|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:58 am
: Guys, my brother sent this to me. What should I say? He sent.
says it's not just OK to own slaves, but it is also A-OK to beat them to death. As long as they take a couple days to die. That's royally *********, and it's found in Exodus 21:20-21. Also see Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction that slavery is bad.
- God accepts sex slavery and ritual human sacrifice. As long as it's to him, rather than some competing deity. I'd talk about the Abraham and Isaac story, but that one has slight ambiguities which apologists love to exploit. Not so with Numbers 31. The cliff notes version: God tells Moses to take out revenge on the Midianites by doing the ethnic cleansing thing on them. All the Midianite men were killed. Livestock and material goods were taken as spoils. Women and children were taken as P.O.W.'s. Moses was angry that the women were allowed to live, since they might infect the Israelites with anti-YHWHistic ideas. Moses ordered all the boys and non-virgin women killed. The virgin girls were kept alive, and were taken by individual Israelites. The text doesn't explicitly say so, but anyone with half a brain knows that those young virgin girls were kept as sex slaves. 32,000 of them. On Moses' command. (Strangely, Moses didn't seem to think those virgin girls would entice people away from YHWH like their non-virgin counterparts would.) The virgin girls were divvied up between the warriors, the congregation, and the priests. And God. 32 virgin girls were given as a tribute offering to God (verses 40-41). Not to the priests. To God. And no complaints whatsoever are heard from God or anyone else in the Bible. That's royally ********.
- More total ethnic cleansing in 1 Samuel 15. God told Samuel and Saul to wipe out the current generation of Amalekites, since their ancestors opposed the ancestors of the current generation of Israelites during the Exodus (verse 3). It was reparations, of a sort: death. Men, women, children, babies, everyone. It was supposed to be everything as well, but Saul kept livestock and material goods and the king. God was not happy. God had wanted Saul to destroy everyone and everything. That's royally ******** up, and it's in the Bible.
- God mauled 42 boys for calling his prophet "baldy". 2 Kings 2:23-24. Apologists love to claim that "boys" is mistranslated, and it should be something more like "street thugs", and that calling Elisha "baldy" should be interpreted as a threat on his life. One might wonder where the hell apologists get such an idiotic notion from, but even if it were true, that still would not excuse such an action from an omnipotent deity. An omnipotent deity could easily have chosen to protect Elisha without harming the "thugs", via magical forcefield, or some other similar measure. But did he? Of course not. God's answer to pretty much any situation is death. (Noah's ark, anyone?) That's royally ********, and the Bible is absolutely brimming with it.
- How does god show of his power? In Exodus 11, God kills all the firstborn of Egypt (verses 4-5), purely as a display of power. Apologists will say God was forced into such drastic measures, because Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, but this is not true. Pharaoh was already compliant, but God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 10:27 and 11:10), in order to make a grander show if it all (Ex 11:9). That's royally **********, and it's promoted by the Bible.
- Enough Old Testament for now. On to Jesus' "family values". Have a look at Matthew 10:34-36. The "Prince of Peace" came not to bring peace, but to bring division, and to set family members against each other. That's royally ******, and it's promoted by the Bible.
- Even though it's a later insertion into the text, most churches love to talk up 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. That's the "don't be unequally yoked" *****.
- More of Paul's misogyny can be found in 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
- Oh, and just for good measure... God hates everyone, according to the Bible. Romans 3:10 says everyone is a sinner. Psalm 5:5 says God hates all sinners. Not just sin. He hates all sinners. QED, God hates everyone. (Except Job, who was blameless (Job 1:1), and got tortured for his accomplishment.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:01 pm
1."I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)
2."Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:3)
3."You shall not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:1 cool
4."Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9)
5."When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Come, let us go'; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an a** and started out again for home." (Judges 19:25-2 cool
6."And the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1:27)
7."Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. 'If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,' he said, 'whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the Lord. I shall offer him up as a holocaust.' ... When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, 'Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract'." (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)
8."Then God said: 'Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you'."(Genesis 22:2)
9."Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)
10."Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:1 cool
PLEASE HELP ME PROVIDE A DEFENSE FOR THESE MISINTERPERTATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:45 pm
1. The context of this verse is specifically about religious education, including learning and holding a place within the Church. It's also the opinion of a flawed human, not the exact words of God.
