Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Esquilax]

Me quibbling, are you serious dude, you're the one who has been insisting it is murder, there is a huge difference in the two.

They are the same damn thing, you obtuse little man.

Really, that's what you see those verses saying, like I said I reread the story and guess what, I could not find where God ordered the Israelites to kill anyone. This is another thing you need to prove to us. By the way what magic words are you seeing?

Okay, I'll admit to reading it wrong on the god thing, but you're still wrong on the murder thing.

No one has ever said that people did not died in that city, we actually know they did, scripture tells us this. Killing and murder are two different things, you're the one calling the act murder, this is a misinterpretation of the verses.

What, would you say, is the difference between killing and murder? And why is the former okay, when the latter is wrong?

Because, you see, when I hear about a horde of people descending on a town unprovoked and slaughtering all that lay therein, I tend to think "ohh, that's bad." You, you seem to be thinking, "well, thank god they only killed them! It would have been awful for them to have been murdered!"

How are you possibly squaring the two as different in your mind?

Christ represents the price payed for all forgiven sin, yes that's right He died for all those who would accept His payment for our sins. The rest will pay for their own sin, so again if God allowed one sin to go unpunished then at your judgement you would be screaming bloody murder. God is just and that should give you reason to pause and think.

Your god routinely lets people off the hook for their sins! What else is your repentance for? According to your own theology, the only unforgiveable sin is a lack of belief; I could be a killer, just like the people depicted in Judges, and still get into heaven by dint of Jesus' sacrifice and my own belief. Don't go pretending that your book actually solves this problem of atonement, because all it is is a loophole so you don't have to be held accountable.

You made a positive claim, that's a bit different than an assumption, my reasonable assumption came from knowing scripture, you however make claims from your own delusions just as scripture says about those who lean own their own understanding of God.

So basically, I'm not being a good Party Member and practicing the correct amount of doublethink? I agree, I'm much more intellectually honest than that. You keep sitting there and thinking that the killing of an entire town was a good thing.

Freedom is Slavery!

You know nothing about the scriptures, you like so many others cherry pick verses and then parrot what others have done before you. There is nothing new about what you do or say it's the same ol' junk we hear all the time.

Somewhere in the world, somebody just died of an irony overload because you typed that.

This is about wives and preserving an entire family of people and you want to turn it into an orgy or some other evil act, well guess what it wasn't an orgy and no matter what you say you can't change it. Your words are worthless on this matter, the family of Benjamin got their wives and the family continues.

It doesn't need to have been an orgy, in fact that's not even what I was thinking of, but it's interesting that your mind went there. However, you did say that the virgins were the ones kept because virginity was prized, and that they were to bear children, which requires a certain amount of sex to have happened. That's your words.

So, you can either admit that, in order for these virgins to bear children they would have had to have been raped, or you can argue that these survivors of a slaughtered village, after having been given away to complete strangers as wives, had willing sex with the men they were married to regardless of their own consent. It's a binary choice, those are the two options.

Oh, by the way they were not sold, you again are wrong, I would think by now you would get tired of being wrong.

No no, you're right; they were just given away. Like pieces of meat. Human beings. Traded like pokemon cards.

Does that make you feel better? You are right: the immorality of the religion you worship should be described accurately, yes.

I'm not the one claiming murder, slavery, rape and what ever else you dream of, I do not deny the scriptures say all but the virgins were killed, that would be foolish because it's plainly written for everyone to read. I've never made a different statement as to what the scriptures say.

You are, however, denying that those things are what they are; namely, murder, slavery and rape. Murder is, after all, the act of killing somebody. And unless you're actually saying the virgins went willingly to their stranger husbands after being given away as trophies of war, then they were raped, and had no choice but to be married off. Hence, slavery.

But I understand; you don't want to use the words, because they're icky. You want to be able to reinterpret these acts as morally good, and since the acts themselves simply can't justify that, all you can do is change the language and hope nobody notices.

But that doesn't change what happened. Concentration camps could be called Happy Fun Magic Time camps, and it wouldn't erase the bloodstains from their walls. The fact that you're more interested in rebranding a tragedy speaks volumes about what's more important to you, though.

Yes I did, however as I have already explained I made an assumption, not a claim as you did, you claimed murder, slavery and rape. I do not have to justify the scriptures, especially against the ridiculous claims you make.

You made an assumption not indicated in the text. I began with something that was in the text- that a lot of people died in a violent conflict, and their virgin women were given to strangers as wives- and considered the logical implications of those two things.

Now, in all fairness, perhaps you're right; perhaps the people who died really did stand there like emotionless dolls, and all their killers had to do was touch them to kill them, by magic. And maybe the virgins really did want to be married off to strange men after being removed from their only homes, and perhaps they were such cock-hungry sluts that they leapt into bed with their new husbands on their wedding nights. Maybe all that did happen.

But does it really seem more likely than the alternative?

Without the words we would have nothing, with the words we have an account of what happened and what happened is not what you depict, God did not tell the people to kill everyone in the town except the virgins nor did He tell anyone to give them away for sex.

