THE "HOLY" BIBLE - ANCIENT MEIN KAMPF
Blue Dingo
hate.
All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
especially children.
How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
Stop The Bible Now !
-------------
http://www.minitru.org/llf/bloody.html
The greatest atrocities that man has had to endure at the hand of his
fellow man have been in the name of GOD. The pages of the Bible are
painted red with blood spilled to please this bloodthirsty vampire
known as "God."
The Bloodthirsty Vampire
The Bible reveals an important, yet often overlooked trait of God's
nature and that is his thirst for blood. From the beginning of his
dealings with man he has shown his preference for spilled blood; he
accepted Able's offering of sheep's blood and rejected Cain's offering
of grains and plants (Genesis 4:3-5). God has told man that the
shedding of blood is required to be forgiven of sins (Leviticus 17:11,
Hebrews 9:22). In the Old Testament, millions of animals were
slaughtered and their blood poured onto altars and burned in a futile
attempt to please God. The smoke from the burning flesh and blood was
such a sweet scent to God (Exodus 29:18, Leviticus 1:9), that his
anger was appeased when he smelled the sweet, burning blood (Genesis
8:21) Even the human/god sacrifice of Jesus is compared to the sweet
smelling barbecue of an animal (Epehsians 5:2). Why is blood so sweet
to this vampiric God? Why is blood required to be spilled in order to
receive forgiveness from this "merciful" God? Don't ask these
questions, "just believe," you will be told. Besides why risk ending
up in an eternal barbecue just because things smell a little strange
to you?
Thou Shalt Not Kill...Unless I Tell You To
One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" then turned around and ordered
the slaughter of countless animals and human beings. He also claimed
that anything which killed a man would be killed by man (Genesis 9:6),
unless, that is, God wanted them to kill man, then they could get away
with it. God's morality is based on the changing whim of God alone.
Don't even try to figure it out!
Biblical examples of God ordering man to kill his fellow man or
condoning the killing of humans:
During a battle with a rival group, God lets the Israelites kill more
of the enemy when Moses holds his magic staff of God in the air. When
Moses lets his hand fall down, the enemy prevails in battle. The
Israelites weaken, but don't destroy the enemy. God promises that one
day he will get his revenge and destroy them entirely. - Exodus
17:8-14
When Moses comes off the Mount with the Ten Commandments and sees the
people worshipping a golden calf, God commands him to take his loyal
followers and have them "slay every man his brother, and every man his
companion, and every man his neighbor." Three thousand people end up
dying in the slaughter. -Exodus 32:26-28
God promises his chosen people that if they obey him they will
overpower their enemies and kill them with the sword. He goes on to
say that 100 Israelites will scare away 10,000 of the enemy. -
Leviticus 26:7-8
God commands Moses to have the people kill a man who picked up sticks
on the Lord's "Holy" day. They stone him to death. - Numbers 15:32-36
God's people make a vow that if God delivers the people of Canaan to
them, they will kill all the Canaanites and destroy their cities. God
gladly obliges and they name the ruins "Hormah" which means
"annihilation." - Numbers 21:2-3
Moses asks to pass through the land of a king who refuses to give them
permission. Moses proceeds to kill everyone in that kingdom. When
another king tries to stop the invading Israelites, God tells Moses,
"Don't be afraid, I've delivered him into your hands so you can
utterly destroy him just like you did to the Amorite king and his
people." So God's people obeyed God and slayed the king and his sons
and all his people, "until there was none left alive." - Numbers
21:21-35
When some of the Israelite men began to become friendly with the women
who lived in the cities they invaded, God commanded Moses to kill them
and hang their heads up to dry in the sun so "that the fierce anger of
the Lord may be turned away from you." While this is going on, Aaron's
grandson saw an Israelite man trying to sneak one of the women into
his tent. He reacts by driving a spear through the stomachs of both of
them simultaneously. God was so pleased by the zealousness of this
act, that he ended a plague which he had sent to kill the Israelites
in his jealousy. Only 24,000 Israelites had died of the plague by that
time. - Numbers 25:4-13
Moses responds to God's anger by ordering his army to kill the five
kingdoms of Midianites (the people that the Israelite men were being
friendly with in the above example). These were the same people that
had welcomed Moses with open arms when he originally fled from Egypt
after murdering an Egyptian. They even allowed him to marry one of
their women. We now see how Moses repays their kindness: his army
kills all the men and captures their women and children. When Moses
sees the thousands of captives, he gets angry because it was the
Midianite women which caused the Israelite men to stray from God's
commandments in the first place. Moses says to his soldiers, "Have you
kept the women alive? They are the reason God sent that plague to kill
24,000 of us." He then commanded his army to kill all the boy children
and all the women who were not virgins. The Bible doesn't tell us how
they determined who was a virgin but we can imagine it was a humane
and caring exam based on the past record of God's people. The
Israelites then kept all the virgin girls for themselves, dividing
them up along with the livestock. (See A Really Scary Story) - Numbers
31
Another king tries to stop the Israelites from invading his land. The
Bible tells us that the reason this king was obstinate was because God
hardened his heart so that the Israelites could prove God's power. In
their words, "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly
destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city,
we left none to remain." - Deuteronomy 2:30-34
They then repeat their bloody performance when another king tries to
stop them. God delivers over 60 cities of this kingdom to them. They
didn't spare a living human being in any of the cities, "utterly
destroying the men, women, and children, of every city." - Deuteronomy
3:1-6
God makes it very clear that they are not to show mercy to any of the
cities that God tells them to invade, ordering them to kill man, woman
and child and utterly destroy them. - Deuteronomy 7:10
God makes an exception to his "kill them all" policy only when the
Israelites decide to invade a kingdom that God hasn't told them that
they can have. If they decide to take some land without God's prior
approval, they are to first call a truce to the city. If the city
accepts the truce, the Israelites are to capture everything in the
city and make all the people their slaves. But if the city doesn't
accept their "truce" they are to besiege the city until the city
collapses, then they are to kill all the males in the city and capture
the women and livestock. Then God reiterates his prior command that if
he gives a city to them, they are to utterly destroy them and "thou
shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Quite a far stretch from
"Thou shalt not kill" isn't it? - Deuteronomy 20:10-17
After Moses dies, Joshua takes command of the Israelites and the REAL
bloodshed commences. God begins Joshua's reign of unholy terror by
telling him to not be afraid because God will help him kill all who
stand in the way. God then gives Joshua the power to kill anyone who
doesn't do anything that Joshua tells them to do. What kind of
morality is this??? The same morality that a monster like Hitler
believed in. The morality of the tyrant. - Joshua 1:1-2,5,18
Joshua makes the walls of the city of Jericho fall apart using his
magic ark and seven magic trumpets, then the people ran into the city
"and they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the
sword." - Joshua 6:20-21
God, the Warlord, tells Joshua to lead the people to a city called
"Ai" and he gives them a battle plan. Joshua enacts this brilliant
plan by hiding some of his army on one side of the city's walls and
attacking the city with a smaller group on the other side. When Joshua
attacked the city, he pretended that he was outnumbered and fled from
the defenders of Ai. All the men in the city of Ai pursued the
retreating Israelites, leaving the city undefended. At that time, the
hiding Israelites ran into the undefended city and set it on fire. The
men of Ai turned in horror upon hearing the screams of their burning
loved ones and it was as they tried to return to the aid of their
burning women and children that the army of God slaughtered all the
men of Ai. Then as the remaining women and children tried to flee the
burning city, God's chosen army cut them down "so that they let none
of them remain or escape." 12,000 people were killed in the massacre.
The only remaining survivor was the king, who Joshua hung from a tree
after making him watch the destruction of his beloved city, then they
threw his dead body onto the remains of the city gate's entrance. Such
is the love and mercy of God and his chosen people. - Joshua 8:1-29
Joshua's bloodbath now takes on a new dimension. God stops the sun and
moon in the sky to give Joshua an extra day of light to continue his
killing spree. - Joshua 10:12-14
Joshua proceeds to utterly destroy the kingdoms of Lachish, Makkedah,
the Gibeonites, the Libnahites, the Eglonites, the Hebronites and the
Debirites. The five main kings were captured and Joshua had his men
place their "feet" (genitals? - See Biblical Sex Talk) on the necks of
these kings. Afterwards he killed the kings and hung their bodies in
trees for all to see. The fact that his men putting their "feet" on
the necks of the kings hadn't already killed them strengthens the
theory that it was their genitals which the Israelites placed on the
necks of the kings as an insult. The kings of the other cities were
killed and laid on the ruins of their cities just like the king of
Jericho. The Bible sums up all the horrifying bloodshed by saying, "So
Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of
the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none
remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of
Israel commanded." - Joshua 10:27-40
When the remaining kings heard of the slaughter which Israel was
performing across their land, they banded together to try to stop the
horror. God kept his word and allowed Joshua to utterly destroy all of
them as well. - Joshua 11:1-14
When the last remaining tribe tried to escape by running away into the
mountains, Joshua hunted them down and kill them all. - Joshua 11:21
Of all the cities which God's chosen people came upon, only one of
them was able to escape utter annihilation and that was because they
pretended like they weren't from that area. These people acted like
travelers who also worshipped the Israelite God and they told Joshua
that they had come from a far away land to join with the Israelites.
In that way, they tricked Joshua into making an oath of peace with
them. He repaid their trickery by making the entire city and all their
future offspring, slaves. No mention is made of why God didn't tell
Joshua that he was being deceived. Joshua discovered the deception by
deductive reasoning rather than divine revelation. - Joshua 9:1-27
The Bible says that no other cities made peace with the Israelites
because God hardened their hearts and made them want to fight. God
manipulated their hearts just so he could utterly destroy all of them
and show them no mercy, resulting in their total extermination as he
had promised Moses. - Joshua 11:19-20
After Joshua dies, God replaces him with Judah who commences to slay
the people in the land of Canaan by the tens of thousands, burning
their cities and not allowing any to escape. - Judges 1:1-20
God helped Judah to drive out the inhabitants of a mountain but the
ones that lived in the valley had iron chariots and Judah couldn't
drive them out. In fact, these same people continued to live where
they were at that time until the time of the writing of the Bible. No
mention is made of God not keeping his word and letting them utterly
destroy these people, nor is it mentioned why having iron chariots was
an insurmountable obstacle to an All-mighty God. - Judges 1:19-21
The Israelites' bloodbath begins to subside as the people learn they
can increase their profits by taxing the inhabitants of cities without
destroying them. God takes offense and warns that they will be cursed
if they don't kill everyone. The Israelites eventually fall under the
rule of the king of Moab. In time, the Israelites sent the king some
presents which were carried by an assasin. After the assassin killed
the king, the Israelites proceeded to kill 10,000 unsuspecting
Moabites. - Judges 3:12-29
The hero of the hotel-filling Bible group: Gideon, snuck up on the
camp of the Midianites and made a horrible crashing noise with pots
and trumpets in the middle of the night. When the people in the camp
woke from the noise they thought they were under attack and in the
darkness, proceeded to kill each other. The ones who escaped the
carnage were hunted down by Gideon and his men and mercilessly
slaughtered. Gideon's men brought the severed heads of the princes of
the Midianites back to present to Gideon. Perhaps they left these
heads in the dresser drawer of a hotel, since today, Bibles are left
in hotel dressers in the name of Gideon also.- Judges 7:7-25
Gideon chases the Midianite kings and eventually captures them,
killing the men of the city of Penuel in the process. He orders his
young son to kill the captive kings with a sword but the boy doesn't
have the "guts" to perform the heartless task. So Gideon takes his
sword and kills the kings himself. - Judges 8:17-21
Samson, with strength given to him from God, kills 30 men to pay off a
gambling debt, kills 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass, and then
pulls down the pillars of a house, killing an additional 3,000 people.