2. Yes, they were quite serious about eliminating that particular group of people, weren't they? Especially because those people had attacked the Israelites first.
3. Ah, that one. Yeah, it's often translated as Sorceress or Witch or whatever, but apparently, the original meaning was closer to "Poisoner". Like, y'know, a wife who tries to poison her husband and steal all of his stuff after he dies. Don't let people get away with that sort of thing.
4. Context is a wonderful thing. He's explicitly talking about the children of the Daughter of Babylon. Or, in words that make more sense, the city of Babylon and its people. In other words, it's a good thing if Babylon is destroyed, particularly as just revenge for when they tore down Jerusalem. It's not, y'know, literally smashing babies or anything. That would be silly.
5. Don't forget the offered daughter. *Coughs* Anyway, some religions and regions take the protection of guests VERY seriously. It's a major point of their culture; when you offer shelter to a guest, they KEEP that shelter, even if you have to go out of your way to pay them off. The woman was abused and died. And then she got cut up and her body parts were sent out to the tribes. Why? To bring them together. They started a war over this to get revenge. The men who killed the concubine? Explicitly noted as evil.
6. Yup. The Bible has this thing against homosexuality. And don't forget that the people described did lots of other things, too, which were generally considered wrong. In the full knowledge that it was wrong, and that they had been told not to do it.
7. Well, it was his choice to accept that vow, and his daughter did agree to go through with it. People have made unfortunate vows in the past, and it's not implied that this was a common practice...
8. You do know that the plan from the very beginning was to test Abraham, right? And that it's unlikely Isaac was ever in any danger? And that the place where this happened was to become a central, important place in the world?
9. "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:28. Lots of people forget that the men are told to be just as loving and devoted as the women...
10. Because slaves should act a certain way, apparently, and regardless of someone else's actions, you should always do your personal best in things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:16 am
Jesuslittleprincess 1."I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12) 2."Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:3) 3."You shall not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:1 cool 4."Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9) 5."When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Come, let us go'; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an a** and started out again for home." (Judges 19:25-2 cool 6."And the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1:27) 7."Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. 'If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,' he said, 'whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the Lord. I shall offer him up as a holocaust.' ... When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, 'Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract'." (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5) 8."Then God said: 'Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you'."(Genesis 22:2) 9."Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) 10."Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:1 cool PLEASE HELP ME PROVIDE A DEFENSE FOR THESE MISINTERPERTATIONS First of all, I will ask you to please watch the language in your posts. We are not to curse before the Lord, we need to honor him - and our speech is one of those things that we can use to praise the Lord. Also, bad language violates the guild's "polite rule". This is not currently a warning because it was a copy and paste situation and it was someone else who said it. However, next time, it would be greatly appreciated if the language was deleted from your post before posting even if it wasn't you who said it. Thank you smile I will also say that you shouldn't read one verse or a few verses and ignore the surrounding context. If there was someone who was writing a paper and we read only one sentence of that paper, we don't understand the message in it's entirety. We can misunderstand it. Also, imagine if you were to overhear a conversation and someone said, "I'm going to divorce my wife." You could have missed something beforehand - what if the entire sentence was, "It's not like 'I'm going to divorce my wife." You would have missed the meaning of the entire sentence and mistook it for a totally opposite meaning. Please, research some of these things on your own as well so that you may understand them and be able to answer these questions right away when asked. We must be prepared to answer questions that we are asked: 1 Peter 3:15 NIV:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,That being said... Quote: 1."I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12) The Bible does not prohibit women from preaching to a congregation just as the Bible does not prohibit men from preaching to a congregation. To understand 1 Timothy 2, we need to recognize who exactly Paul was preaching to and why.Paul was teaching to a corrupt church, and explains this in a way in which people may understand. Let's look at 1 Timothy 2:1 - 15 to examine Paul's writing style. Paul wrote in a similar format as the philosopher's did, which was commonly an A, B, A, B format or a back and forth type style. To understand the point, the whole passage is important - not 1 Timothy 2:12 by itself. Most spiritually abusive churches make the mistake of only bringing up 1 Timothy 2:12 where it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must me silent." Now, reading this alone, one may believe women can't preach in church, but examining the surrounding context this is simply untrue. In 1 Timothy 2:1 - 7, it talks about a group of people, which is most likely an entire