But that did happen, right? It wasn't actually an Amazing Lava Funtime Mystical Kitten Journey, was it? People died, and the virgins got given away to bear children, right? That's what actually occurred?

You have already started to change what you were saying, first they sold the women as one would sale a slave, now you have them giving the women away, so which is it, please explain which and why you have changed your mind.

For one, it's both; the women were given away, as one would give away property. What do we call human property? A slave.

Secondly, I do like that you equate changing one's mind with being wrong. Says a lot about your mental state.

Yes those words are found in scripture but, not in the verses you quoted, yes there was killing but, as far as non-consensual sex you have no proof from those scriptures that is what happened, so again the proof lies on your shoulders. Instead of proving anything you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.

So, you're telling me that the virgins consensually had sex with the men they had been given to after having their entire life taken away from them? Because if that's what you're saying, then you need to actually say it, rather than dancing around the point.

Is that what you're arguing, GC? Just tell us, or is there something you're trying to hide?

I claimed nothing dear boy, you are now trying to use a lie to defend what you have said, dishonest, dishonest. The words said killed you said murder, you do not even respect the words used, if they do not fit your delusions then they just can't be right, so what do you do change them.

What is murder? The act of killing someone. What is killing? An act of murder. Or can you think of another thing you'd like to call the unprovoked ending of life depicted there?

Why is your whole argument that the words make you uncomfortable, by the way?

I did not change any words and said those children died, and I suggested that God could have intervened and caused them to feel nothing, I did not claim this happened.

If you weren't claiming that it happened, then why did you use it as an argument in the first place? Why would I be moved by speculation? Why would any of us feel that the issue has been mitigated by what you think might have happened?

Be honest, dude: you said that because you wanted us to think that's what did happen. You said it because you, the same as us, don't like the idea of children suffering, so you rationalized it. But the reason people make arguments is because they want those arguments to be accepted, to be convincing. You said what you did because that's the point of view you wanted us all to adopt, and now that you've been called on a larger hypocrisy, you're backpedalling. Just admit it.

See Esq. run, see Esq. run off at the mouth, see Esq. make himself look dumb. This is kindergarten argumentation, yet it's quite true, so even a kindergarten argument can defeat your childish... actually now that I think about it a kindergarten argument is all one needs with you.

Just so long as you don't have any real rebuttals, then.

"Israelites maybe," man you sure are uninformed, I guess you'll find a way to blame God for that. I am guessing you have proof of your claim it did not happen, don't be bashful tell us, we're waiting. What did not happen was your interpretation of those verses.

Well, I'm an atheist? I don't believe your god existed? At all? Ever? And so the history in the bible... nope. 'Course, it's just my perspective, but given how much of anthropology already disagrees with what's in the bible, I feel pretty comfortable in it.

I haven't ignored what you've said, I have called it misinterpretation and lies.

Yes, and that's all you've done. You've said "nuh-uh!" but that's not an argument. It's contradiction. How have I lied? How is the killing depicted in the bible not immoral? How is it not immoral to give away women to other people?

I know the reason you haven't said so. It's because you know as well as I do that if you say what you actually think, that it's not immoral because it's in the bible and the bible didn't tell you that it's immoral, then you'd look like an asshole.

You have shown nothing but lies and double talk, killing and murder are not the same. Murder is always killing some one, however killing someone is not always murder. Murder must be proven and you have failed to prove anything up to this point, not only that you're back to making slaves out of these women by their sale. Your claiming rape and murder when the passages you gave said nothing about either, like you said earlier murder and rape are in scripture, and this being so why would they not be used here.

Is it actually your claim that killing an entire town was justified? Self defense, perhaps? What were the extenuating circumstances, in your own words, that turns this from a murder into a killing?

And where is your justification for claiming the virgin prisoners of war would willingly sleep with their stranger-husbands that they were given to? Is that in the bible?

I've not been dishonest, nor am I a coward, I've stood up to you and your lies and you can't stand it, I've pointed out all your mistakes and you get mad, you are just being childish about the whole thing.

Dude. You keep doing this, more and more people will die, what with the amount of pure irony you keep pumping into the atmosphere.

I really do not care whither you quite or not, it's actually been enlightening to watch you make yourself look so bad, and if you desire to keep on going and we'll watch. There you go again, "bartering of human beings for sex," they were given away as wives, those men got nothing in return for those women.

How very charitable of them, to give away those women that they owned. What part of "it's immoral to treat people as property" are you missing?

Go ahead laugh all you want, it shows how ridiculous you are, and as for the truth all you have done is to show your ignorance of truth in this discussion. I'm not the one who has made any claims to what those scriptures say outside of what they say, you are the culprit that has done so and you have fail miserably in your attempt to defend the ridiculous statements you have made, you have not defended even one statement in all this discussion, but please go on and try again, failing at scriptural interpretation is one of your best qualities.

Another by fiat assertion. Unfortunately though, the world doesn't bend to your whim; my arguments stand by themselves, and all you've been able to do in return is block your ears and shake your head. There is not a single word of actual content in any of your posts; just repeated denials and ad hominem attacks against me.