Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have continued to try to communicate the obvious to our good friend @MJFlores, most recently at #198 above. The idea that rape could be implicit has eluded him so far, but that's probably because he's distracted by the effort he puts into his visuals, so I haven't given up hope.
The quote is where, exactly?
Goodness! I have no malice towards a being I don't think is real.
I suspect that's one hypothesis we can rule out.
We're talking about a story in a very old book. It says God ordered Moses to massacre other nations, and after one such massacre, the virgins, the fresh breeding stock, are to be shared out among the soldiers.
No, how do you think a soldier in Moses' army would react?
I think not.
Not that it makes much difference, given the bee in your bonnet, but I deny that I've moved the goalposts and I invite you to set out what I said initially that I'm now saying differently. In the story. Moses is following God's orders and Moses has massacred the population except for the virgins and Moses has handed them over to his soldiers as God's agent. As it was in the beginning it is now. It's all in the text cited in the OP. Nothing has changed.
I didn't accuse God of one crime, I pointed out that the bible reports [him] as a serial offender ─ invasive war, massacre, mass rape, human sacrifice, murder, religious intolerance, supporter of slavery, &c and gave you chapter and verse in the OP.
It seems a proper topic for the debate board, that if one believes [he's] God, and one thinks the bible is a reliable reporter, then why are these reports not acknowledged along with their moral implications.
Would you rather pretend the reports aren't there? Why not just say so?
What, offended by what the bible says? I didn't write the passages I quoted. I simply pointed out that they were there.
Ahm, who's suppressing the truth here?
I've done that repeatedly but you don't want to hear.
So faced with the words of the bible your reaction is denial and shooting the messenger.
I don't think the idea of eternal life is helpful; but I'm wholly in favor of decency and respect and inclusion while we're here.
That's the way ─ get it all out of your system. You'll feel better in the morning.
I made you aware of what the bible say about the morality of Yahweh in the Bronze Age.
Yes, but admittedly not first time round ─ I kept trying to make the point clear to you, whereas I should have realized earlier that you had no intention of listening.
You did a great job of misleading yourself, an expert touch. I have nothing to apologize for.
I cited and quoted relevant parts of the book some people attribute to [him]. If you think that's slander, blame the folk who wrote those parts.
That's totally false, and as usual notably vague.
So all your fuming and raging here was just an act? I'm pleased to hear that for your sake.
I don't know what you mean by 'disclosing it'. There are millions, maybe billions, of copies of the bible around the world, and every one of them discloses it.
But you see no difficulty with God making invasive war for the benefit of [his] followers? War is fine with you if God does it? You remember the Bob Dylan song With God on Our Side?
Interesting ─ could I trouble you for the references in Daniel?
Sure Blu - thanks for asking:
I do have a question... when you made that statement (which I have heard before) - it made me wonder... where did you get your information from?
That appears to be a resurrection rather than a soul, no?
Reading eg Bart Ehrman, and loitering on Beliefnet (of happy memory) and knowing the benefit, in commerce and in litigation, of reading the other side's documents.
If I may, where's that quote about everlasting life and everlasting abhorrence from?
They can resurrect because, as with Adam, God breathes life (back) into them. I can't think of any clear statement to that effect, but that's what happened in those three resurrections in Kings 1 & 2 I mentioned ─ then you add the idea that this time it's for keeps. And it's not too far from Paul's 'incorruptible body', though that's later than we're talking about.
Again, I agree some notion of that can has left traces.
It depends on the word being translated, and the translator, I guess. You'll have noticed that the Trinity concept, which isn't found in the bible, nonetheless often leads translators to translate so as not to deny the idea. (This is where I should have kept notes when I noticed them.)
Good times, and I learnt a lot ─ not least what I didn't know I didn't know.
I should indeed make more enquiries than I do about the Jewish view of various parts of the Tanakh. I know they don't think the Garden story is about the Fall of Man for instance, and if you read it, you'll see they're right. And if you're Jewish it must be annoying to be told that Jesus is prophesied in eg Isaiah 7, when that's obviously about a particular past time and place, or to be told the Suffering Servant is Jesus when it's the nation of Israel &c &c. Because I'm interested in what the text says, I side with the Jewish view of those matters thus against the Christians, starting with the author of Mark and the full-bloom confabulating of Matthew and Luke (inventing the nativity yarns with utter disregard for history &c). (I don't say that in order to offend, but to affirm I think it's correct.) But you're right, one day I should go more a little more deeply into Jewish theology.