congregation of people and the point directed at everybody. To explore the context more if we read on, it mentions the men only in 1 Timothy 2:8. Further along, in 1 Timothy 2:9 - 10, it mentions women as a group. In 1 Timothy 2:11 - the first half of verse 15 it mentions a woman - singular. Then in the last half of verse 15, it mentions women as a group once again. Now, why would Paul do this? Notice women weren't the only one with the problems. Paul instructed men to lift their hands in prayer, without getting angry or arguing. The context where it mentions women, a woman, and then women again is highly significant. Keep in mind Paul was talking to a corrupt church now. Women were instructed what to wear in 1 Timothy 2:9 - 10 because at that time in society - if you braided your hair a certain way and added ornaments - this was a common hairstyle of prostitutes and possibly others that were concerned about there looks, therefore more "worldly". In this society, it was a sign of sexual immorality or drawing unnecessary attention to one self. In 1 Timothy 2:11 - first half of 15 mentions a woman. This was addressing false prophets in the church because they did not know God's word. This was because society usually taught the men, and men had more of a right to education. Women didn't get the type of education that men were allowed. In their society, they deemed it more proper for a man to learn and a woman to listen. So this was scripture that was not meant to be forever until the end of time. This was about how Paul dealt with problems in the church. This "woman" that taught falsely wouldn't be a good option for a preacher. When it mentions Eve being deceived, this is simply a comparison. Paul is not saying that Adam was better than Eve or Eve was better than Adam. Eve is a good example of a woman who was deceived and someone everyone may be able to relate to since it's one of the earlier teachings in The Holy Bible. They are making a comparison to allow the church to recognize what it is exactly that is going on. The last half of verse 15 urges women to continue in faith, love, and holiness. It never discourages anything beside false doctrine that would apply to today. Naturally, Paul or a pastor that has a strong foundation in God's word wouldn't want someone who is going to teach false doctrine to preach in their church, either, whether they were a man or a woman. Society changes - so a message that was meant for a specific place in time may not be applicable a few hundred years down the line in the same way it was at that time. We can't make every passage of scripture applicable forever and ever if it was only meant for a certain group of people, and showing how the problem was solved. Quote: 2. "Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses." (1 Samuel 15:3) The Amalekites were often in a feud with Israel (The Amalekites, as well as Amalek who can be found in Exodus was against God's people). Saul was instructed by the prophet Samuel here to wipe them out and everything they had. Once Saul had attacked them in 1 Samuel 7 - 9, he took their king, Agag, alive as well as all his people he destroyed with the sword. Saul and his army spared Agag and the best of what Agag had. Saul was unable to have Agag as well as all the things that seemed "good" destroyed. Saul and his army only destroyed what was considered "weak" here. I have not studied too in depth on this matter so I am sure of what else to say. Quote: 3. "You shall not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:18 These were laws being said to the people at this point in time, after the ten commandments in Exodus 20. These were specific additions to the law to address possible future issues and how they were to be dealt with. In this case, a sorceress was to be put to death because they have done evil in the eyes of the Lord. Quote: 4. "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9) This is an interesting one because there are many different beliefs of what it may mean. *Some sources believe: The word "rock" is sometimes referred to a foundation within God. A second meaning of the literal "rock" translation can be found in Strong's H5553 defined: "as stronghold of Jehovah, of security". If that were the meaning in this Psalm - it could change the meaning of being happy with someone murdering or hurting children. Some think that it means to push children towards Salvation, not towards destruction. *Other sources believe: Psalm 137 was written during the time of the exiles in Babylon, which was a depressing time, and that the Psalmist of this particular Psalm speaks of the captors who were tormenting God's people (verses 1-3), a promise to remember Jerusalem (verses 4-6), and the curse that was against the captors (verses 7 - 9). The Psalmist who wrote this must have witnessed many horrific events during the exile against people of all ages, which would include children and is saying Psalm 137:9 in regards to hoping the same thing happens to those who have treated God's people horribly. (The Bible does not say that this request of the Psalmist as a curse towards their captors was fulfilled or that God had approved of it). I'm sure there's many other possible interpretations of this so feel free to start your own reasearch on the topic. There's lot of interesting things to discover in God's word! Quote: 5. When the men would not listen to his host, the husband seized his concubine and thrust her outside to them. They had relations with her and abused her all night until the following dawn, when they let her go. Then at daybreak the woman came and collapsed at the entrance of the house in which her husband was a guest, where she lay until the morning. When her husband rose that day and opened the door of the house to start out again on his journey, there lay the woman, his concubine, at the entrance of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Come, let us go'; but there was no answer. So the man placed her on an a** and started out again for home." (Judges 19:25-28 In Judges 19:22, it mentions wicked men