- Judges 14:19, 15:15, 16:27-30
While spying for more lands to invade, the Israelite tribe of Dan
finds a peaceful city of pagans who are quietly keeping to themselves.
The men of God descend upon the unsuspecting people of the city and
kill them with the sword. Then they burned the pagan city. - Judges
18:27-29
After an Israelite man cut up his dead concubine and sent her to the
tribes of Israel (See Forced Entry) the other tribes of Israel demand
that the tribe of Benjamin turn over the people who lived in the city
that raped the man's concubine so they could kill the people of that
city. The tribe of Benjamin didn't want to allow one of their cities
to be destroyed because of the acts of a few men so they defended the
city. The army of God repeatedly attacked the defenders of the tribe
of Benjamin but couldn't defeat them. Finally God helped them achieve
victory by tricking the defenders into pursuing a smaller group and
then setting fire to the poorly defended city. They killed over 25,000
"men of valor" who were merely trying to prevent a "mob's justice"
that day. Then "the men of Israel turned again upon the children of
Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men
of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set
on fire all the cities that they came to." This is mob mentality gone
out of control. Thousands of people massacred because a group of men
raped a woman. Such is the justice of the godly. - Judges 20:4-48
During a battle with the Philistines, God "thundered with a great
thunder" and confused them, allowing the Israelites to kill them with
a great slaughter. - 1 Samuel 7:7-11
The Spirit of God comes upon Saul and he leads an army of 330,000
Israelites to kill an invading force of Ammonites. - 1 Samuel 11:8-11
Saul's son, Jonathan snuck off into the camp of the enemy and God sent
an earthquake to help save him when the Philistines caught him there.
In the confusion, Jonathan escaped and brought the Israelite army back
to attack the Philistines only to find that they were killing each
other in their confusion. After the slaughter, Jonathan eats
something, disregarding a holy fast which his father, the king had
ordered. He rationalizes that if everyone had eaten instead of
fasting, they would have had more energy and could have killed even
more of the Philistines. King Saul orders his son to be executed for
breaking the fast, but the people refuse to carry out the command of
God's king and Jonathan's life is spared. God is curiously silent
throughout the entire affair. - 1 Samuel 14:1-45
King Saul is commanded by God to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly
destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." This command
is given so that God can get his revenge like he promised Moses he
would do in Exodus 17:14-16. Saul kills all the people of the kingdom
of the Amalekites except for the king and the cattle. Instead he
offers the cattle as a sacrifice to God (which also allows him to eat
some of the meat). When the prophet Samuel sees that Saul didn't
utterly destroy everything that breathed, he said "it is better to
obey than to sacrifice." Then the prophet took the captive and
terrified Amalekite king and cut him into pieces with a sword. After
that, God was sorry he had made Saul the king and he told his prophet
that David would replace Saul as king, since Saul hadn't killed
everything the way God had commanded him to. - 1 Samuel 15:2-11, 32-33
David is given credit for killing the giant Goliath with a slingshot.
Actually David knocked him unconscious with a rock from his sling,
then he took Goliath's sword and killed him with it then cut off his
head. David then carried the head with him back to the city of
Jerusalem eventually giving the head to King Saul. - 1 Samuel 17:51-57
Once David becomes king, the Amalekites invade his kingdom. Unlike the
bloody conquests of the Israelites, the "heathen" Amalekites burn the
captured city but they don't kill anyone, "great or small." David
pursues them and slays the Amalekites while they are camping. None of
the captured Israelites had been harmed by the Amalekites, in contrast
to the bloodbath the Israelites had been conducting against the
Amalekites. The true morality of the godly versus the ungodly is
revealed once more. - 1 Samuel 30:1-19
When the Philistines heard that David was made king, they came to find
him. God tells David to go to them and kill them. David does just as
God had commanded and killed them all. - 2 Samuel 5:17-25
When the Syrians go to war against God's chosen people, God gets angry
because the Syrians mock him, saying, "he is God of the hills but not
of the valleys." (Remember, God had been unable to defeat the iron
chariots in the valley.) In retaliation, the Israelites are able to
kill 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. When the Syrians try to run
away, a wall falls on them, killing an additional 27,000 men. - 1
Kings 20:28-30
God gets tired of the two kings which are ruling his chosen people
(Jehoram for Israel and Ahaziah for Judah) so he has his prophet
annoint a soldier as king and sends that soldier to the palace where
he murders the two unsuspecting kings. Then he has some servants toss
the dead king's mother (Jezebel) out a window. The Bible describes the
scene in gory detail, "some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall,
and on the horses." The new king trods on her dead body with his horse
and then dogs come out and eat her carcass so that when they go to
bury her all they can find are her skull, her feet, and the palms of
her feet. - 2 Kings 9:1-35
The new king then sends a letter to his fellow conspirators having
them kill the old king's 70 brothers (not too surprising, since one of
the old kings had killed all his own brothers when he rose to power -
2 Chronicles 21:4) and telling them to put the 70 heads in baskets and
ship the heads back home. When the heads arrive, the new king has them
stacked up at the entrance gate to the city. The king then acts
surprised when the people see the heads and he implies that God killed
them and sent their heads there to show that he wants all the old
king's family destroyed. The new king then proceeds to kill the
remaining members of the old kings' families. God responds to these
acts by saying that the new king "has done well in executing that
which is right in mine eyes," and that he had done unto the old king's
household "according to all that was in mine heart." - 2 Kings
10:1-17,30
The old kings had allowed for people to worship another God (Baal), so
the new king came up with a plan to bring them all together so he
could kill them all at once. He called for them all to come to the
temple because, "I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal and any who do
not show up will be put to death." Once he gathered all the Baal
worshippers of the kingdom into the temple, he had his soldiers kill
them. - 2 Kings 10:18-25
Not content to have his chosen race kill merely the "unchosen" races,
God divides his people into two main factions, Israel and Judah. God
then gets to play favorites with whichever group happens to be
pleasing him most at the time. In one instance, God has one of the
groups kill 500,000 of the other group. - 2 Chronicles 14:15-17
After his prophets are ignored and mocked, God sends a foreign army to
Jerusalem to destroy the city, its temple and his chosen people, "and
had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that
stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand." - 2 Chronicles
36:15-17
God is praised for being the one that teaches hands how to conduct war
and fingers how to fight and shed blood. - Psalms 144:1
God commands one of his prophets to walk through the city of Jerusalem
and put a mark on the forehead of the men who are crying out about the
wickedness of the city. God then sends out some other men to kill
everyone in the city who isn't owned by one of the men who have the
mark on their foreheads. God tells the men not to spare or have mercy
or pity on anyone: "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little
children, and women." These men obey God's word and the streets run
with the blood of the innocent. If you were the child or wife of a man
who didn't happen to be crying about the abominations of the city when
the prophet came by, you would be killed. When the prophet realized
the horror that God intended, he begged God not to do such an evil
thing. God replied to the prophet that he wouldn't change his mind or
be merciful or have pity on the people of the city. Tell this story
the next time a Christian tries to tell you, "For God so loved the
world..."- Ezekiel 9:3-10
OverKlocker
wrote:
>All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
>hate.
>
>All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
>and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
>guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
>especially children.
>
>How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>
>
>Stop The Bible Now !
>
>
>
>-------------
>
>http://www.minitru.org/llf/bloody.html
>
>DAMN!!! amen, preach it brother!!! the bible is the most popular piece of fiction EVER wrote.
BernardZ
007addict.com says...
> One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
> the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
>
Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
murder."
Therion Ware
+1000, BernardZ <Bern...@FlagMail.com to reply delete Flag> brought
the total lines of text written about "Re: THE "HOLY" BIBLE - ANCIENT
MEIN KAMPF" to 8. I decided to observe the following about them:
Better for what, one wionders...
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Neal Stein
news:MPG.175b5e43301c6aa0989c73@news...
Not that it stops this so-called God from murdering its creations.
--
Neal Stein a.a#1984
(A)//(E) Apatriot #4
If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. --Mikhail
Bakunin "God and the State"
Tommy
Listen up you idiots. It is not God but self righteous (Westerner's mostly
disease, which makes the Turks jealous) bastards like yourself that Kill.
The Catholic Priest in the Past murdering Indians in Cuba are the same as
the human right activists of today that called for the bombing of
Yugoslavia.
So if you don't want disputes turning violent cancel yourself and your
crusade. Cause I don't need a God to tell you to fuck off. Think of this in
philosophical terms.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <etc1fucts1l9g0igr...@4ax.com>):
>>> One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
>>> the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
>>
>> Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
>> murder."
>
> Better for what, one wionders...
Loyalty to the original language.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Neal Stein
news:3cf0d446$0$2524$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
You can go fuck yourself. Don't assume anything of me, much less that I
support war or oppression. Think of your idiocy in philosophical terms now
won't you?
Ethan Young
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
news:01HW.B9169AB20...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
| On Sun, 26 May 2002 5:06:52 -0500, Therion Ware wrote
| (in message <etc1fucts1l9g0igr...@4ax.com>):
|
| >>> One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
| >>> the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
| >>
| >> Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
| >> murder."
| >
| > Better for what, one wionders...
|
| Loyalty to the original language.
|
That and the wording also allows mankind to kill kill kill fer God and not
consider it "murder."
"Murder" is much more specific, and denotes one facet of an act of violence.
Someone who was murdered was also killed, but someone who was killed was not
necessarily murdered. Clever, I wonder if the writer of the 10 commandments
knew this at the time, or it was a fluke with a great side-effect (although
I don't think commandments have ever stopped violent religious crusades...at
that point religion is an excuse to be violent)
Ethan
Ethan Young
Whoa, there, buddy. Reign in the aggression. Your accusations of atheist
violence is completely unfounded. That's as bad as saying most religious
people are violent. Not true. What is true is that religion has accounted
for more violence (if not the most) than any other motivator...even most
land-related violence stems from religion.
Ethan
(and just how did you expect people to "listen up" when you call them
"idiots" and tell them to "fuck off"? That's a perplexing paradox...)
Therion Ware
GMT, Daniel Seriff <micro...@what.zzz> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: THE "HOLY" BIBLE - ANCIENT MEIN KAMPF" to 20.
I decided to observe the following about them:
>On Sun, 26 May 2002 5:06:52 -0500, Therion Ware wrote
>(in message <etc1fucts1l9g0igr...@4ax.com>):
>
>>>> One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
>>>> the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
>>>
>>> Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
>>> murder."
>>
>> Better for what, one wionders...
>
>Loyalty to the original language.
Of course. How could it be otherwise?
dgillesp
OverKlocker wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
> wrote:
>
> >All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
> >hate.
> >
> >All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
> >and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
> >guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
> >especially children.
> >
> >How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
> >full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
> >and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
> >
> >
> >Stop The Bible Now !
Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
Honor your father and your mother? or
You shall not kill? or
You shall not steal? or
You shall not commit adultery? or
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
Hateful, you say? Perhaps, even worse is the teaching of Jesus: "You
have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you." Matthew 5:43-44 Ridiculously impossible and
idealistic, right?
