, kicking and screaming, along for the ride.
LOL, you're just making stuff up. The politicians were kings in that day. Politicians are a product of the enlightenment as people sought a vote in their own fate. Lawyers and educators played no part. It was lead by philosophers and really enabled by the printing press as that enabled free ideas to be published for the first time in history. It was lead by common people, not the intellectual elites. The elites were the ones telling people to pay them a redemption for their sins because that's what the bible says. The printing press exposed their lies. It allowed people to learn without having ideas filtered and directed by the elites. Then as in now, your ilk take credit for things you had no hand in and really opposed as the idea was being developed. I'll throw out racism, segregation, and eugenics as modern examples. And no, western religion wasn't brought kicking and screaming. You're trying to manufacture a dichotomy that didn't exist as most everyone was religious in those days. The people leading the enlightenment were generally Christians, as was most all of the west. Your guys weren't even on the field.
Intellectual elite is different from political elite. Furthermore, you are talking about a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate. Again, it was the intellectual elite who used the printing press to disseminate their thoughts to other intellectual elites.
Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand in tension with established religion, insofar as the release from self-incurred immaturity in this age, daring to think for oneself, awakening one's intellectual powers, generally requires opposing the role of established religion in directing thought and action. The faith of the Enlightenment – if one may call it that – is that the process of enlightenment, of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action through the awakening of one's intellectual powers, leads ultimately to a better, more fulfilled human existence.
There is also a whole section on "Religion in the Enlightenment" which talks about how it was led by people that found what you still believe, despite all of our advancements, untenable:
in the Enlightenment, the authority of scripture is strongly challenged, especially when taken literally. Developing natural science renders acceptance of a literal version of the Bible increasingly untenable.
It additionally mentions how Christianity, and in particular Protestantism, was secularized during this time.
USN_Hokie wrote:
The left rejects western religion and wants to revise the legal code where it is derived from religion. When you abandon the rational basis component which has been carefully developed over thousands of years and let lawyers and college professors determine your morals, you end up with books like the one in the OP and questions like "what is the difference between a 17yo and an 18yo and why can one consent and the other not?"
So, you are advocating a slippery slope to pedophilia (just see Uprising's favorite author, Dawkins), even if you can't comprehend the consequences of your actions.
Your logic is exactly 180° off. It was a rejection of religious justification, i.e. secularization and liberalization of laws through the enlightenment to present day, that led to age of consent laws and stricter enforcement of the concept of consent. Embracing religious doctrine would lead directly to consent laws being repealed, especially when it comes to women having the ability to consent.
You're mis-attributing the evolution of society/religion to secularism. Regardless, it was developed on a rational basis by society over thousands thousands of years....a handful of lawyers, politicians, and professors think they're smarter than this collective wisdom, but they're wrong.
You're dismissing the giant leap forward that Western society took during the Enlightenment, a movement led by lawyers, politicians, and educators, i.e. the intellectual elite. There was no evolution over thousands of years. It took a skeptical look at traditions and a reliance on reason and science to transform Western society. For the most part, Western religions were dragged, kicking and screaming, along for the ride.
LOL, you're just making stuff up. The politicians were kings in that day. Politicians are a product of the enlightenment as people sought a vote in their own fate. Lawyers and educators played no part. It was lead by philosophers and really enabled by the printing press as that enabled free ideas to be published for the first time in history. It was lead by common people, not the intellectual elites. The elites were the ones telling people to pay them a redemption for their sins because that's what the bible says. The printing press exposed their lies. It allowed people to learn without having ideas filtered and directed by the elites. Then as in now, your ilk take credit for things you had no hand in and really opposed as the idea was being developed. I'll throw out racism, segregation, and eugenics as modern examples. And no, western religion wasn't brought kicking and screaming. You're trying to manufacture a dichotomy that didn't exist as most everyone was religious in those days. The people leading the enlightenment were generally Christians, as was most all of the west. Your guys weren't even on the field.
Intellectual elite is different from political elite. Furthermore, you are talking about a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate. Again, it was the intellectual elite who used the printing press to disseminate their thoughts to other intellectual elites.
Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand in tension with established religion, insofar as the release from self-incurred immaturity in this age, daring to think for oneself, awakening one's intellectual powers, generally requires opposing the role of established religion in directing thought and action. The faith of the Enlightenment – if one may call it that – is that the process of enlightenment, of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action through the awakening of one's intellectual powers, leads ultimately to a better, more fulfilled human existence.
There is also a whole section on "Religion in the Enlightenment" which talks about how it was led by people that found what you still believe, despite all of our advancements, untenable:
in the Enlightenment, the authority of scripture is strongly challenged, especially when taken literally. Developing natural science renders acceptance of a literal version of the Bible increasingly untenable.
It additionally mentions how Christianity, and in particular Protestantism, was secularized during this time.
So it's the opposite of what you said. Got it.
You're still wrong about the elites too as most were home taught people expressing their own ideas, breaking into leadership. Then as now, you central planner types were full of hot air.
Nowhere does it say to rape or diddle the girls......which was punishable by death under Jewish law. In the rest of the chapter, the girls are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, highlighting the fact that they were seen as captives. There was also a command to purify themselves(the soldiers) and their captives, which would have prevented intercourse according to Jewish custom. Also, God did allow Israelites the opportunity to marry women they captured, or they could be servants. There were also Jewish laws that prohibited mistreatment of wives AND servants......Try again.
