I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
I didn't hear the lecture and don't know if this is what you are looking for but for what it's worth:
Judges 21:10
So the congregation sent twelve thousand fighting men with the instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children.
1 Samuel 22:19
And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and infants: also oxen, donkeys and sheep he struck with the edge of the sword.
2 Kings 8:12
......their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash into pieces and their women with child you will rip up.
Jeremiah 18:21 (New Living Translation)
So let their children starve! Let the sword pour out their blood! Let their wives become widows without any children! Let their old men die in a plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!
Let screaming be heard from their homes as warriors come suddenly upon them.
Biblical bedtime stories for the nice little christian boys and girls. This is the stuff that our lord and savior feels is important for us all to know.
J.
I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
Hi y'all - a brief report on the seminar last night. About a dozen of
us attended - the church was about half full I suppose. The lecture
was over an hour of twisted, massaged misinformation designed
specifically to fool, and appeal to a fairly ignorant congregation.
The lecturer was extremely professional - he obviously makes a good
career of this and he is intellectually superior to Benny Hinn but
morally inferior to a slug parasite. Homework is required to defeat
him, but without knowing every detail of his topic in advance that is
hard to do. Last night he showed around 20 slides - most of his
sources were unfamiliar, so we were unable to discount them. We did,
however, trip him up on two. Thanks to Jason's link to a blog, two of
his slides referring events supposedly supporting his case against
atheists collapsed when we were able to show that he had only given
half the story and the actual result was in favor of atheism. He
almost apologized for that.
The best part of the event was our access to the congregation during
the Q. & A. which was adequate, and afterwards when many came to
introduce themselves. I think most of us put a favorable face on
atheism which is as much as we could expect, and took a little wind
out of his sails.
I urge you all to come for tonight's speech detailing man's adventures
with dinosaurs!
> I didn't hear the lecture and don't know if this is what you are looking
> for but for what it's worth:
> Judges 21:10
> So the congregation sent twelve thousand fighting men with the
> instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including
> the women and children.
> 1 Samuel 22:19
> And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both
> men and women, children and infants: also oxen, donkeys and sheep he
> struck with the edge of the sword.
> 2 Kings 8:12
> ......their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will
> kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash into pieces and
> their women with child you will rip up.
> Jeremiah 18:21 (New Living Translation)
> So let their children starve! Let the sword pour out their blood! Let
> their wives become widows without any children! Let their old men die in a
> plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!
> Let screaming be heard from their homes as warriors come suddenly upon
> them.
> Biblical bedtime stories for the nice little christian boys and girls.
> This is the stuff that our lord and savior feels is important for us all to
> know.
> J.
> I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about
> babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one
> about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the
> most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru
> Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because
> the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
That was Liz who made the statement about the babies/children impaled
on the sword. I, however, read Luke 19:27 though "But those mine
enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
and slay them before me". Clogtowner read Luke 14:26: "If any man
come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple." Ironically, the speaker agreed with
Clogtower's verse claiming that it exemplify true allegiance to God
(Jesus).
Jason
On Aug 15, 4:26 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
> Hi y'all - a brief report on the seminar last night. About a dozen of
> us attended - the church was about half full I suppose. The lecture
> was over an hour of twisted, massaged misinformation designed
> specifically to fool, and appeal to a fairly ignorant congregation.
> The lecturer was extremely professional - he obviously makes a good
> career of this and he is intellectually superior to Benny Hinn but
> morally inferior to a slug parasite. Homework is required to defeat
> him, but without knowing every detail of his topic in advance that is
> hard to do. Last night he showed around 20 slides - most of his
> sources were unfamiliar, so we were unable to discount them. We did,
> however, trip him up on two. Thanks to Jason's link to a blog, two of
> his slides referring events supposedly supporting his case against
> atheists collapsed when we were able to show that he had only given
> half the story and the actual result was in favor of atheism. He
> almost apologized for that.
> The best part of the event was our access to the congregation during
> the Q. & A. which was adequate, and afterwards when many came to
> introduce themselves. I think most of us put a favorable face on
> atheism which is as much as we could expect, and took a little wind
> out of his sails.
> I urge you all to come for tonight's speech detailing man's adventures
> with dinosaurs!
> > I didn't hear the lecture and don't know if this is what you are looking
> > for but for what it's worth:
> > Judges 21:10
> > So the congregation sent twelve thousand fighting men with the
> > instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including
> > the women and children.