Or again, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the
children of God." Everybody know what a troublemaker Jesus was, wasn't
He? He expects too much, asking that we "love our neighbors as we love
ourselves." Didn't He know that that #1 always gets priority.
Stop all this nonsense! Burn your Bible and your neighbors' Bibles
today! ;-/
Denny
Daniel Seriff
(in message <_RaI8.5952$LC3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>):
>>>> Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
>>>> murder."
>
> That and the wording also allows mankind to kill kill kill fer God and not
> consider it "murder."
We don't need Biblical wording for that.
> "Murder" is much more specific, and denotes one facet of an act of violence.
> Someone who was murdered was also killed, but someone who was killed was not
> necessarily murdered. Clever, I wonder if the writer of the 10 commandments
> knew this at the time, or it was a fluke with a great side-effect (although
> I don't think commandments have ever stopped violent religious crusades...at
> that point religion is an excuse to be violent)
The simple fact that ancient Hebrew had two different words meaning "murder"
and "kill", respectively, is an indication that they drew a philosophical
and/or legal distinction between the two.
--
Daniel Seriff
La musique est un langage qui se signifie soi-même.
- Jean-Jacques Nattiez
mb
the way, makes up less than 0.001% of the text). Although having the wife
and servants counted between the house and the animals rankles, not a
little. And while you're there, why did you skip: "You shall honor no other
god than me, 'cause otherwise my priest will get you hanged, quartered and
burned!" That's the top commandment.
dgillesp wrote in message <3CF154F3...@swva.net>...
>> >How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>> >full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>> >and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>> >Stop The Bible Now !
>
>Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
>concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>Honor your father and your mother? or
>You shall not kill? or
>You shall not steal? or
>You shall not commit adultery? or
>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
etc.
Susan Cohen
Daniel Seriff wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 5:06:52 -0500, Therion Ware wrote
> (in message <etc1fucts1l9g0igr...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
> >>> the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
> >>
> >> Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
> >> murder."
> >
> > Better for what, one wionders...
>
> Loyalty to the original language.
Loyalty to the truth. And also to sanity. To say "Thous shalt not kill" means
that if someone comes to kill you, you cannot defend yourself if it means killing
them.
Susan
V.O.
"Blue Dingo" <blue...@007addict.com> wrote in message
news:b22ec47a.02052...@posting.google.com...
And all the little weenies answered while the poster of this posted not
again.
V.O.
"OverKlocker" <no...@biznez.net> wrote in message
news:BBE8B1C3C9A85A55.0ED1401A...@lp.airnews.net...
> On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
> wrote:
>
> >All educated people of the today's world > >
> >DAMN!!! amen, preach it brother!!! the bible is the most popular piece
of fiction EVER wrote.
Your statement is 100% correct in that it is not a statement. I would argue
if you were intelligent enough to say "written"
Of course the statement originally addressed educated people.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>
>
>OverKlocker wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
>> >hate.
>> >
>> >All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
>> >and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
>> >guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
>> >especially children.
>> >
>> >How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>> >full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>> >and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>> >
>> >
>> >Stop The Bible Now !
>
>Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
>concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>Honor your father and your mother? or
>You shall not kill? or
>You shall not steal? or
>You shall not commit adultery? or
>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>
"Do not boil a kid in its mothers milk"
Is the one I object to the most!
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
santolina
dgillesp <dgil...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:3CF154F3...@swva.net...
>
>
> OverKlocker wrote:
> >
> > On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
> > >hate.
> > >
> > >All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
> > >and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
> > >guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
> > >especially children.
> > >
> > >How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
> > >full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
> > >and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
> > >
> > >
> > >Stop The Bible Now !
>
> Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> You shall not kill? or
> You shall not steal? or
> You shall not commit adultery? or
I find these three most objectionable. God ordained these commandments but
then ordered his followers to (A) kill the residents of distant cities, (B)
steal their possessions, (C) take the women for themselves. It's hard to
take commandments seriously when their Author doesn't even observe them.
To God's credit, he only violates two of the three above commandments when
it comes to the land of Caanan. In that case he commanded that every living
thing be killed and the land stolen, but no adultery with the women (since
they would have been killed, of course).
If you want to get technical, God Himself killed the entire human race save
for Noah and the gang. In fact, He has killed every human who has ever
lived, since He deliberately rendered Adam and all his descendants mortal.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any instances where God Himself
directly committed theft. However, He did impregnate, through His Holy
Ghost personage, a virgin betrothed to another man. Not sure if that counts
for adultery or fornication or a little of both.
So the bottom line is that I won't object to any of the Ten Commandments
just as soon as their Author quits objecting to them.
Raymond
"Neal Stein" <atomki...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
news:MF2I8.108768$UV4.202126@rwcrnsc54...
> "BernardZ" <Bern...@FlagMail.com to reply delete Flag> wrote in message
> news:MPG.175b5e43301c6aa0989c73@news...
> > In article <b22ec47a.02052...@posting.google.com>, bluedingo@
> > 007addict.com says...
> > > One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God gave man
> > > the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
> > >
> >
> > Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou shalt not
> > murder."
>
> Not that it stops this so-called God from murdering its creations.
God doesn't murder, man does that job, God punishes them that do such, with
death, not murder.
Susan Cohen
santolina wrote:
> dgillesp <dgil...@swva.net> wrote in message
> news:3CF154F3...@swva.net...
> >
> > Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>
> > You shall not kill? or
> > You shall not steal? or
> > You shall not commit adultery? or
>
> I find these three most objectionable.
I find the first one objectionable as it is translated incorerctly and therefore
misleading.
it's "Thou Shalt not Commit Murder"
Susan
Susan Cohen
"V.O." wrote:
Well, you've answered this thread yourself, y'know... :-)
Me, I like to clear up mistakes, so that's where I jumped in.
Susan
Woden
"Raymond" <rwkna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acqv5b$n2...@rain.i-cable.com...
>
> "Neal Stein" <atomki...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> news:MF2I8.108768$UV4.202126@rwcrnsc54...
> > "BernardZ" <Bern...@FlagMail.com to reply delete Flag> wrote in
message
> > news:MPG.175b5e43301c6aa0989c73@news...
> > > In article <b22ec47a.02052...@posting.google.com>,
bluedingo@
> > > 007addict.com says...
> > > > One of the great paradoxes of the Bible is the fact that God
gave man
> > > > the commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bad translation. The bible a better translation is that "Thou
shalt not
> > > murder."
> >
> > Not that it stops this so-called God from murdering its creations.
>
> God doesn't murder, man does that job, God punishes them that do such,
with
> death, not murder.
What do you call raining down hell fire on Sodom & Gomorrah, killing all
the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a pillar of
salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was forced
to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that only one
family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of death any
different than murder?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
OverKlocker
wrote:
have i offended thee in any way? could it be that you just didn't get
laid last night?
Matt Giwer
>
> OverKlocker wrote:
>
>>On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
>>>hate.
>>>
>>>All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
>>>and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
>>>guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
>>>especially children.
>>>
>>>How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>>>full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>>>and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Stop The Bible Now !
>>
>
> Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> Honor your father and your mother? or
> You shall not kill? or
> You shall not steal? or
> You shall not commit adultery? or
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those things?
--
If Shakespeare wished to be published today, Lady MacBeth
would have to win at least one sword fight.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 790
Raymond
"santolina" <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote in message
news:acs7o3$se0m5$4...@ID-78591.news.dfncis.de...
> > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>
>
> > You shall not kill? or
> > You shall not steal? or
> > You shall not commit adultery? or
>
> I find these three most objectionable. God ordained these commandments
but
> then ordered his followers to (A) kill the residents of distant cities,
(B)
> steal their possessions, (C) take the women for themselves. It's hard to
> take commandments seriously when their Author doesn't even observe them.
When one has to take them out of context, it is no wonder you have problems.
You seem not to understand history, or what was going on at the time, war,
and marriage, they married these women. They did not rape them or take them
to themselves in the way you seem to imply. They were in war and in war
people die, are they killed, I suppose you could say that. Only then God
did not say Do not Kill, that was King James translator, God said not to
murder, kill them that are not warring against you or hurting you, I sure
you know the difference between the two, only what to play games with words.
Then it be stupid not to take God and His commandments seriously, if he does
what you pointed out, in the way you pointed out, only a idiots would argue
with that God.
Ethan Young
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com...
I am God's lawyer. He is pleading self-defense, and if that does not work,
insanity.
Ethan
(...and if that doesn't work, more murder. I suggest settle settle settle!
He wants one million dollars and a snow-cone machine...Lucifer took His when
he left, as per the pre-nup)
mb
context to do the same things. God's back! Hope you're happy.
Raymond wrote in message ...
Jan Pieter Verhey
"Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com...
> dgillesp wrote:
> >
> > OverKlocker wrote:
> >
> >>On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
> >>>hate.
> >>>
> >>>All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
> >>>and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
> >>>guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
> >>>especially children.
> >>>
> >>>How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
> >>>full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
> >>>and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Stop The Bible Now !
> >>
> >
> > Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> > Honor your father and your mother? or
> > You shall not kill? or
> > You shall not steal? or
> > You shall not commit adultery? or
> > You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
> > You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>
> What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those things?
YOU might be such a person.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com>):
>> Honor your father and your mother? or
>> You shall not kill? or
>> You shall not steal? or
>> You shall not commit adultery? or
>> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>
> What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those things?
These things were known before they were written down. What kind of person
assumes otherwise?
I'll ignore the thinly veiled Jew-hatred.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Daniel Seriff
(in message <uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com>):
>> God doesn't murder, man does that job, God punishes them that do such, with
>> death, not murder.
>
> What do you call raining down hell fire on Sodom & Gomorrah, killing all
> the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a pillar of
> salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was forced
> to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that only one
> family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of death any
> different than murder?
Are you really sure you want to argue semantics with a Supreme Being(TM)?
Not even Job could win that battle.
Tommy
haha. An athiest becomming violent. I guess that disproves your point. I
rest my case.
Woden
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 23:47:00 -0500, Woden wrote
> (in message <uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
> >> God doesn't murder, man does that job, God punishes them that do
such, with
> >> death, not murder.
> >
> > What do you call raining down hell fire on Sodom & Gomorrah, killing
all
> > the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a pillar
of
> > salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was
forced
> > to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that only
one
> > family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of death
any
> > different than murder?
>
> Are you really sure you want to argue semantics with a Supreme
Being(TM)?
>
> Not even Job could win that battle.
"Raymond" <rwkna...@yahoo.com> is the Supreme Being? Wow, I'm
suitably impressed.
Amigocabal
HOLY
QURAN
V.O.
Sorrynews:F7AE2D7A53C7D917.32211A88...@lp.airnews.net...
V.O.
"Neal Stein" <atomki...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
> "Tommy" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3cf0d446$0$2524$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
>
> You can go fuck yourself. Don't assume anything of me, much less that I
> won't you?
> --
> Neal Stein a.a#1984
> (A)//(E) Apatriot #4
> If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. --Mikhail
> Bakunin "God and the State"
>
>
Aha the idiot speaks
V.O.
> the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a pillar of
> salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was forced
> to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that only one
> family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of death any
> different than murder?
>
>
> --
> Woden
>
> "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
> people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
> ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
> generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
>
NEENER NEENER NEENER
The clueless Woden has diarrhea. Words that spurt out with no collective
reasoning or substance.