from the city wanted to have sex with the homeowners guest (being the Levite man who brought his concubine back home after she had left and gone back home). These men of the city wanted to sleep with another man. Perhaps in this case they thought that it was better for the men to have sex with a woman instead of another man, and it's not sure if those of the house knew that she would be dead the next day or treated in the manner she was. I don't have any other explanation than that at this time so please look more into it as well. These wicked men that were mentioned earlier had basically raped the Levite's concubine to death. The Levite man picked her up, set her on his donkey and headed home. In Judges 19:29 - 30, the Levite man took a knife and cut the concubine up limb by limb into twelve parts in order to send them to all of Israel. Those in Israel who saw this had never seen this type of thing been done and Israel felt they needed to act upon the matter. If we read on into Judges 20, Israel sent messengers throughout the tribe of Bejamin to turn the wicked men of Gibeah over so that they could be put to death in order to purge this evil from Israel. The Benjamites didn't listen to their fellow Israelites. The Benjamites and their fellow Israelites fought against each other. So those who abused and killed this concubine were definitely considered evil. So the death of the concubine was not right in any way. Quote: 6. "And the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1:27) These people, had exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:25). These people did not listen to God, and God had turned them over to lustful, unnatural beaviors. These people did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done (Romans 1:28. Keep in mind that it wasn't only men that abandoned their natural relations with women and had inflamed lust for one another. It also mentions in Romans 1:26 that women had unnatural sexual desires at this point in time as well. So both the men and the women had shameful, lustful desires that were sinful to God. This group of people also fell into all types of wickedness according to Romans 1:29 - 31. In Romans 1:32, it mentions that these people knew better. They had known God and had chosen to twist things around and become more worldly, not focus on God, and twist words to fit their sinful situations. They approved of others who practiced these sinful behaviors as well. These people were punished by God. Quote: 7. Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. 'If you deliver the Ammonites into my power,' he said, 'whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the Lord. I shall offer him up as a holocaust.' ... When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, 'Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract'." (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5) I will say I'm quite confused here since you use Judges 11:30 - 1 and then Judges 11:34 - 35. According to Judges 11:34 - 35, Jephthah's daughter was the first person to walk through his door. Jephthah had made a vow/oath to the Lord that he would sacrifice the first person that walked through his door after he returned home. Breaking a vow or oath a person has with God isn't a good thing, either. However, Jephthah allowed his daughter to go for two months, and she wept because she would never marry and then returned to be killed. If a person makes a vow or oath to God, they are expected to keep it because it is to God and holds a strong meaning like a promise. In the New Testament, it warns us against taking oaths and that we shouldn't take them (Matthew 5:34). Quote: 8. "Then God said: 'Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you'."(Genesis 22:2) Abraham taking his son, Isaac was a test of faith. Isaac had been his only son and Abraham had also been faithful to God. This was a test to see if Abraham would listen and he did listen and took his son to offer him, and after putting his son out to sacrifice him, the Lord stopped his hand before anything harm could be done by calling to Abraham. So, Isaac was not sacrificed because God had told Abraham to not sacrifice his son. The Lord had provided Abraham with a burnt offering, which was a ram. If we continue to read on from there: Genesis 22:15 - 18 NIV:
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”So Abraham was blessed because he was willing to give up his only son to God. Quote: 9. "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) Now, reading this verse can be distasteful to some. Let's look at the surrounding context. We are called to submit to one another out of reverence for Jesus Christ in a Christian household (Ephesians 5:21). In Ephesians 5:25 it mentions husbands, that they should love their wives. So this is submitting to each other with love because we are members of the body of Christ. We are to respect each other, love each other, etc. If we read on, a man is to love his wife as his own body so he is to love his wife - not dominate over her in a cruel or unloving way. Quote: 10. "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18 This section as a whole from 1 Peter 2:11 is urging friends, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires. Also, in 1 Peter 2:13 - 17, it mentions to submit for the Lord's sake to every human authority who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people (2:13 - 2:14). This urges people to live as free people, but not to use their freedom to cover up evil and to show respect to everyone and to love the family of believers, to fear God, and honor authority. Now, for 1 Peter 2:19 - 21, which should answer what 1 Peter 2:18 was about: 1 Peter 2:19 - 21
For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.If we are suffering from doing right, we are blessed by God. We need to endure the suffering that we bear as followers of Christ. After all, Christ suffered for us so at times we must suffer for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:13 am
hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2.
