May 21st 2011

[The Voice of Reason]

So, we have one date according to itwillend, and another as foretold by FFH.
Takin all bets...

I'll put $100 US dollars on neither.

Come to think of it, I'll give you whatever odds anyone wishes to take.

Let's make it 1000 to 1 odds. Yes, that has a nice ring to it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Kind of true, but just because someone is saved, it is not that they understand everything right away. However they begin to understand, some faster than others. That is upto God. It is a finite creature trying to understand an infinite God.

So if one was saved at an early age, read the Bible continually, and actually not only taught others the revelations of God, but led others to the acceptance of Christ, their understanding of Gods Word would grow? Say in the course of twenty years?

 

[Tristesse]

Hmm so now I am a rapist? Come on, you have to be smarter than that. Once man fell from God, all things of evil were possible. In the beginning were shown a tree of Good and Evil, once we ate of that tree, we would from that point onward have to face both good and evil. God says the wages of sin is death.

What you are saying is that God teaches rape is OK as long as you pay the fathers victim off. Again I think we need to be more specific to have a coversation about this.

I didn't call you a rapist, but your bible seems to think that kind of behavior isn't all that bad. To have a conversation about whether or not rape is ok? Rape is never ok, I don't care if you interpret the passages differently, because the fact of the matter is, you are free to interpret the bible how you want, everybody does, and everybody has a different interpretation, but you can't interpret language that is in black and white. He either condones that kind of behavior or he doesn't. And if you say he doesn't, your bible disagrees with you.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So if one was saved at an early age, read the Bible continually, and actually not only taught others the revelations of God, but led others to the acceptance of Christ, their understanding of Gods Word would grow? Say in the course of twenty years?

If I am understanding you statement, it is partly true. The fact is no one can lead anyone to Christ. The bible teach es that no one will come to Jesus unless God draws them. This has to be defined because if we think we have gotten someone saved, we are in error. We can do nothing except tell the truth, we have no idea who will be saved. If God uses us somehow that is up to him.

But to answer your main point in 20 years your knowledge could grow. So can the argument be made that I might be wrong now, and in 20 years I would realize I was wrong today? That is certainly a possibility, but in my situation I only teach what I know to be true. There isplenty in the bible I don't undertand yet. I will quickly tell you I am not qualified or comfortable talking about that.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I didn't call you a rapist, but your bible seems to think that kind of behavior isn't all that bad. To have a conversation about whether or not rape is ok? Rape is never ok, I don't care if you interpret the passages differently, because the fact of the matter is, you are free to interpret the bible how you want, everybody does, and everybody has a different interpretation, but you can't interpret language that is in black and white. He either condones that kind of behavior or he doesn't. And if you say he doesn't, your bible disagrees with you.

I actually want to know what part you are talking about? I want to look at it, not just trying to bicker with you. The part about rape...
Thanks...

 

[Rakhel]

itwillend
did you take into account that every couple of year there is a leap year within the Jewish calendar? By this, I mean, did you add the second Adar?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

itwillend
did you take into account that every couple of year there is a leap year within the Jewish calendar?

When taken into account everything I have said so far, using the ceremonial feasts, and the new moons, and all calendars we have access too, I can know for sure the dates I present. SO to answer your question all information available about calendars has been viewed.

 

[Rakhel]

the second Adar?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

SO to answer your question all information available about calendars has been viewed.

No it hasn't. You glazed over the question of different calendars. To be honest, it looks as though you came to a conclusion and then collected facts to support that conclusion rather than examining the facts and then coming to a conclusion. The difference in calendars are facts that do not support your conclusion and, in fact, muddy the water, so you have no interest in them.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No it hasn't. You glazed over the question of different calendars. To be honest, it looks as though you came to a conclusion and then collected facts to support that conclusion rather than examining the facts and then coming to a conclusion. The difference in calendars are facts that do not support your conclusion and, in fact, muddy the water, so you have no interest in them.

I am perfectly fine with discussing calendars, what would you like to discuss in particular?
However, please know that as an answer comes up for your questions you will just jump to yet another reason to hide from the truth. So the true question is do I want to waste my time showing you truth. Do you want to learn truth?

 

[tumbleweed41]

If I am understanding you statement, it is partly true. The fact is no one can lead anyone to Christ. The bible teach es that no one will come to Jesus unless God draws them. This has to be defined because if we think we have gotten someone saved, we are in error. We can do nothing except tell the truth, we have no idea who will be saved. If God uses us somehow that is up to him.