V.O.
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3CF1AD32...@his.com...
>
>
> "V.O." wrote:
>
> > "Blue Dingo" <blue...@007addict.com> wrote in message
> > news:b22ec47a.02052...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > And all the little weenies answered while the poster of this posted not
> > again.
>
> Well, you've answered this thread yourself, y'know... :-)
Yes, I know.
I answered, as you, to those who answered.
Woden
"Amigocabal" <par...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3CF23B67...@bellsouth.net...
> "EL DIN A MUAMELA" (RELIGION IS HOW YOU TREAT OTHERS)
>
HOLY
> QURAN
>
>
You can go back to sleep now, Amigocabal.
Susan Cohen
Jan Pieter Verhey wrote:
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com...
> > dgillesp wrote:
> > >
> > > Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> > > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> > > Honor your father and your mother? or
> > > You shall not kill?
Murder
> or
> > > You shall not steal? or
> > > You shall not commit adultery? or
> > > You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
> > > You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
> >
> > What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those things?
>
> YOU might be such a person.
Considering that there *is* such a book, and yet he bears false witness all the
time, it only shows who is the most depraved at all.
For its time, the Torah is an amazingly enlightened document.
In fact, the very laws Giwer pretends to find so fundamental are the basis of
Jew-hatred today: we were the first group of people in uncivilized places to say
"NO, you CAN'T do that!" And the barbarians resented us from the start.
http://www.aish.com/seminars/whythejews/wtj01000.htm
Susan
Susan Cohen
"V.O." wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF1AD32...@his.com...
> >
> >
> > "V.O." wrote:
> >
> > > "Blue Dingo" <blue...@007addict.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b22ec47a.02052...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > And all the little weenies answered while the poster of this posted not
> > > again.
> >
> > Well, you've answered this thread yourself, y'know... :-)
>
> Yes, I know.
> I answered, as you, to those who answered.
I know (Hence the Smiley (tm).). Heehee.
Susan
Brian L
wrote:
>
>
>OverKlocker wrote:
>>
>> On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
>> >hate.
>> >
>> >All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
>> >and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
>> >guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
>> >especially children.
>> >
>> >How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>> >full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>> >and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>> >
>> >
>> >Stop The Bible Now !
>
>Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
>concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>Honor your father and your mother? or
>You shall not kill? or
>You shall not steal? or
>You shall not commit adultery? or
>You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
What's objectionable is what's _not_ there. Why is lying worse than
rape? Why is theft worse than slavery? The 10 commandments is a
seriously fucked up moral code.
stoney
<m.rich...@die.spammers.die>, Message ID:
<b673fu0n16acpl2e8...@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
I mean really! Then you've got to listen to the baby's screams as
it's boiled alive, not to mention the adding insult to injury of
boiling the baby in his/her mother's milk.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
stoney
<jul...@tampabay.rr.com>, Message ID:
<3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>dgillesp wrote:
>>
>> OverKlocker wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 May 2002 18:03:36 -0700, blue...@007addict.com (Blue Dingo)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>All educated people of the today's world are aware of the dangers of
>>>>hate.
>>>>
>>>>All civilized countries recognize hateful, racist and violent speech
>>>>and literature as an equal, if not greater danger to the community as
>>>>guns and drugs, and strive hard to keep it from the hands of citizens,
>>>>especially children.
>>>>
>>>>How it is possible that a most vile book called The "Holy" Bible ,
>>>>full of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia and incitement to rape
>>>>and murder is allowed to be distributed freely ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Stop The Bible Now !
>>>
>>
>> Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
>> concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>> Honor your father and your mother? or
>> You shall not kill? or
>> You shall not steal? or
>> You shall not commit adultery? or
>> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>
> What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those things?
Christians, obviously but then they ignore the book they thump.
stoney
Message ID: <uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
"Gawd" did it to show them how much he 'loved' them.
stoney
Message ID: <0frI8.48965$db7.2...@news2.west.cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism;
What a lovely case of projection.
santolina
>
> "santolina" <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote in message
> news:acs7o3$se0m5$4...@ID-78591.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > dgillesp <dgil...@swva.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CF154F3...@swva.net...> >
> > > Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> > > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> >
> >
> > > You shall not kill? or
> > > You shall not steal? or
> > > You shall not commit adultery? or
> >
> > I find these three most objectionable. God ordained these commandments
> but
> > then ordered his followers to (A) kill the residents of distant cities,
> (B)
> > steal their possessions, (C) take the women for themselves. It's hard
to
> > take commandments seriously when their Author doesn't even observe them.
>
> When one has to take them out of context, it is no wonder you have
problems.
> You seem not to understand history, or what was going on at the time, war,
War? You mean, you approach cities that are just sitting there, minding
their own business, kill everything that moves, and that's "war"? Well, my
bad. I guess that means I can sneak into my neighbor's house, kill him,
take his wife and belongings, and it's all good because that's just "war".
> and marriage, they married these women.
I see. Says in my Bible that when they not-murdered the Midianites there
were 32,000 virgins left over for them to "marry". Wow. 32,000. 32,000
plus whatever virgins you got going on amongst the Israelites, damn. Got to
hand it to God, he's got this "marriage" thing figured out alright. Guess
there's no need for adultery when you've got about a bazillion virgins
waiting around to "marry" you.
> They did not rape them
Naw, I guess you're right, cuz every chick I know just loves getting it on
with a guy who just not-murdered her entire family. Sorry God, I owe you an
apology.
> or take them
> to themselves in the way you seem to imply. They were in war and in war
> people die,
And all their animals too, don't forget. Well, sometimes. Sometimes you
take all the animals for yourself, and all the virgins too. God can't quite
make up His mind about these things.
> are they killed, I suppose you could say that. Only then God
> did not say Do not Kill, that was King James translator, God said not to
> murder, kill them that are not warring against you or hurting you, I sure
> you know the difference between the two,
Yeah, those damned Jerichoites, venturing far and wide looking for
Israelites to make war on. God only wants His children to "war" on those
nasty bastards who go out looking for a fight.
> only what to play games with words.
> Then it be stupid not to take God and His commandments seriously, if he
does
> what you pointed out, in the way you pointed out, only a idiots would
argue
> with that God.
>
I'm right here.
Rockett Crawford
santolina wrote:
> Raymond <rwkna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:acsld0$o6...@rain.i-cable.com...
> >
> > "santolina" <hos...@hallelujah.com> wrote in message
> > news:acs7o3$se0m5$4...@ID-78591.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > dgillesp <dgil...@swva.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3CF154F3...@swva.net...> >
> > > > Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
> > > > concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
> > >
> > >
> > > > You shall not kill? or
> > > > You shall not steal? or
> > > > You shall not commit adultery? or
> > >
> > > I find these three most objectionable. God ordained these commandments
> > but
> > > then ordered his followers to (A) kill the residents of distant cities,
> > (B)
> > > steal their possessions, (C) take the women for themselves. It's hard
> to
> > > take commandments seriously when their Author doesn't even observe them.
> >
> > When one has to take them out of context, it is no wonder you have
> problems.
> > You seem not to understand history, or what was going on at the time, war,
No, I think he sums it up correctly. In Deuteronomy and Josha the Children of
Israel are commanded to exterminate
the Canaanites and steal their land and possessions.
(Josha 11:14) All the spoil of these towns(town after town), and the livestock,
the
Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the
edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who
breathed.
(Joshua 11:20) For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts (the
canaanites)
so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that
they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be
exterminated,
just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
>
> War? You mean, you approach cities that are just sitting there, minding
> their own business, kill everything that moves, and that's "war"? Well, my
> bad. I guess that means I can sneak into my neighbor's house, kill him,
> take his wife and belongings, and it's all good because that's just "war".
>
> > and marriage, they married these women.
>
> I see. Says in my Bible that when they not-murdered the Midianites there
> were 32,000 virgins left over for them to "marry". Wow. 32,000. 32,000
> plus whatever virgins you got going on amongst the Israelites, damn. Got to
> hand it to God, he's got this "marriage" thing figured out alright. Guess
> there's no need for adultery when you've got about a bazillion virgins
> waiting around to "marry" you.
>
> > They did not rape them
>
> Naw, I guess you're right, cuz every chick I know just loves getting it on
> with a guy who just not-murdered her entire family. Sorry God, I owe you an
> apology.
>
> > or take them
> > to themselves in the way you seem to imply. They were in war and in war
> > people die,
>
> And all their animals too, don't forget. Well, sometimes. Sometimes you
> take all the animals for yourself, and all the virgins too. God can't quite
> make up His mind about these things.
:
(Jericho)(Joshua 6:21) Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the
sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old,
oxen, sheep, and donkeys.
(City of Ai)(Joshua 8:22)Israel struck them down until no one was left who
survived or escaped.
(City of Libnah)(10:30) The LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of
Israel; and he struck it with the edge of the sword, and
every person in it; he left no one remaining in it;
(City of Lachish)(10:32-33) ... and struck it with the edge of the sword, and
every person in it, as he had done to Libnah. Then King
Horam of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua struck him and his people,
leaving him no survivors.
(City of Eglon)(10:35) and they took it that day, and struck it with the edge of
the
sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed
that day, as he had done to Lachish.
(City of Hebron)(10:37) and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king
and its
towns, and every person in it; he left no one
remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every
person in it.
(City of Debir)(10:39-40) and he took it with its king and all its towns; they
struck them
with the edge of the sword, and utterly
destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining;
So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the
lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one
remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel
commanded.
>
> > are they killed, I suppose you could say that. Only then God
> > did not say Do not Kill, that was King James translator, God said not to
> > murder, kill them that are not warring against you or hurting you, I sure
> > you know the difference between the two,
Were the children and babies the Isrealites stabbed warring against the
Israelites?
> Yeah, those damned Jerichoites, venturing far and wide looking for
> Israelites to make war on. God only wants His children to "war" on those
> nasty bastards who go out looking for a fight.
>
> > only what to play games with words.
> > Then it be stupid not to take God and His commandments seriously, if he
> does
> > what you pointed out, in the way you pointed out, only a idiots would
> argue
> > with that God.
> >
>
> I'm right here.
Capella a.a #5
Capella's Guide to Atheism
http://www.jestercourt.com/~capella/aguide
Daniel Seriff
(in message <spb5fu45ogj2unt2n...@4ax.com>):
>> Honor your father and your mother? or
>> You shall not kill? or
>> You shall not steal? or
>> You shall not commit adultery? or
>> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>
> What's objectionable is what's _not_ there. Why is lying worse than
> rape? Why is theft worse than slavery? The 10 commandments is a
> seriously fucked up moral code.
Take a look at shari'a law. A married woman who accuses a man of rape is
stoned to death for infidelity. The rapist goes unpunished. Talk about your
fucked up moral codes.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Susan Cohen
Brian L wrote:
False witness is more serious than just lying, tho' it's nice to see people
link them together & not do either!
> worse than rape?
Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
> Why is theft worse than slavery?
Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
down in the Torah?
> The 10 commandments is a
> seriously fucked up moral code.
Only if you don' know what you're talking about.