a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.
Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston ("that which is completely burnt"), which was a translation of Hebrew 'lâ (literally "that which goes up," that is, in smoke). In this sense of "burnt sacrifice," holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to "something totally consumed by fire," and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:24 am
I've answered these exact claims before in the exact same order with mostly the same wording, which makes me think that they are common copy and past criticism originating from an anti-theistic site, or maybe excerpts from The Skeptic's Annoted BibleMy personal philosophy about the Bible is that it is true, and we can trust it to be true. If some passages appear to be troublesome we should not worry. Answers are available, and we should approach it with patience and a good deal of research. Chatterbox Link to the page where I tried to answer the claims your brother sent you. What does the Bible say about rape?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 8:47 am
Jesuslittleprincess : Guys, my brother sent this to me. What should I say? He sent. says it's not just OK to own slaves, but it is also A-OK to beat them to death. As long as they take a couple days to die. That's royally *********, and it's found in Exodus 21:20-21. Also see Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction that slavery is bad. Remind your brother to read the whole chapter, not just the single verse he's quoting. The chapter often explains it. Exodus 21:10-21 says if the slave dies, the slaveowner is held responsible; if the slave doesn't die, and recovers after a few days, then the slaveowner won't be punished because it was within his right to discipline his own slave and the slave survived. The verse is not saying the slave died after a few days and the slaveowner is scott free. Had the slave died, the slaveowner would have been punished. If he can't understand the KJV, he shouldn't be reading it. He'll only come away with misunderstandings of the text. But the main issue is this: he's failing to recognize the type of slavery condoned by YHWH: when a man falls into debt, he sells himself into slavery (not sells other people into slavery for profit, nor oppresses people for being an "inferior race"). The slavery that we learn about in school is not what YHWH is recommending. The debtee himself remains a slave until he can pay off his own debt ~or~ the year of canceling debts rolls by, which is every 7 years (Deuteronomy 15:1), in which case, even if the one in debt/the slave didn't earn enough money, he's still cleared of ALL his debts no matter what and can return to his family; in the case of the Jubilee year, not only are all his debts cancelled, but his land is given back to him (if he happened to sell it to be able to pay something off, Leviticus 25:10, the same chapter your brother quoted from yet didn't read. It goes into intricate detail of how people are freed and what is returned to them). Debt slavery is biblical slavery. Most of America is under debt right now, but not under the system YHWH proposed. The bible says to treat those slaves well, not oppress them (which the USA and Egypt did not do; they treated slaves as less than human. In modern day, some bosses don't even treat their employees right). In the USA, our debt never goes away until we pay it off. You could be 80 yrs old with the debt you fell into while in your 20's. YHWH's system is much more just. If he's looking for the commands in the bible that say slavery is bad (the kind of slavery the USA and Egypt had), you won't find it labeled as "slavery" but "oppression". He never condoned oppression as the way to live life. And YHWH himself used it as a means of punishment during the exiles of his people for failing to obey his commands: he never commanded in favor of "oppression" for how society should normally function. He's against oppression, unless it's for a certain period of years to discipline his own people, then he liberates them from it. He's not racist either; he accepted Gentiles to worship him just like his native-born Israelites; same law for both (i.e. Leviticus 18:26). Egypt, on the otherhand, was racist; didn't like sitting at the same table as a Hebrew, they thought it was detestable (Genesis 43:32). Yet, YHWH is willing to accept Egyptians (Isaiah 19:23). Verses that describe "oppression": http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=oppression&version1=KJV&version2=NIV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&resultspp=50&displayas=long&sort=bookorderJesuslittleprincess - God accepts sex slavery and ritual human sacrifice. As long as it's to him, rather than some competing deity. I'd talk about the Abraham and Isaac story, but that one has slight ambiguities which apologists love to exploit. Not so with Numbers 31. The cliff notes version: God tells Moses to take out revenge on the Midianites by doing the ethnic cleansing thing on them. All the Midianite men were killed. Livestock and material goods were taken as spoils. Women and children were taken as P.O.W.'s. Moses was angry that the women were allowed to live, since they might infect the Israelites with anti-YHWHistic ideas. Moses ordered all the boys and non-virgin women killed. The virgin girls were kept alive, and were taken by individual Israelites. The text doesn't explicitly say so, but anyone with half a brain knows that those young virgin girls were kept as sex slaves. 