But to answer your main point in 20 years your knowledge could grow. So can the argument be made that I might be wrong now, and in 20 years I would realize I was wrong today? That is certainly a possibility, but in my situation I only teach what I know to be true. There isplenty in the bible I don't undertand yet. I will quickly tell you I am not qualified or comfortable talking about that.

The point here is that you assume that I, as a non Christian, could have no understanding of the Bible. That to only the believer is the Bible truly reveled.
In a way you are correct. As a devout Christian, Church Youth Director, and Deacon, the more deeply I read into the Bible, the more was revealed. These revelations were astounding to me. The only conclusions that could be made was that the Bible could not be the revealed revelation of a single, omnipotent, God. With no human intervention or intent.
So you can see why I can doubt your conclusive findings on the supposed end times.
I hope you can also see that the Bible, as you describe it, must either be taken as a whole, unedited, complete and thorough understanding of God and his intents. Including the inhumane treatment of women, the God endorsed genocide, slavery, and stonings.
Or be abandoned as human mythology.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The point here is that you assume that I, as a non Christian, could have no understanding of the Bible. That to only the believer is the Bible truly reveled.
In a way you are correct. As a devout Christian, Church Youth Director, and Deacon, the more deeply I read into the Bible, the more was revealed. These revelations were astounding to me. The only conclusions that could be made was that the Bible could not be the revealed revelation of a single, omnipotent, God. With no human intervention or intent.
So you can see why I can doubt your conclusive findings on the supposed end times.
I hope you can also see that the Bible, as you describe it, must either be taken as a whole, unedited, complete and thorough understanding of God and his intents. Including the inhumane treatment of women, the God endorsed genocide, slavery, and stonings.
Or be abandoned as human mythology.

Than we agree, I do accept the bible in its entirety. Again I point out that God may allow people to die, and may even kill people himself as in the flood. Does that make him and the bible not true?
I assume nothing about anyone on here, unless given enough information to do so about a person. So I do not know you or your background.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So the true question is do I want to waste my time showing you truth. Do you want to learn truth?

I already have a truth that I'm perfectly happy with. If your goal is to show me a truth with the hope that I will see your truth as the only truth then you are indeed wasting your time. I will not ever be able to see your truth as the only truth. Sorry, I'm just telling the truth.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I already have a truth that I'm perfectly happy with. If your goal is to show me a truth with the hope that I will see your truth as the only truth then you are indeed wasting your time. I will not ever be able to see your truth as the only truth. Sorry, I'm just telling the truth.

No problem, good luck and thanks for conversating. See that was easy

 

[Tristesse]

I actually want to know what part you are talking about? I want to look at it, not just trying to bicker with you. The part about rape...
Thanks...

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

t is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I already have a truth that I'm perfectly happy with. If your goal is to show me a truth with the hope that I will see your truth as the only truth then you are indeed wasting your time. I will not ever be able to see your truth as the only truth. Sorry, I'm just telling the truth.

Just the type of veracity I am looking for in a post!! Truthfully.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

t is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Let's please start here "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
What verse and chapter is this in the bible please.

 

[Tristesse]

Let's please start here "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
What verse and chapter is this in the bible please.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29, what difference does it make what verse it's in? It's obviously an abhorrent law.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't know that this thread provides any real evidence of what is stated, but I do know that it is direct evidence of a person with too much time on their hands.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29, what difference does it make what verse it's in? It's obviously an abhorrent law.

Yeah that is what I thought.

TRISTESS ask anyone to read that verse and it will not come across as you explained it about rape.
In order for a man to have sex with a woman they were to be married, but in this case they had sex before they were married, and then they got married. I will address each one of you rpoints, but lets focus on this one first.

No where did it say rape, why would you assume such an awful thing? Today if I go out and meet a girl at the burger joint. I take her out to a movie, and then make my move. I have sex with her for 5 hours, and she has been ravaged. Why does that have to mean rape.
Does the words "Lay hold on her" is that what bothers you? Does that mean he raped her?
It is customery even today for families to give daughters away. I don't think it is a good thing, but it is not condoning rape.
So on this first verse you have supplied I would like to come to an agreemant that it is stretching this to say it is rape, and then he paid the dad off to cover it up.

If not, please give the reason for your position