Susan
Brian L
wrote:
>
>
>Brian L wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2002 17:34:43 -0400, dgillesp <dgil...@swva.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which of the Bible's ten commandments (other than the first three
>> >concerning God, of course) do you find the most objectionable:
>> >Honor your father and your mother? or
>> >You shall not kill? or
>> >You shall not steal? or
>> >You shall not commit adultery? or
>> >You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
>> >You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
>>
>> What's objectionable is what's _not_ there. Why is lying
>
>False witness is more serious than just lying, tho' it's nice to see people
>link them together & not do either!
>
>> worse than rape?
>
>Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
against rape?
>> Why is theft worse than slavery?
>
>Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
>down in the Torah?
So why is there a commandment against theft, and not against slavery?
Why does your book describe the rules for treating slaves instead of
just saying slavery is wrong, don't do it, period?
>> The 10 commandments is a
>> seriously fucked up moral code.
>
>Only if you don' know what you're talking about.
Please enlighten me.
>
>Susan
Daniel Seriff
(in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
>>> worse than rape?
>>
>> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
>
> So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
> against rape?
Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
All crimes have one or more of the actions prohibited in the Decalogue as
their fundamental basis (or bases). The rest of the Law is just commentary on
the Ten.
>>> Why is theft worse than slavery?
>>
>> Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
>> down in the Torah?
>
> So why is there a commandment against theft, and not against slavery?
> Why does your book describe the rules for treating slaves instead of
> just saying slavery is wrong, don't do it, period?
Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still is,
in many parts of the world.
Don't presume to judge the distant past on the morality of the present.
Susan Cohen
Daniel Seriff wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
> (in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> worse than rape?
> >>
> >> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
> >
> > So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
> > against rape?
>
> Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
> wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
Actually, it doesn't fall under the "wife" part - that *is* wife - it falls under
the "or anything that is thy neighbor's" WHich means your neighbor's
saughter/sister/aunt'any female relative.
> All crimes have one or more of the actions prohibited in the Decalogue as
> their fundamental basis (or bases). The rest of the Law is just commentary on
> the Ten.
>
> >>> Why is theft worse than slavery?
> >>
> >> Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
> >> down in the Torah?
> >
> > So why is there a commandment against theft, and not against slavery?
> > Why does your book describe the rules for treating slaves instead of
> > just saying slavery is wrong, don't do it, period?
>
> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still is,
> in many parts of the world.
And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced that make
19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
Susan
Christopher Peters
No, slavery was wrong at the time. People didn't realize it, though.
I suppose raping and pillaging are OK since it was part of the
morality of the past.
Christopher Peters
BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
Susan Cohen
Christopher Peters wrote:
> In article <3CF2F4E0...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Daniel Seriff wrote:
> >
> >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still is,
> >> in many parts of the world.
> >
> >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced that make
> >19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
> >
>
> BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective and you won't
bother to look at the facts. Okay.
Susan
Neville Lindsay
There is only one way to look at slavery and that is with disgust. Such
pathetic apologetics. And of course, concommitent with slavery is the
master's uninhibited use and abuse of female slaves. I see you give the nod
to that too.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Christopher Peters" <cpe...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:GwsxF...@world.std.com...
I see, Yahweh was ok to sanction and sponsor this disgusting behaviour at
the time because it was ok then. So much for the everlasting, unchanging,
loving god. Actually, looking at the world to day he is indeed unchanging.
His adherents have become more civilised, but he hasn't.
NL
Susan Cohen
Neville Lindsay wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF3008A...@his.com...
> >
> > Christopher Peters wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3CF2F4E0...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com>
> wrote:
> > > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced
> that make
> > > >19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
> > > >
> > >
> > > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> >
> > So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own modern perspective and
> you won't
> > bother to look at the facts. Okay.
> >
> > Susan
>
> There is only one way to look at slavery and that is with disgust. Such
> pathetic apologetics. And of course, concommitent with slavery is the
> master's uninhibited use and abuse of female slaves. I see you give the nod
> to that too.
I see you are even more ignorant than he and perhaps worse than merely
ignorant.
You have just proven that you've never read the Torah and what it has to say
about slavery - and in specific what it has to say about the rules regarding
male owners and female slaves.
Susan
>
>
> NL
Neville Lindsay
You mean the curses that people might become slaves, and this
Genesis 20:17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife
and his slave girls so they could have children again
Good breeding cattle, slaves.
And here is a good rule - turf them out into the desert to die:
Gen 21.14-16 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of
water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her
off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of
Beersheba.
When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the
bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she
thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she
began to sob.
Oh, you can thrash them to an inch of their lives, but can't actually kill
them or you get a rap over the knuckles:
Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the
slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
Ok if they are back to work in a few days though:
Exodus 21:21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day
or two, since the slave is his property.
And if a bull injures a slave, it is the bull's fault and it cops it, and
the owner gets to make a profit out of it:
Exodus 21:32
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels
of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.
Yes, the slave gets a day off toil once a week, along with the other
livestock:
Exodus 23:12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so
that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household,
and the alien as well, may be refreshed.
Foreign slaves are of course cattle, but be a bit more careful of other
Jews:
Leviticus 25:46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and
can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow
Israelites ruthlessly.
And a couple of extras:
Yes, perpetual slaves and their children and children's children forever:
2 Chronicles 8:8 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the
Israelites had not destroyed-these Solomon conscripted for his slave labour
force, as it is to this day.
And they didn't have to work all night either:
Job 7:2 Like a slave longing for the evening shadows,
If you think this is good moral stuff, it shows how devoid of morals you
are. The stench of chattel slavery and any one who condones it is about the
worst smell around.
NL
Christopher Peters
Well, what are the facts, Susan?
Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
Christopher Peters
I was being saracastic. I do not condone slavery, rape, or any other
atrocity committed by the ancients.
>NL
>
>
Kater Moggin
Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com>:
> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
The penalty for raping an engaged virgin is death, but the
penalty for raping an unengaged virgin is fifty shekels, due
the woman's father, plus marriage to her for life. Deuteronomy
22:25-29.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Kater Moggin
Daniel Seriff <micro...@what.zzz>:
> Are you really sure you want to argue semantics with a Supreme Being(TM)?
> Not even Job could win that battle.
Speaking of semantics, I'm not sure I'd label what goes on
between Job and Yahweh a battle. But if that's what really
what it is, then Job wins morally and intellectually, since the
Creator dodges his questions about evil.
Jan Pieter Verhey
> > >
> > > What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those
things?
> >
> > YOU might be such a person.
>
> Considering that there *is* such a book, and yet he bears false witness
all the
> time, it only shows who is the most depraved at all.
Indeed..
>
> For its time, the Torah is an amazingly enlightened document.
true..
> In fact, the very laws Giwer pretends to find so fundamental are the basis
of
> Jew-hatred today: we were the first group of people in uncivilized places
to say
> "NO, you CAN'T do that!" And the barbarians resented us from the start.
That reminds me of the book "the discovery of heaven" (by dutch writer Harry
Mulish. good book, bad movie..), where the son asks his father why people
hate them Jews so much, and his father answers 'because of the ten
commandments'.
>
> http://www.aish.com/seminars/whythejews/wtj01000.htm
>
good deductions about anti-semitism!
'However' .. it makes me think (if i were a religious Jew), if G-d is trying
to perfect the Jews by letting Israel be surrounded by their worst enemy (of
the moment), hostile Arabs. What you think is the mission this time?
Raymond
"Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
news:01HW.B9176AB90...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 1:16:28 -0500, Matt Giwer wrote
> (in message <3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com>):
>
> >> Honor your father and your mother? or
> >> You shall not kill? or
> >> You shall not steal? or
> >> You shall not commit adultery? or
> >> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
> >> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
> >
things?
The jails and prisons are full of such people.
>
> These things were known before they were written down. What kind of person
> assumes otherwise?
>
> I'll ignore the thinly veiled Jew-hatred.
I am sorry, I don't see any veiled Jew hate here, you must be paranoid.
Raymond
"Amigocabal" <par...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3CF23B67...@bellsouth.net...
> "EL DIN A MUAMELA" (RELIGION IS HOW YOU TREAT OTHERS)
>
HOLY
> QURAN
>
There is nothing Holy about the Quran!
So if someone kills or beats up another, the Quran would call that religion?
Then maybe your right, they sure do both in any nation they move to. Then
even try on them that don't want them like 9-11.
Jesus Christ
> > >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life.
> > >> It still is, in many parts of the world.
> > >
> > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced
> > >that make 19th century Americans look like barbarians in
> > >comparison.
> > >
> >
> > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
>
> So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective
> and you won't bother to look at the facts. Okay.
Please justify slavery for us.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark
----------------
Binyamin Dissen
:>Daniel Seriff wrote:
:>> On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
:>> (in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
:>> >>> worse than rape?
:>> >> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
:>> > So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
:>> > against rape?
:>> Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
:>> wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
:>Actually, it doesn't fall under the "wife" part - that *is* wife - it falls under
:>the "or anything that is thy neighbor's" WHich means your neighbor's
:>saughter/sister/aunt'any female relative.
Do you have a reference for your statement that Lo Sachmode applies to humans
other than a married woman?
Your statement implies that one may not desire a single unmarried woman - even
if she is agreeable.
:>> All crimes have one or more of the actions prohibited in the Decalogue as
:>> their fundamental basis (or bases). The rest of the Law is just commentary on
:>> the Ten.
Not at all.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Susan Cohen
Jan Pieter Verhey wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF25A21...@his.com...
> >
> > In fact, the very laws Giwer pretends to find so fundamental are the basis
> of
> > Jew-hatred today: we were the first group of people in uncivilized places
> to say
> > "NO, you CAN'T do that!" And the barbarians resented us from the start.
>
> That reminds me of the book "the discovery of heaven" (by dutch writer Harry
> Mulish. good book, bad movie..), where the son asks his father why people
> hate them Jews so much, and his father answers 'because of the ten
> commandments'.
My, I will have to check this out!
>
>
> >
> > http://www.aish.com/seminars/whythejews/wtj01000.htm
> >
> good deductions about anti-semitism!
I was pleasantly surprised with the presentation of the facts as well as just he
facts themselves. The progression of the website is very clever.
> 'However' .. it makes me think (if i were a religious Jew), if G-d is trying
> to perfect the Jews by letting Israel be surrounded by their worst enemy (of
> the moment), hostile Arabs. What you think is the mission this time?
Trust in G-d (& also the familiar "G-d helps those who help themselves!")
Susan
Susan Cohen
Raymond wrote:
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B9176AB90...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> > On Mon, 27 May 2002 1:16:28 -0500, Matt Giwer wrote
> > (in message <3CF1CF3A...@tampabay.rr.com>):
> >
> > >> Honor your father and your mother? or
> > >> You shall not kill? or
> > >> You shall not steal? or
> > >> You shall not commit adultery? or
> > >> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor? or
> > >> You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, servants,or animals?
> > >
> > > What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those
> things?
>
> The jails and prisons are full of such people.
>
> >
> > These things were known before they were written down. What kind of person
> > assumes otherwise?
> >
> > I'll ignore the thinly veiled Jew-hatred.
>
> I am sorry, I don't see any veiled Jew hate here, you must be paranoid.
And what is so friendly about
> > What people are so depraved they need to read a book to know those
things?
when the people being dicsussed by Matt Giwer are Jews?
Susan
Susan Cohen
Christopher Peters wrote:
> In article <3CF3008A...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Christopher Peters wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3CF2F4E0...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Daniel Seriff wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It
> >still is,
> >> >> in many parts of the world.