32,000 of them. On Moses' command. (Strangely, Moses didn't seem to think those virgin girls would entice people away from YHWH like their non-virgin counterparts would.) The virgin girls were divvied up between the warriors, the congregation, and the priests. And God. 32 virgin girls were given as a tribute offering to God (verses 40-41). Not to the priests. To God. And no complaints whatsoever are heard from God or anyone else in the Bible. That's royally ********. Ethnic cleansing wasn't the point. YHWH was against sex slavery and prostitution of any sort. In the previous chapters, the Midianites had lured the Israelite men to commit prostitution. YHWH hates temple prostitutes and prostitution in general, not even accepting into his temple money earned from prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:18 ). Having sex slaves on the side is not his will, hence marriage. Any sexual activity outside of a "marriage covenant" is sin. The issue with the women wasn't fear of infecting the Israelites with false beliefs: they were the ones who had enticed the Israelites into prostitution and had to be killed. That the virgins were spared shouldn't be surprising: since they are virgins, that means they hadn't participated in luring the Israelite men into prostitution—which was the whole point of them attacking the Midianites in the first place (the whole story starts with Balaam and Balak in Numbers 22; he should start reading from there until chapter 31 to fully understand why the Midianites were condemned). Further reason that YHWH does not accept temple prositution is how YHWH told Israel not to worship him like the pagans worship, which would include temple prostitution (that violates his laws on sexual immorality and marriage) amongst other things (Deuteronomy 12:4, 30-31). We are told to worship him ONLY in the ways he commanded; where is it commanded to take a sex slave in worship of him? You won't find it anywhere in the torah—a clear indicator that your brother is interpreting the temple virgins incorrectly which I'll further explain below. He does accept Human Sacrifice; "free will" is the main difference between how other cultures do it and what YHWH commanded: if the human sacrifice actually involves your physical death, then the individual has to willingly offer themselves up (like Jesus and the apostles, proclaiming his message and living it out unto death). If you're just a "tribute", that means you give up on pursuing your own desires in life and fully dedicate it to the things of God; no marriage, no family, living celibate, virgin in the temple. Just like Jephthah's daughter had to do because her Father Jephthath rashly made a vow which resulted in offering up his daughter as a burnt offering/holocaust (the thing about "burnt offerings" is how they're totally given to God and in the same way something is totally given to God, she had to totally dedicate her life to serving in the temple). It was a mournful thing in their society to not be able to bear children and have family; she was a virgin too just like the 32 virgins of Numbers 31:40. Jesuslittleprincess - More total ethnic cleansing in 1 Samuel 15. God told Samuel and Saul to wipe out the current generation of Amalekites, since their ancestors opposed the ancestors of the current generation of Israelites during the Exodus (verse 3). It was reparations, of a sort: death. Men, women, children, babies, everyone. It was supposed to be everything as well, but Saul kept livestock and material goods and the king. God was not happy. God had wanted Saul to destroy everyone and everything. That's royally ******** up, and it's in the Bible. Another case of vengeance, not ethnic cleansing. A sin can only be covered/atoned for by blood; without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). Just because the generation of Amalekites who committed the specific sin against the Israelites had died off, doesn't mean the sin disappears. Amalekite blood still had to be shed. They started the military attack, so now it would be repaid (or should've been). Ultimately, what God commands is commanded for the good of his own people; it's precisely because Saul had left survivors that the Amalekites ended up attacking them once again, which David had to deal with as a result (1 Samuel 27:8, 30:1; 2 Samuel 8:12). But the sinful thing at its core is how Saul didn't share the heart of God; agreeing with God up to a point, and not completely, and you might as well be a heathen/pagan/non-believer. We must share his whole heart. That was the issue. Jesuslittleprincess - God mauled 42 boys for calling his prophet "baldy". 