> > 1 Samuel 22:19
> > And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both
> > men and women, children and infants: also oxen, donkeys and sheep he
> > struck with the edge of the sword.
> > 2 Kings 8:12
> > ......their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will
> > kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash into pieces and
> > their women with child you will rip up.
> > Jeremiah 18:21 (New Living Translation)
> > So let their children starve! Let the sword pour out their blood! Let
> > their wives become widows without any children! Let their old men die in a
> > plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!
> > Let screaming be heard from their homes as warriors come suddenly upon
> > them.
> > Biblical bedtime stories for the nice little christian boys and girls.
> > This is the stuff that our lord and savior feels is important for us all to
> > know.
> > J.
> > I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about
> > babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one
> > about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the
> > most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru
> > Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because
> > the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
I thought that it was weird that Brad claimed that he was not a liar
and did not purposely mislead the congregation about those two court
cases that Steve pointed out and then accused Michael of personal
attacks. In the mean time, Brad stated that the atheists in the room
were "fools," "corrupt" and not capable of doing good. However, Brad
used a Biblical verse and therefore spoke through an imaginary God,
which I assume, made those attacks righteous. This is what he said
about us in our presence and in front of the congregation: "The fool
says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do
abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1)
Jason
On Aug 15, 4:26 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask? Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see below)! No shit!
I also thought that it was interesting that most the congregation
wanted the atheists to return for the next lecture. Even after I said
that I might not make it, a few people told me to wake up early to get
my work done so I could attend on Saturday. A few people (all Church
of Christ) also said that they liked the dialogue that took place and
wanted to hear more dialogue.
Some in the congregation and even the speaker seemed to think that the god
of the old testament was perfectly justified in ordering the deaths of the
peoples in the lands given by god to Moses and his people because "if
someone was breaking into your house to hurt your children, you would kill
them in self defense" and that would be okay.
So, since immoral atheists are a threat to their children (as evidenced by
the attack of secular education in public schools last night) god would be
justified in ordering an army to smite us all on swords -- men, women, and
children alike.
This, of course, coming after the speaker initially denied that god ordered
such things in the bible. That is a liar right there.
[mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum
Subject: Re: Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture
I thought that it was weird that Brad claimed that he was not a liar
and did not purposely mislead the congregation about those two court
cases that Steve pointed out and then accused Michael of personal
attacks. In the mean time, Brad stated that the atheists in the room
were "fools," "corrupt" and not capable of doing good. However, Brad
used a Biblical verse and therefore spoke through an imaginary God,
which I assume, made those attacks righteous. This is what he said
about us in our presence and in front of the congregation: "The fool
says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do
abominable deeds, there is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1)
Jason
On Aug 15, 4:26 am, "Preston Rogers" <rprestonrog...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> I tried to find the verse Jason was discussing at the "seminar" about
babies/children impaled on swords- no luck. But I did find a very horrific
one about their bodies being smashed to death (Isaiah 13:15). Perhaps the
most preposterous of all the verses was II Kings 2:23-24 where God (thru
Elisha) sends two bears to devour 42 little children. Why, you ask?
Because the children mocked the prophet Elisha for his baldness (see
below)! No shit!
It was absolutely amazing to hear the speaker (and some in the
congregation) saying that homosexuality is a sin equivalent to
committing rape. What a disgusting and hateful worldview they hold.
They should hang their heads in shame for such intolerance of others.
(but that's what their god expects of them...)
As for Harrub's remaining talks this weekend, don't question him about
something unless you are _intimately_ familiar with the subject
material. He's a slick speaker and can make you appear as a fool in
front of everyone there if you don't have every detail ready at his
request. And, as importantly, remain calm and composed whilst calling
him out for his bullshit. As seen in his preview of it, there will
surely be lots of bullshit & lies in his evolution talk.
BTW, calling someone a "liar" is _not_ an ad hominem attack if you're
calling them that based on the argument they've presented. If, whilst
presenting their case, they've lied to you and misrepresented the
facts, then what else are they but a liar?
> It was absolutely amazing to hear the speaker (and some in the
> congregation) saying that homosexuality is a sin equivalent to
> committing rape. What a disgusting and hateful worldview they hold.
> They should hang their heads in shame for such intolerance of others.
> (but that's what their god expects of them...)