> >> >
> >> >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> >> >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced that make
> >> >19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
> >> >
> >>
> >> BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> >
> >So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective and
> >you won't
> >bother to look at the facts. Okay.
> >
> >Susan
> >
>
> Well, what are the facts, Susan?
You look them up. I'm sick of pretending people like you can be reasoned with.
>
> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
Susan Cohen
Jesus Christ wrote:
> Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
>
> > > >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life.
> > > >> It still is, in many parts of the world.
> > > >
> > > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced
> > > >that make 19th century Americans look like barbarians in
> > > >comparison.
> > > >
> > >
> > > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> >
> > So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective
> > and you won't bother to look at the facts. Okay.
>
> Please justify slavery for us.
Please read the facts for yourself. I am tired of fooling myself that you
people can be reasoned with.
Susan Cohen
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 23:09:20 -0400 Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
>
> :>Daniel Seriff wrote:
>
> :>> On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
> :>> (in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
>
> :>> >>> worse than rape?
>
> :>> >> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
>
> :>> > So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
> :>> > against rape?
>
> :>> Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
> :>> wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
>
> :>Actually, it doesn't fall under the "wife" part - that *is* wife - it falls under
> :>the "or anything that is thy neighbor's" WHich means your neighbor's
> :>saughter/sister/aunt'any female relative.
>
> Do you have a reference for your statement that Lo Sachmode applies to humans
> other than a married woman?
I am talking about "or anything that is thy neighbor's"
> Your statement implies that one may not desire a single unmarried woman - even
> if she is agreeable.
Uh, one may not COVET her.
You *do* know that "covet" doesn't mean just desire?
It means acting on it?? (& then we get into the specific laws on rape...)
Susan
Brian L
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
>(in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
>
>>>> worse than rape?
>>>
>>> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
>>
>> So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
>> against rape?
>
>Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
>wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
Rape secondary to coveting? Disgusting.
>All crimes have one or more of the actions prohibited in the Decalogue as
>their fundamental basis (or bases). The rest of the Law is just commentary on
>the Ten.
>
>>>> Why is theft worse than slavery?
>>>
>>> Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
>>> down in the Torah?
>>
>> So why is there a commandment against theft, and not against slavery?
>> Why does your book describe the rules for treating slaves instead of
>> just saying slavery is wrong, don't do it, period?
>
>Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still is,
>in many parts of the world.
>
>Don't presume to judge the distant past on the morality of the present.
Well that's the point, isn't it. The bible, including the ten
commandments, is hardly the ultimate moral authority it's made out to
be.
Raymond
"Jesus Christ" <Je...@christ.hvn> wrote in message
news:acvo2d$q2m$4...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
>
> > > >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life.
> > > >> It still is, in many parts of the world.
> > > >
> > > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be practiced
> > > >that make 19th century Americans look like barbarians in
> > > >comparison.
> > > >
> > >
> > > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> >
> > So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective
> > and you won't bother to look at the facts. Okay.
>
> Please justify slavery for us.
Being married?
Susan Cohen
Brian L wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 03:02:50 GMT, Daniel Seriff <micro...@what.zzz>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
> >(in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
> >
> >>>> worse than rape?
> >>>
> >>> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
> >>
> >> So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
> >> against rape?
> >
> >Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
> >wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
>
> Rape secondary to coveting? Disgusting.
It;s disgusting that you interpret it this way.
Rape FALLS UNDER coveting. Not "less than".
It's like saying "The right to personally own a gun falls under the 2nd
Amendment."
> >All crimes have one or more of the actions prohibited in the Decalogue as
> >their fundamental basis (or bases). The rest of the Law is just commentary on
> >the Ten.
> >
> >>>> Why is theft worse than slavery?
> >>>
> >>> Do you know about how slavery is supposed to be practiced by the laws laid
> >>> down in the Torah?
> >>
> >> So why is there a commandment against theft, and not against slavery?
> >> Why does your book describe the rules for treating slaves instead of
> >> just saying slavery is wrong, don't do it, period?
> >
> >Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still is,
> >in many parts of the world.
> >
> >Don't presume to judge the distant past on the morality of the present.
>
> Well that's the point, isn't it. The bible, including the ten
> commandments, is hardly the ultimate moral authority it's made out to
> be.
Actually, when you combine it with the Talmud, it still holds up.
Susan
Brian L
wrote:
>
>
>Brian L wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 May 2002 03:02:50 GMT, Daniel Seriff <micro...@what.zzz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 27 May 2002 21:31:53 -0500, Brian L wrote
>> >(in message <5bq5fugam5go6jrgv...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> >>>> worse than rape?
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you know the penalty for rape in the Torah?
>> >>
>> >> So why is there a commandment against bearing false witness, and not
>> >> against rape?
>> >
>> >Rape is a secondary crime. In order to rape, you must covet ("your neighbor's
>> >wife" rightly refers to any woman, not just a married one).
>>
>> Rape secondary to coveting? Disgusting.
>
>It;s disgusting that you interpret it this way.
>Rape FALLS UNDER coveting. Not "less than".
>It's like saying "The right to personally own a gun falls under the 2nd
>Amendment."
I'm sorry, but this notion that rape is covered by the coveting
commandment is a lame apologetic. By the exact same logic theft would
also be a violation of the coveting commandment, yet it is considered
a serious enough offence to have it's own commandment. There is no
other conclusion than that according to the 10 commandments, rape is
less serious than theft. I repeat: disgusting.
Jesus Christ
> > Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
> >
> > > > >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of
> > > > >> life. It still is, in many parts of the world.
> > > > >
> > > > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > > > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be
> > > > >practiced that make 19th century Americans look like barbarians
> > > > >in comparison.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> > >
> > > So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder
> > > perspective and you won't bother to look at the facts. Okay.
> >
> > Please justify slavery for us.
>
> Please read the facts for yourself.
Please present these facts.
> I am tired of fooling myself that
> you people can be reasoned with.
If it comes to defending circumcision and slavery, we tend not to listen.
Jesus Christ
> >> Rape secondary to coveting? Disgusting.
> >
> >It;s disgusting that you interpret it this way.
> >Rape FALLS UNDER coveting. Not "less than".
> >It's like saying "The right to personally own a gun falls under the 2nd
> >Amendment."
>
> I'm sorry, but this notion that rape is covered by the coveting
> commandment is a lame apologetic. By the exact same logic theft would
> also be a violation of the coveting commandment, yet it is considered
> a serious enough offence to have it's own commandment. There is no
> other conclusion than that according to the 10 commandments, rape is
> less serious than theft. I repeat: disgusting.
Of course it's disgusting, it's from the pages of the bible.
Susan Cohen
Jesus Christ wrote:
> Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
>
> > > Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
> > >
> > > > > >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of
> > > > > >> life. It still is, in many parts of the world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> > > > > >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be
> > > > > >practiced that make 19th century Americans look like barbarians
> > > > > >in comparison.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> > > >
> > > > So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder
> > > > perspective and you won't bother to look at the facts. Okay.
> > >
> > > Please justify slavery for us.
> >
> > Please read the facts for yourself.
>
> Please present these facts.
See below.
> > I am tired of fooling myself that
> > you people can be reasoned with.
>
> If it comes to defending circumcision and slavery, we tend not to listen.
Not to ny facts, you;ve shown you don't.
Christopher Peters
>
>
>Christopher Peters wrote:
>
>> In article <3CF3008A...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Christopher Peters wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <3CF2F4E0...@his.com>, Susan Cohen
><fla...@his.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It
>> >still is,
>> >> >> in many parts of the world.
>> >> >
>> >> >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
>> >> >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be
>practiced that make
>> >> >19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
>> >
>> >So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective and
>> >you won't
>> >bother to look at the facts. Okay.
>> >
>> >Susan
>> >
>>
>> Well, what are the facts, Susan?
>
>You look them up. I'm sick of pretending people like you can be reasoned with.
>
What a cop out. You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
And you're LYING when you state people like me can't be reasoned with.
>>
>> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
>
>Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
>
Sure. I can beat you 40 times with a rod if I choose to do so.
(Deut. 25:3) I can beat you to death provided you last at two days
after the beating. (Exo. 21:20,21)
Jesus Christ
> > > Please read the facts for yourself.
> >
> > Please present these facts.
>
> See below.
I looked, and you didn't present these facts below.
> > > I am tired of fooling myself that
> > > you people can be reasoned with.
> >
> > If it comes to defending circumcision and slavery, we tend not to
> > listen.
>
> Not to ny facts, you;ve shown you don't.
Slavery and neonatal circumcision are bad, and outside of reason.
Actually, I remember the circumcision debate consisted only of assertation
on your behalf. Myself and others demonstrated, with citations that
there's a consensus amongst medical associations that circumcision is *not*
recommended; you said there was no such consensus and did nothing. You
said that Islamic countries had a higher rate of male circumcision than
Israel; I provided a citation that placed Israel at 95% while you did
nothing.
Do you have facts, or merely state you do and then ignore the calls to
provide them?
Tiger
> Verily, verily, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> sayeth unto us:
>
>> > > Please read the facts for yourself.
>> >
>> > Please present these facts.
>>
>> See below.
>
> I looked, and you didn't present these facts below.
>
>> > > I am tired of fooling myself that
>> > > you people can be reasoned with.
>> >
>> > If it comes to defending circumcision and slavery, we tend not to
>> > listen.
>>
>> Not to ny facts, you;ve shown you don't.
>
> Slavery and neonatal circumcision are bad, and outside of reason.
>
> Actually, I remember the circumcision debate consisted only of assertation
> on your behalf. Myself and others demonstrated, with citations that
> there's a consensus amongst medical associations that circumcision is
> *not*
> recommended; you said there was no such consensus and did nothing. You
> said that Islamic countries had a higher rate of male circumcision than
> Israel; I provided a citation that placed Israel at 95% while you did
> nothing.
>
> Do you have facts, or merely state you do and then ignore the calls to
> provide them?
>
How about presenting anything other than a strawman argument?
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via e-mail
Xing Qiu
> Uh, one may not COVET her.
> You *do* know that "covet" doesn't mean just desire?
> It means acting on it?? (& then we get into the specific laws on rape...)
To covet doesn't imply any action at all:
Main Entry: cov·et
Pronunciation: 'k&-v&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English coveiten, from Old French coveitier, from
coveitié desire, modification of Latin cupiditat-, cupiditas, from cupidus
desirous, from cupere to desire
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to wish for enviously
2 : to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive senses : to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to
another
synonym see DESIRE
Sky King
sto...@stoneynet.net says...
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 14:18:36 GMT, "V.O." <vern...@contractor.net>,
> Message ID: <0frI8.48965$db7.2...@news2.west.cox.net> wrote in
> alt.atheism;
>
> >
> >"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >news:uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you call raining down hell fire on Sodom & Gomorrah, killing all
> >> the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a pillar of
> >> salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was forced
> >> to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that only one
> >> family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of death any
> >> different than murder?
I call many of them stories not meant to be taken literally. sky
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Woden
> >>
> >> "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
> >> people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
> >> ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
> >> generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
> >>
> >
> >NEENER NEENER NEENER
> >The clueless Woden has diarrhea. Words that spurt out with no collective
> >reasoning or substance.
>
> What a lovely case of projection.
>
> --
>
> Stoney
> "Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
> and
> SCAMPERMEISTER!"
>
> When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
> When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
> When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
>
Susan Cohen
Xing Qiu wrote:
> >
> > Uh, one may not COVET her.