2 Kings 2:23-24. Apologists love to claim that "boys" is mistranslated, and it should be something more like "street thugs", and that calling Elisha "baldy" should be interpreted as a threat on his life. One might wonder where the hell apologists get such an idiotic notion from, but even if it were true, that still would not excuse such an action from an omnipotent deity. An omnipotent deity could easily have chosen to protect Elisha without harming the "thugs", via magical forcefield, or some other similar measure. But did he? Of course not. God's answer to pretty much any situation is death. (Noah's ark, anyone?) That's royally ********, and the Bible is absolutely brimming with it. Yes, the solution to wickedness is eliminating it: either through repentance (you give wickedness up) or YHWH will destroy you when he sees that you'll never repent (i.e. Revelation 9:20, despite wrath/plagues coming upon the earth, even still, people won't repent; chances are these people will face the second death). YHWH does not like it when his anointed prophets are harmed. (1 Chronicles 16:22); so either YHWH sends death on the enemies of his anointed (like in Elisha's case), or his anointed dies and is resurrected (like in Jesus' case); in Jesus' case too, his enemies will face "the second death" if they don't repent. Jesuslittleprincess - How does god show of his power? In Exodus 11, God kills all the firstborn of Egypt (verses 4-5), purely as a display of power. Apologists will say God was forced into such drastic measures, because Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, but this is not true. Pharaoh was already compliant, but God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 10:27 and 11:10), in order to make a grander show if it all (Ex 11:9). That's royally **********, and it's promoted by the Bible. Pharaoh was not compliant. YHWH knows the heart; he saw Pharaoh's stubborness and just made it all the more easier for him to continue boldly in his stubborness until all 10 plagues had been carried out. Had a person wanted to repent, he would've allowed it. That Pharaoh had no intention of letting the Israelites go is obvious because after all was said and done, he chased after the Israelites—after his decision in Exodus 14:5, YHWH hardens his heart in verse 8. Jesuslittleprincess - Enough Old Testament for now. On to Jesus' "family values". Have a look at Matthew 10:34-36. The "Prince of Peace" came not to bring peace, but to bring division, and to set family members against each other. That's royally ******, and it's promoted by the Bible. Yes, when a person believes in Jesus and the rest of the family doesn't, it will bring division. Family members who want to hate their enemies will not be in agreement with the family member who wants to love their enemies and forgive them in Christ-like fashion. The family will be divided. The family that matters is the one who shares the same spiritual character; that family is to be united, set-apart from those who are engaging in dark acts though biologically they might be your family. He came to separate the spiritual people from the worldly/carnal people. Jesuslittleprincess - Even though it's a later insertion into the text, most churches love to talk up 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. That's the "don't be unequally yoked" *****. Same as above. The Christian should not be hanging out, for example, with a person engaging in theft, since a follower of Christ lives life honestly, earning an honest living. The Christian should not involve themselves in the wicked person's activities, either by supporting it or actively participating. A person who cares about integrity and living honorably, has no business fellowshipping/hanging out with a person who likes to cheat others out of their property (and any other act considered sin: gossip, insults, breaking promises, taking advantage of the weak, etc...). Jesuslittleprincess - More of Paul's misogyny can be found in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Dressing modestly is not treating women hatefully. "Modest dress" is for the safety of his own believers, like all of YHWH's commands aim to accomplish. Since women weren't educated in those times, it wasn't right for her to interrupt the congregation; she should allow the reading to be read and wait until she gets home to ask her husband for clarity on the issues she didn't understand. YHWH has a hierarchy of authority to maintain order. If a family is in error doctrinely, the fault is laid on the man, not the woman or the children. Just like Adam gets blamed is held accountable for what Eve did; YHWH set him up as the authority figure of the family, and also the man serves as a representation for God/Jesus. Jesuslittleprincess - Oh, and just for good measure... God hates everyone, according to the Bible. Romans 3:10 says everyone is a sinner. Psalm 5:5 says God hates all sinners. Not just sin. He hates all sinners. QED, God hates everyone. (Except Job, who was blameless (Job 1:1), and got tortured for his accomplishment.) He hates evildoers because of their sin; otherwise he would have no reason to hate them. That's why we must reconcile with Him so his wrath doesn't burn against us. He hates behavior and attitudes that violate his design; he wanted human beings to be happy, without toil and trouble, hence why he gave them