> As for Harrub's remaining talks this weekend, don't question him about
> something unless you are _intimately_ familiar with the subject
> material. He's a slick speaker and can make you appear as a fool in
> front of everyone there if you don't have every detail ready at his
> request. And, as importantly, remain calm and composed whilst calling
> him out for his bullshit. As seen in his preview of it, there will
> surely be lots of bullshit & lies in his evolution talk.
> BTW, calling someone a "liar" is _not_ an ad hominem attack if you're
> calling them that based on the argument they've presented. If, whilst
> presenting their case, they've lied to you and misrepresented the
> facts, then what else are they but a liar?
EvilBible.com is dead as it has been considered, dissected and
declared fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most
relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten
in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it
would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important
text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of
getting in the way of a good fallacious assertions.
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible
does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Eevilbible.com, for
some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that
human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile
Pagans who were not worshipping the God of the Bible but various false
gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when
they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans
in worshipping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist
atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but
only condemns the Jews.
Many more examples of evilbible.com ubiquitous fallacies are available
in the following post:
Perhaps you are correct. In the first attack on Evilbible.com, the
author claims that the evilbible.com "neglects to mention the most
relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
rape." Can you tell us what specific passage in the Bible outlaws
rape? I am unaware of any such passage in the Holy Bible. However, I
may be forgetting this passsage(s). Give us a passage that specific
mentions outlawing rape or negative views on rape especially the rape
of non-Christian women.
Jason
On Sep 15, 9:27 am, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> EvilBible.com is dead as it has been considered, dissected and
> declared fallacious on very many levels.
> Two examples of this fact are as follows:
> Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape
> evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most
> relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
> rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten
> in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it
> would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important
> text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of
> getting in the way of a good fallacious assertions.
> Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
> evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible
> does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Eevilbible.com, for
> some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that
> human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile
> Pagans who were not worshipping the God of the Bible but various false
> gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when
> they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans
> in worshipping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist
> atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but
> only condemns the Jews.
> Many more examples of evilbible.com ubiquitous fallacies are available
> in the following post:
> Perhaps you are correct. In the first attack on Evilbible.com, the
> author claims that the evilbible.com "neglects to mention the most
> relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
> rape." Can you tell us what specific passage in the Bible outlaws
> rape? I am unaware of any such passage in the Holy Bible. However, I
> may be forgetting this passsage(s). Give us a passage that specific
> mentions outlawing rape or negative views on rape especially the rape
> of non-Christian women.
> Jason
> On Sep 15, 9:27 am, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > EvilBible.com is dead as it has been considered, dissected and
> > declared fallacious on very many levels.
> > Two examples of this fact are as follows:
> > Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape
> > evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most
> > relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
> > rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten
> > in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it
> > would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important
> > text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of
> > getting in the way of a good fallacious assertions.
> > Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
> > evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible
> > does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Eevilbible.com, for
> > some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that
> > human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile
> > Pagans who were not worshipping the God of the Bible but various false
> > gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when
> > they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans
> > in worshipping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist
> > atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but
> > only condemns the Jews.
> > Many more examples of evilbible.com ubiquitous fallacies are available
> > in the following post:
At worst, evilbible.com cherry picks verses that support the idea that the god of the Bible is immoral and cruel at times. It is interesting how preachers will cherry pick verses that support their sermons, but routinely leave out verses that are problematic. The fact that the Bible is filled with contradictions and errors certifies its ambiguity. On one hand, god commands his people not to kill and, on the other, he commands them to slaughter innocents. Of course, if the slaughtered belong to a warring, non-Jewish tribe, then it is perfectly fine- it is what god wants.
Justifying this god's actions because he is the "true" god and not a false pagan one is fallacious reasoning. Saying one's god is real and true is no different than others (ie pagans) claiming the same thing. Please demonstrate how the Judeo-Christian god is the true god and how all others are false.
PR
(I'll be glad to provide you with erroneous, contradictory verses from the Bible)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mariano G" <rdd...@gmail.com>
To: "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" <memphisfreethoughtalliance@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture
EvilBible.com is dead as it has been considered, dissected and
declared fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most
relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about
rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten
in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it
would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important
text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of
getting in the way of a good fallacious assertions.
Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice
evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible
does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Eevilbible.com, for
some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that
human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile
Pagans who were not worshipping the God of the Bible but various false
gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when
they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans
in worshipping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist
atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but
only condemns the Jews.