> > You *do* know that "covet" doesn't mean just desire?
> > It means acting on it?? (& then we get into the specific laws on rape...)
>
> To covet doesn't imply any action at all:
Do you have the original Hebrew for the word in question?
(This is why some religions don't bother to translate their witings - they know
it doesn't carry).
Susan
Susan Cohen
Christopher Peters wrote:
> In article <3CF388FA...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Christopher Peters wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3CF3008A...@his.com>, Susan Cohen <fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Christopher Peters wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <3CF2F4E0...@his.com>, Susan Cohen
> ><fla...@his.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Daniel Seriff wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It
> >> >still is,
> >> >> >> in many parts of the world.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And it wasn't practiced the way it was later, or is now.
> >> >> >There are specific laws written out about how it is to be
> >practiced that make
> >> >> >19th century Americans look like barbarians in comparison.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> BULLSHIT! Slavery is barbarism. Period.
> >> >
> >> >So, IOW, you have it all decided based on your own moder perspective and
> >> >you won't
> >> >bother to look at the facts. Okay.
> >> >
> >> >Susan
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, what are the facts, Susan?
> >
> >You look them up. I'm sick of pretending people like you can be reasoned with.
> >
>
> What a cop out.
Hardly. You show below that you can look up things when you *think* they will be of
benefit to you. You are obviously the one copping out. Whe I say that "biblical
slavery isn't the same as 19th century American slavery" and you respond only with
foul language and a refusal to listen, why should I bother to try to spell it out
for you? You have made up your mind and that's all there is to it.
> You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
See what I mean? This was never a point in discussion.
Tho' I have to say that slavery is "rational" - rational not being a value
judgement.
> And you're LYING when you state people like me can't be reasoned with.
Obviously not, based on your positngs.
> >>
> >> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
> >
> >Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
> >
> Sure. I can beat you 40 times with a rod if I choose to do so.
> (Deut. 25:3)
>
> I can beat you to death provided you last at two days
> after the beating. (Exo. 21:20,21)
See what I mean? You pick two things out of context, and ignore eveything else.
Ignoring, for the moment, the ways in which you could/would be prevented from
carrying out what you insist was common practice:
"If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, will be sold to you, he shall
serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him away from you
free.** But when you send him away from you free, you shall not send him away
empty handed. Adorn him generously from your flocks, from your threshing floor, and
from your wine cellar; as Hashem, your G-d, Has Blessed you, so shall you give
him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land
of egypt, and Hashem, your G-d, Redeemed you; therefore, I command you regarding
this matter today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
** Free - even if the debt was not repaid.
If there was but one loaf of bread, or one pillow or one garment - the slave gets
it. Why? Because the owner is responsible for the slave. Slavery was *NOT* like it
was in the 19th century. It was more like the indentured servitude of the 18th
century.
Now pretend that you aren't wrong from start to finish.
Susan
Tiger
Won't happen. Some people build strawmen and pretend they are arguments.
It makes them feel good about their ignorance.
Christopher Peters
What's wrong with that?
> You are obviously the one copping out. Whe I say that "biblical
>slavery isn't the same as 19th century American slavery" and you respond
>only with
>foul language and a refusal to listen, why should I bother to try to
>spell it out
>for you?
I'm not a mind reader. They only way I can tell if you are right
is to read your argument and critique it. Is that too difficult for
you to understand? How can be sure that you are right if I don't
know reasons for you position?
>You have made up your mind and that's all there is to it.
Yes, I've made up my mind, based upon the evidence that I am aware of.
If there is something that I am missing, please enlighten me.
>
>> You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
>
>See what I mean? This was never a point in discussion.
I can't think of a rational defense of slavey. If you have one,
please present it.
>Tho' I have to say that slavery is "rational" - rational not being a value
>judgement.
Why is slavery rational?
Was it rational for the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews as the Bible
claims?
>
>> And you're LYING when you state people like me can't be reasoned with.
>
>Obviously not, based on your positngs.
>
So you know me? Why do I believe slavery is irrational?
>> >>
>> >> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
>> >
>> >Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
>> >
>> Sure. I can beat you 40 times with a rod if I choose to do so.
>> (Deut. 25:3)
>>
>> I can beat you to death provided you last at two days
>> after the beating. (Exo. 21:20,21)
>
>See what I mean? You pick two things out of context, and ignore eveything else.
>
No, I picked two things that illustrate why slavery is wrong.
>Ignoring, for the moment, the ways in which you could/would be prevented from
>carrying out what you insist was common practice.
No, I did NOT insist it was a common practice. You are putting words
into my mouth.
>
> "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, will be sold to you, he shall
>serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him
>away from you
>free.** But when you send him away from you free, you shall not send him away
>empty handed. Adorn him generously from your flocks, from your threshing
>floor, and
>from your wine cellar; as Hashem, your G-d, Has Blessed you, so shall you give
>him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land
> of egypt, and Hashem, your G-d, Redeemed you; therefore, I command you
>regarding
>this matter today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
>
Yes -- that is why I asked you "Would you like to be my slave for seven
years" not "Would you like to be my slave for the rest of your life."
>** Free - even if the debt was not repaid.
>
>If there was but one loaf of bread, or one pillow or one garment - the
>slave gets
>it. Why? Because the owner is responsible for the slave. Slavery was
>*NOT* like it
>was in the 19th century. It was more like the indentured servitude of the 18th
>century.
>
>Now pretend that you aren't wrong from start to finish.
>
In case you weren't aware of it, slavery in the United States
originally was that of an indetured servant for a period of seven years
just like in the Bible.
You didn't address the scri[tures I cited. Why?
>
Susan
>
Xing Qiu
>
> Do you have the original Hebrew for the word in question?
> (This is why some religions don't bother to translate their witings - they know
> it doesn't carry).
>
> Susan
Then give me the evidence in bible to support your arguement please.
By the way, may I ask you one question? Is the rape within marriage a
sin according to the bible?
stoney
<rwkna...@yahoo.com>, Message ID: <acv45t$ps...@rain.i-cable.com>
wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Amigocabal" <par...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:3CF23B67...@bellsouth.net...
>> "EL DIN A MUAMELA" (RELIGION IS HOW YOU TREAT OTHERS)
>>
>HOLY
>> QURAN
>>
>There is nothing Holy about the Quran!
There is nothing Holy about The Bible!
>So if someone kills or beats up another, the Quran would call that religion?
So if someone kills or beats up another, the Bible would call that
religion?
>Then maybe your right, they sure do both in any nation they move to.
Christians do have that tendency, yes.
>Then even try on them that don't want them like 9-11.
Poor baby. You're whining because the Muslims hit the U.S. but have
no problem when the Christian U.S. hit the Muslims.
Susan Cohen
Xing Qiu wrote:
> > > To covet doesn't imply any action at all:
> >
> > Do you have the original Hebrew for the word in question?
> > (This is why some religions don't bother to translate their witings - they know
> > it doesn't carry).
> >
> > Susan
>
> Then give me the evidence in bible to support your arguement please.
I just did, above!! It's another language altogether!
> By the way, may I ask you one question? Is the rape within marriage a
> sin according to the bible?
Yep. Judaism is unique among that - or so I have read.
I would like to think now, however.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Christopher Peters wrote:
a) when they are out of context
b) when one doesn't even discuss the topic at hand
c) when you refuse to look at the entire picture
> > You are obviously the one copping out. Whe I say that "biblical
> >slavery isn't the same as 19th century American slavery" and you respond
> >only with
> >foul language and a refusal to listen, why should I bother to try to
> >spell it out
> >for you?
>
> I'm not a mind reader.
Non sequitur.
> They only way I can tell if you are right
> is to read your argument and critique it. Is that too difficult for
> you to understand?
Oh, don't pretend you were being anything like reasonable or open.
You cursed and insisted that I was wrong, period.
There was no request for my arguments, there was no indication whatsoever thatyou
were open to anything but your own opinion..
You are the one asking me to be a mind reader.
I'm suposed to be ble to tell that foiul language and a flat re-iteration of your
point is an invitation to dialogue!!
> How can be sure that you are right if I don't
> know reasons for you position?
Yeah, that's what I want to know. Why did you insistat you were right without even
bothering to ask anything?
> >You have made up your mind and that's all there is to it.
>
> Yes, I've made up my mind, based upon the evidence that I am aware of.
> If there is something that I am missing, please enlighten me.
Nice of you to put it that way *now*.
> >> You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
> >
> >See what I mean? This was never a point in discussion.
>
> I can't think of a rational defense of slavey. If you have one,
> please present it.
Don't try to change the subject. That was not the topic at hand.
I was saying that it was nothing like it was in 19th centuryAmerica.
Hwoever, there were some rational bases for slavery in biblical days.
If you are so poor you cannot feed your children, what do you do withthem?
Allow them to die? Or sell them?
If you have a debt so large you cannot pay it off with the resources at hand, what do
you do?
Pleae note I am not saying this is fun or pleasant. I am speaking solely of
reaon/rationality.
> >Tho' I have to say that slavery is "rational" - rational not being a value
> >judgement.
>
> Why is slavery rational?
See above.
>
>
> Was it rational for the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews as the Bible
> claims?
You bet!!. They wanted those cities built & they sure got 'em built, didn't they?
Pleasen ote: rational. Not fun or pleasant.
Of course, how Egyptian slavery was practice and Hebrew slavery are also two
different things. If you want to believe the Bible, of course.
> >> And you're LYING when you state people like me can't be reasoned with.
> >
> >Obviously not, based on your positngs.
> >
> So you know me?
Again, don't change the subject. I never said that I knew you in toto.
As I say above, I know what your postings showed.
> Why do I believe slavery is irrational?
I don't really care. All I can say is that your postings showed that you not only
couldnot be reasoned with,but that you didn't want to be bothered wuth anything but
your own opinions and what bolstered them.
> > >>
> >> >> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
> >> >
> >> >Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
> >> >
> >> Sure. I can beat you 40 times with a rod if I choose to do so.
> >> (Deut. 25:3)
> >>
> >> I can beat you to death provided you last at two days
> >> after the beating. (Exo. 21:20,21)
> >
> >See what I mean? You pick two things out of context, and ignore eveything else.
> >
>
> No, I picked two things that illustrate why slavery is wrong.
No, you do not. The first one doesn't even concern slavery. It concerns a legal
dispute and the punishment of the wicked. Nothing at ALL to do with slavery.
> >Ignoring, for the moment, the ways in which you could/would be prevented from
> >carrying out what you insist was common practice.
>
> No, I did NOT insist it was a common practice. You are putting words
> into my mouth.
You presented it as the workings of slavery. If I assumed that you thought it meant
that this is what went on all the time, the I was wrong. But it seemed thatway from
the c0ntext of your post.
> > "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, will be sold to you, he shall
> >serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him
> >away from you
> >free.** But when you send him away from you free, you shall not send him away
> >empty handed. Adorn him generously from your flocks, from your threshing
> >floor, and
> >from your wine cellar; as Hashem, your G-d, Has Blessed you, so shall you give
> >him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land
> > of egypt, and Hashem, your G-d, Redeemed you; therefore, I command you
> >regarding
> >this matter today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
> >
>
> Yes -- that is why I asked you "Would you like to be my slave for seven
> years" not "Would you like to be my slave for the rest of your life."