commands to obey (don't eat of the tree, don't steal, don't cheat, etc...). Yet we utterly fail to keep the simplest of commands; our emotions aren't always kept in check and that's where sin starts—in the heart, in the mind, the inward man—just feeling hateful anger towards somebody is equivalent to actually murdering them. Since most can't keep it perfectly, we needed a sacrifice that would cover all sins we may commit in a lifetime. A person must affiliate themselves with that sacrifice in order to be covered by it. And, he sanctifies us so we stop loving sin and leave many of those habits behind once we're saved, living a life that is pleasing and pure in the eyes of God. The whole point of Job is how no amount of catastrophe would make him negate, blaspheme, or hate God. He was righteous, fully confiding in God even when his own friends turned against him and brought false accusations against him. In the end of the trial, he was rewarded with more than he had before (Job 42:10). That's what separates the righteous from the wicked: trusting in God and not succumbing to wicked acts to retain their worldly wealth or keep their own life. He still acted righteously despite all of this and because he endured righteously, he was rewarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 12:01 pm
I knew the Bible was cruel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 12:03 pm
Strict, yes. Cruel, not so much. *Blinks* It's very easy to take something out of context and identify it as bad, but when taken in context and evaluated seriously, it often tends to be something completely different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 1:52 pm
Garland-Green hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-) n. 1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. 2. a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff). b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland). 3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston ("that which is completely burnt"), which was a translation of Hebrew 'lâ (literally "that which goes up," that is, in smoke). In this sense of "burnt sacrifice," holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to "something totally consumed by fire," and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s. Thank you smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 2:37 pm
If God actually hated everyone because of them being sinners, then we would be really screwed. That is why Jesus died on the cross, for the sinners. God hates sin, and people who would rather be surrounded by sinful nature and not turning to him. Luke 5:27-31 says
"27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." King James Version (KJV)
Jesus even says that he has came for the sinners, If he came for the sinners then God must love us. As i stated before he does hate it when we decide to sin, or to continue in sin when we could be in his loving grace.
Also in the King James Version, Genesis 22:2 says "2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
As Garland stated above, it is not our definition of Holocaust. When we humans think of it, We think of what Hitler did.
Also The old testament was before Jesus was on this earth as well as the time period of then was drastically different then it is now. I am positive if we were able to go back then we would see how drastic it is to our own lives, as they would see if they came here to our time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 7:27 pm
my brother asked "God bore us into sin? I thought He loved us,' What is my defense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2013 7:28 pm
thank you guys for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 1:54 am
Jesuslittleprincess my brother asked "God bore us into sin? I thought He loved us,' What is my defense Perhaps since this is one question, open your Bible, pray about it, and research it using a Strong's concordance or other Bible tools? I'm sure you can do it smile Think about God's love for us and what that truly means and what happened during the fall of man or other times that God gave people over to their sinful desires because they knew Him, but chose to ignore it and twist His teachings. Sometimes the only way people realize God is when they've hit rock bottom and they have no where else to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2013 3:25 am
Aquatic_blue Garland-Green hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-) n. 1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. 2. a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff). b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland). 3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames. Word History: Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston ("that which is completely burnt"), which was a translation of Hebrew 'lâ (literally "that which goes up," that is, in smoke). In this sense of "burnt sacrifice," holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to "something totally consumed by fire," and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s. Thank you smile No problem. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