Many more examples of evilbible.com ubiquitous fallacies are available
in the following post:
FYI: I had provided the URL so as to provide all of the evidence that
you are asking for and much, much more.
This way I was not merely making assertions but backing up my
statements.
I specifically responded to every statement on evilbible.com’s page
about rape.
The Old Testament law is that rape is a capital punishment crime
(Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
Now, why would evilbible.com neglect to mention this? I do not know.
But it is interesting that this text would have discredited their
premise.
PS: pardon my delay, for some reason I am not getting notifications of
replies.
Hi y'all - I await your response to my request for a LOT(sic) of
verses where the bible does not sanction rape.
I accept your verse in Deuteronomy where rape in the country is a
capital offense, but what about rape in the city? (previous verse.)
What about Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where rape can be bought for silver?
What about Numbers 31: 15-18 - Moses was very naughty wasn't he?
There's a LOT of stuff in the bible (hint.)
On Sep 24, 4:56 pm, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI: I had provided the URL so as to provide all of the evidence that
> you are asking for and much, much more.
> This way I was not merely making assertions but backing up my
> statements.
> I specifically responded to every statement on evilbible.com’s page
> about rape.
> The Old Testament law is that rape is a capital punishment crime
> (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
> Now, why would evilbible.com neglect to mention this? I do not know.
> But it is interesting that this text would have discredited their
> premise.
> PS: pardon my delay, for some reason I am not getting notifications of
> replies.
> Hi y'all - I await your response to my request for a LOT(sic) of
> verses where the bible does not sanction rape.
> I accept your verse in Deuteronomy where rape in the country is a
> capital offense, but what about rape in the city? (previous verse.)
> What about Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where rape can be bought for silver?
> What about Numbers 31: 15-18 - Moses was very naughty wasn't he?
> There's a LOT of stuff in the bible (hint.)
> On Sep 24, 4:56 pm, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI: I had provided the URL so as to provide all of the evidence that
>> you are asking for and much, much more.
>> This way I was not merely making assertions but backing up my
>> statements.
>> I specifically responded to every statement on evilbible.com’s page
>> about rape.
>> The Old Testament law is that rape is a capital punishment crime
>> (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
>> Now, why would evilbible.com neglect to mention this? I do not know.
>> But it is interesting that this text would have discredited their
>> premise.
>> PS: pardon my delay, for some reason I am not getting notifications of
>> replies.
Great questions and comments all around, I must say.
Preston Rogers,
So we agree: evilbible.com is discredited.
I am inferring that since you offer a tu quoque as to preachers being
discredited for cherry pick verses, the same applies to evilbible.com
(and you are ignoring expository preaching which is book by book,
chapter by chapter, verse by verse, word by word - but I will grant it
to you).
Clogtowner,
You want a LOT of verses where the bible does not sanction rape? OK:
begin at Genesis 1:1 and go until Revelation 22:21
Orson Zedd,
What verses permit rape?
And when you go to evilbible.com (or similar) and simply cut and paste
what they say (without looking up the context, checking the etymology,
etc.) I will inform you that I have responded to all of them here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbibl...
> Great questions and comments all around, I must say.
> Preston Rogers,
> So we agree: evilbible.com is discredited.
> I am inferring that since you offer a tu quoque as to preachers being
> discredited for cherry pick verses, the same applies to evilbible.com
> (and you are ignoring expository preaching which is book by book,
> chapter by chapter, verse by verse, word by word - but I will grant it
> to you).
> Clogtowner,
> You want a LOT of verses where the bible does not sanction rape? OK:
> begin at Genesis 1:1 and go until Revelation 22:21
> Orson Zedd,
> What verses permit rape?
> And when you go to evilbible.com (or similar) and simply cut and paste
> what they say (without looking up the context, checking the etymology,
> etc.) I will inform you that I have responded to all of them here:http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/atheism-bible-rape-evilbibl...
Actually, I did not miss anything but readily discerned your
implication.
I was just waiting for someone to actually consider the evidence which
I am beggin you to consider and no one is bothering.
This is why people keep asking questions to which I have already
responded to in the information to which I am making you privy.
So let us do this since you are eagar to mention Lot: what about Lot
and his daughters? How does this relate to the issue? What happended
between Lot and his daughters? What was made of it? What are we to
make of it? What are you implying? Etc.
Hi y'all - I'm implying that, according to the bible, Lot was quite
content to permit his daughters to be raped or whatever by a mob. What
is your take on this?