And when I asked you to look up the rules before you made the offer, you didn't cite
this, and you did cite something completely unconnected to slavery. The fact that you
do not know the rules about slavery, and show yourself resistent to learnt them would
make me not want to be your slave, no way.
But if I had to work off a debt, I would - to anyone who could take it in an
honorable fashion.
> >** Free - even if the debt was not repaid.
> >
> >If there was but one loaf of bread, or one pillow or one garment - the
> >slave gets
> >it. Why? Because the owner is responsible for the slave. Slavery was
> >*NOT* like it
> >was in the 19th century. It was more like the indentured servitude of the 18th
> >century.
> >
> >Now pretend that you aren't wrong from start to finish.
> >
>
> In case you weren't aware of it, slavery in the United States
> originally was that of an indetured servant for a period of seven years
> just like in the Bible.
>
> You didn't address the scri[tures I cited. Why?
Actually, I did - just not as in depth as I do in this post. I remarked that you
would not be able to carry out these things as easily as you seem to think.
But in this post, I point out that your first cite has nothing to do with slavery.
As for the second, the "bondman/woman" actually has to do something wrong to merit
the punishment. And, as usual in Jduaism, there has to be reliable witnesses. So the
odds of being allowed to get away with ounishment are very slim.
The Torah is *full* of someof the nastiest punishments I have ever read. And so few
of them were ever able to be carried out that it was obviously meant more to show us
how sorely G-d frowns on certain actions than anything else.
Susan
Woden
"Sky King" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.175dc115...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <q0g5fukm4b7n8ahnc...@4ax.com>,
> sto...@stoneynet.net says...
> > On Mon, 27 May 2002 14:18:36 GMT, "V.O." <vern...@contractor.net>,
> > Message ID: <0frI8.48965$db7.2...@news2.west.cox.net> wrote in
> > alt.atheism;
> >
> > >
> > >"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > >news:uf3ehsb...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> What do you call raining down hell fire on Sodom & Gomorrah,
killing all
> > >> the inhabitants? What do you call turning Lot's wife into a
pillar of
> > >> salt just for turning around & taking a look at the city she was
forced
> > >> to leave? What do you call flooding the entire world so that
only one
> > >> family of eight people survived? Exactly how is this kind of
death any
> > >> different than murder?
>
>
> I call many of them stories not meant to be taken literally. sky
That's nice. But some of these people claim that they are the true and
inerrant word of their god. Raymond claimed that this god didn't
"murder" even though there are numerous examples of such in these
stories.
Christopher Peters
>> What's wrong with that?
>
>a) when they are out of context
>b) when one doesn't even discuss the topic at hand
>c) when you refuse to look at the entire picture
>
No, they were not out of context, and they did disuss the topic at hand,
and I'm willing to look at the entire picture.
>> > You are obviously the one copping out. Whe I say that "biblical
>> >slavery isn't the same as 19th century American slavery" and you respond
>> >only with
>> >foul language and a refusal to listen, why should I bother to try to
>> >spell it out
>> >for you?
>>
>> I'm not a mind reader.
>
>Non sequitur.
>
If you don't tell me why you feel about the way you do about the matter, I
cannot conclude you are right.
>> They only way I can tell if you are right
>> is to read your argument and critique it. Is that too difficult for
>> you to understand?
>
>Oh, don't pretend you were being anything like reasonable or open.
>You cursed and insisted that I was wrong, period.
I cursed because I found your statement to the abhorrent.
I invited you to present your case, which you refused.
>There was no request for my arguments, there was no indication
>whatsoever thatyou
>were open to anything but your own opinion..
>You are the one asking me to be a mind reader.
>I'm suposed to be ble to tell that foiul language and a flat
>re-iteration of your
>point is an invitation to dialogue!!
>
>> How can be sure that you are right if I don't
>> know reasons for you position?
>
>Yeah, that's what I want to know. Why did you insistat you were right
>without even
>bothering to ask anything?
>
Did you think you were right before asking?
Most of us hold opinions that we believe to be right.
Is that so unreasonale?
>> >You have made up your mind and that's all there is to it.
>>
>> Yes, I've made up my mind, based upon the evidence that I am aware of.
>> If there is something that I am missing, please enlighten me.
>
>Nice of you to put it that way *now*.
>
Finally, we getting somewhere.
>> >> You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
>> >
>> >See what I mean? This was never a point in discussion.
>>
>> I can't think of a rational defense of slavey. If you have one,
>> please present it.
>
>Don't try to change the subject. That was not the topic at hand.
>I was saying that it was nothing like it was in 19th centuryAmerica.
How was slavery in Hebrew times?
How was slavery in 19th centure America?
Howe did they differ?
>
>Hwoever, there were some rational bases for slavery in biblical days.
>If you are so poor you cannot feed your children, what do you do withthem?
>Allow them to die? Or sell them?
You glean from the rich. That's what Ruth and Naomi did.
If you think selling them is an option, why not opt for adoption?
>If you have a debt so large you cannot pay it off with the resources at
>hand, what do
>you do?
Take out a loan. Mortgage your house. (modern times of course)
Your question seems to imply the wages earned as a slave would exceed
those earned as freedman.
>Pleae note I am not saying this is fun or pleasant. I am speaking solely of
>reaon/rationality.
>
You're trying to rationialize slavery.
>> >Tho' I have to say that slavery is "rational" - rational not being a value
>> >judgement.
>>
>> Why is slavery rational?
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>
>> Was it rational for the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews as the Bible
>> claims?
>
>You bet!!. They wanted those cities built & they sure got 'em built,
>didn't they?
>Please note: rational. Not fun or pleasant.
Noted.
>Of course, how Egyptian slavery was practice and Hebrew slavery are also two
>different things. If you want to believe the Bible, of course.
How are they different?
>
>> >> And you're LYING when you state people like me can't be reasoned with.
>> >
>> >Obviously not, based on your positngs.
>> >
>> So you know me?
>
>Again, don't change the subject. I never said that I knew you in toto.
>As I say above, I know what your postings showed.
You misinterpreted my postings.
>
>> Why do I believe slavery is irrational?
>
>I don't really care. All I can say is that your postings showed that you
>not only
>couldnot be reasoned with,but that you didn't want to be bothered wuth
>anything but
>your own opinions and what bolstered them.
>
My, my, aren't we testy?
Please stop judging me as a person who could not be reasoned with.
I take offense to such characterizations.
>
>> > >>
>> >> >> Would you like to be my slave for seven years?
>> >> >
>> >> >Check the rules *before* you make the offer.
>> >> >
>> >> Sure. I can beat you 40 times with a rod if I choose to do so.
>> >> (Deut. 25:3)
>> >>
>> >> I can beat you to death provided you last at two days
>> >> after the beating. (Exo. 21:20,21)
>> >
>> >See what I mean? You pick two things out of context, and ignore
>eveything else.
>> >
>>
>> No, I picked two things that illustrate why slavery is wrong.
>
>No, you do not. The first one doesn't even concern slavery. It concerns a legal
>dispute and the punishment of the wicked. Nothing at ALL to do with slavery.
>
Streching it a bit. It dealt with punishment for a freedman. If the
older men could exact punishment as stated, it is reasonable to assume a
slaveowner could apply a similar chatisement if he so desired.
>> >Ignoring, for the moment, the ways in which you could/would be prevented from
>> >carrying out what you insist was common practice.
>>
>> No, I did NOT insist it was a common practice. You are putting words
>> into my mouth.
>
>You presented it as the workings of slavery. If I assumed that you
>thought it meant
>that this is what went on all the time, the I was wrong. But it seemed
>thatway from
>the c0ntext of your post.
>
OK.
>> > "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, will be sold to
>you, he shall
>> >serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him
>> >away from you
>> >free.** But when you send him away from you free, you shall not send
>him away
>> >empty handed. Adorn him generously from your flocks, from your threshing
>> >floor, and
>> >from your wine cellar; as Hashem, your G-d, Has Blessed you, so
>shall you give
>> >him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land
>> > of egypt, and Hashem, your G-d, Redeemed you; therefore, I command you
>> >regarding
>> >this matter today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
>> >
>>
>> Yes -- that is why I asked you "Would you like to be my slave for seven
>> years" not "Would you like to be my slave for the rest of your life."
>
>And when I asked you to look up the rules before you made the offer, you
>didn't cite
>this, and you did cite something completely unconnected to slavery. The
>fact that you
>do not know the rules about slavery, and show yourself resistent to
>learnt them would
>make me not want to be your slave, no way.
>
Believe me, I'm not really sadistic. I was just trying to make a point.
Under the law, it was *possible* for a slave to be beaten to death, and
the owner would go unpunished. I find that abhorrent.
>But if I had to work off a debt, I would - to anyone who could take it in an
>honorable fashion.
>
Good.
>
>> >** Free - even if the debt was not repaid.
>> >
>> >If there was but one loaf of bread, or one pillow or one garment - the
>> >slave gets
>> >it. Why? Because the owner is responsible for the slave. Slavery was
>> >*NOT* like it
>> >was in the 19th century. It was more like the indentured servitude of
>the 18th
>> >century.
>> >
>> >Now pretend that you aren't wrong from start to finish.
>> >
>>
>> In case you weren't aware of it, slavery in the United States
>> originally was that of an indetured servant for a period of seven years
>> just like in the Bible.
>>
>> You didn't address the scri[tures I cited. Why?
>
>Actually, I did - just not as in depth as I do in this post. I remarked that you
>would not be able to carry out these things as easily as you seem to think.
>
>But in this post, I point out that your first cite has nothing to do
>with slavery.
>
>As for the second, the "bondman/woman" actually has to do something
>wrong to merit
>the punishment. And, as usual in Jduaism, there has to be reliable
>witnesses. So the
>odds of being allowed to get away with ounishment are very slim.
>
>The Torah is *full* of someof the nastiest punishments I have ever read.
Why is that?
Daniel Seriff
(in message <Gwu3D...@world.std.com>):
> What a cop out. You can't defend you position that slavery is rational.
Whether or not slavery is "rational" is purely a value judgement. It's not
even a relevant value judgement.
Being self-righteous doesn't make you right.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Daniel Seriff
(in message <ad0is3$7p$1...@astroconsulting.databasix.com>):
> Slavery and neonatal circumcision are bad, and outside of reason.
What makes your values any more valid or relevant than anyone else's?
Being self-righteous doesn't make you right.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Daniel Seriff
(in message <GwsxF...@world.std.com>):
>> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still
>> is, in many parts of the world.
>>
>> Don't presume to judge the distant past on the morality of the present.
>
> No, slavery was wrong at the time. People didn't realize it, though.
No, *you* think slavery is wrong. Your thoughts on the matter are quite
irrelevant to the people who lived 2500 years ago.
> I suppose raping and pillaging are OK since it was part of the
> morality of the past.
That would be an illogical supposition. The argument that I'm making is that
it is intellectually irresponsible, unenlightened, and morally meaningless
for you to judge the distant past based on the morality of the present.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Daniel Seriff
(in message <uv17fu0skdtg4gmf4...@4ax.com>):
>> Because slavery wasn't wrong at the time. It was a fact of life. It still
>> is, in many parts of the world.
>>
>> Don't presume to judge the distant past on the morality of the present.
>
> Well that's the point, isn't it. The bible, including the ten
> commandments, is hardly the ultimate moral authority it's made out to
> be.
Morality is arbitrary and ever-changing.