While we are at it, how did I take the Numbers reference out of
context? It seems perfectly clear to me that, if we can accept the
bible as accurate, Moses gave the virgin female prisoners to his army.
I don't think he intended that they should be educated in the finer
points of Israeli cuisine!
On Sep 25, 1:56 pm, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I did not miss anything but readily discerned your
> implication.
> I was just waiting for someone to actually consider the evidence which
> I am beggin you to consider and no one is bothering.
> This is why people keep asking questions to which I have already
> responded to in the information to which I am making you privy.
> So let us do this since you are eagar to mention Lot: what about Lot
> and his daughters? How does this relate to the issue? What happended
> between Lot and his daughters? What was made of it? What are we to
> make of it? What are you implying? Etc.
[mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Clogtowner
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:06 PM
To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum
Subject: Re: Some verses relating to Church of Christ lecture
Hi y'all - I'm implying that, according to the bible, Lot was quite
content to permit his daughters to be raped or whatever by a mob. What
is your take on this?
While we are at it, how did I take the Numbers reference out of
context? It seems perfectly clear to me that, if we can accept the
bible as accurate, Moses gave the virgin female prisoners to his army.
I don't think he intended that they should be educated in the finer
points of Israeli cuisine!
On Sep 25, 1:56 pm, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I did not miss anything but readily discerned your
> implication.
> I was just waiting for someone to actually consider the evidence which
> I am beggin you to consider and no one is bothering.
> This is why people keep asking questions to which I have already
> responded to in the information to which I am making you privy.
> So let us do this since you are eagar to mention Lot: what about Lot
> and his daughters? How does this relate to the issue? What happended
> between Lot and his daughters? What was made of it? What are we to
> make of it? What are you implying? Etc.
I want to hear what you are going to say about Genesis 19: 1-11. Lot
gladly offered his two virgin daughters in place of the angels to the
angry mob to "do to them as you please". Most fathers would have
protected their daughters or just simply asked for help from the
angels. Fortunately, the angels intervened with the father's offer of
raping his two daughters and blinded the mob so they couldn't find the
door and enter the house.
This father (Lot) was the only noble man in Sodom worth saving? If a
noble man offers his two daughters to angry mob to be raped and
possibly killed, I can't imagine what an ignoble man of the bible is
like. women are often seen as property in the bible. Remember that
women did not have the right to vote in the United States until the
1920's. The bible was used to justify women NOT having the right to
vote. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought long and
hard against many Holy men to change that attitude towards women.
Jason
On Sep 25, 1:56 pm, Mariano G <rdd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I did not miss anything but readily discerned your
> implication.
> I was just waiting for someone to actually consider the evidence which
> I am beggin you to consider and no one is bothering.
> This is why people keep asking questions to which I have already
> responded to in the information to which I am making you privy.
> So let us do this since you are eagar to mention Lot: what about Lot
> and his daughters? How does this relate to the issue? What happended
> between Lot and his daughters? What was made of it? What are we to
> make of it? What are you implying? Etc.
While I still wait for someone to engage the evidence which I
presented I will be glad to respond, although I do not need to since
Jason already has.
We may have hit upon a non sequitur which defines “righteous” as
“perfect” or something like that. Lot acted like a disgusting and
neglectful swine—to say the least.
As Jason rightly notes, it is precisely at this point that angels take
charge of the situation which, quite clearly, Lot was mishandling—to
say the least. Do not confuse something that is recorded in the Bible
with something which the Bible prescribes. It is that clear to see
that his actions were condemnable.
That being said: upon what premise do you condemn Lot?
As for Numbers 31 here are the facts of the matter:
Regulations pertaining to war were that the Israelites were to make an
offer of peace.
Assuming that a peaceful pact is rejected and war ensued—once it is
over, they were to remain outside the camp seven days in order to
ensures the health of soldier and war captives—basically a quarantine.
The regulations pertaining to the virgins are as follows; the men were
to:
Provide them with housing.
Allow them one month to mourn.
Then they may get married.
And if they later divorce, the women were to go free and not be
mistreated.
Cleansing after a war, the provision of a home, time to mourn,
marriage and, if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment.
Since I am not interested in even more red herrings I will merely
state that “The bible was used…” claim pertains to various things just
like any and every excuse humans use for whatever they want. The
question is whether the usage was viable, justifiable, logical, etc.
|
