Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 27th July 2017, 14:33

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
#61
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
Quote:The Bible says that all who believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him will be saved and enter the New Jerusalem. The all covers women, too.

GC

Sure it does.  It has to promise the sheep something for their cash, right?  

Yeshua didn't become Jesus until after 1630 and christ wasn't associated with the Yeshua character until around 830 A.D.  And Christ wasn't capitalized until the 17th Century.  
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

So it's just a modern day fairy tale, like Ben Hur.
Reply
#62
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 04:45)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
Quote:The Bible says that all who believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him will be saved and enter the New Jerusalem. The all covers women, too.

GC


Yeshua didn't become Jesus until after 1630 and christ wasn't associated with the Yeshua character until around 830 A.D.  And Christ wasn't capitalized until the 17th Century.  
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

So it's just a modern day fairy tale, like Ben Hur.

That is a cool resource (Etymology Dictionary).  However, I think that you are mis-using it in your conclusion.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
Reply
#63
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 00:12)Godscreated Wrote:
(24th July 2017, 13:23)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Wow you are dense. Slave or servant, it means the woman was under the control of her master. And not because she wanted to be, but because she was forced into it after seeing her entire family murdered by the guy. She didn't have the ability to opt out of the sex, so she didn't have the ability to consent to it either. This makes it rape. You say the Bible doesn't specifically say the women were raped? Well guess what, it also doesn't specifically say they weren't.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate people like you who think that what happened in those verses was in any way good or moral. It wasn't. Not on any level.


Hating me isn't going to help you feel better about anything but that's your problem. Like I said in to you in another thread it's sad when people through their common sense out the window. I never said that any of the situation was good for the girls/women. I said it was better than the alternatives and you do not know how these women were treated and neither do I. I can tell you that if it was outside God's will they were punished, we saw that when one man stole goods that were to be either destroyed or put in with the rest of the goods captured. You keep on saying these girls were raped when you have no idea as to what happened to them and you do not know that whoever chose the girl was the one she saw killing her parents. All you have are speculations you developed to satisfy your own dirty little mind.
Like I said to two others I'm finished with this conversation due to your lack of reasonable thought.

GC

(24th July 2017, 13:23)Inkfeather132 Wrote: 1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

These verses are interesting. First, they show how Paul sucks at arguing. Basically: A. Women were formed second, B. Eve ate the fruit first, Therefore C. Women shall not have authority.  This isn't a logical argument because Paul is making a judgement about an entire group of people (women) based on a sample size of one woman (Eve). This is like me saying all men are gullible idiots because Adam never questioned Eve and just ate the fruit because she told him to.
Second, it says that "women will be saved through childbearing". So men are saved by grace, women are saved by works? The more you quote the Bible, the worse it looks, GC.

 Paul could have argued circles around you. The argument came from the creation and the punishment God laid out to Adam and Eve. The sin has always been passed down to every human being it belongs to us from birth and thus the punishments God laid down. An man in Adams position would have eaten the fruit, Eve had the knowledge he did not and so she in actuality had a power over him though it was a deadly one. That's not what the Bible says and it's not exactly what Paul was trying to get across to his readers either. i used the Bible verses and shot down WoG's argument. I wasn't afraid to correct WoG and show the real verses either, so no I'm quoting scripture and it defends itself.

GC

Yeah no, Paul was a moron who couldn't win an argument with a two-year-old. I just showed you the fault in his logic, but like a little child you just cover your ears an whine "nuh uh! nuh uh!" You'll probably just call me childish again, like the child you are, but I'd rather be considered childish than defend a god who allows his people to murder and rape. It's probably best that you leave this conversation, you clearly aren't capable of even attempting to argue maturely anymore.
Being careful is for people who can't handle surprises.
Reply
#64
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 00:12)Godscreated Wrote:
(25th July 2017, 12:18)drfuzzy Wrote: Say what?  You doubt they had drugs . . . ??  So you advocate for drugging the women you plan on raping because . . . why?  It's less violent??  They can't fight back so you don't have to break any bones and threaten to murder her family?  Any penetration that a woman isn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY ready for is unpleasant, just due to the biology of the act.  No captive, no child "bride", and no coerced "partner" is going to have any fun, the best they can hope for is that it will be over quickly.  

   No drugs.  Arguing that a woman kidnapped into a man's house after seeing her entire family murdered, and then being forced to marry her captor (and naturally, serve as his sex slave) would ever be an acceptable or positive experience . . .    And then arguing that THEIR slavery was better because it was more like a servant.  Well, geez, there were plenty of house-servant slaves in America too.  They may have been treated passably well, but they weren't paid and they were still slaves.  And a lot of the females were raped.  It was a great way to make cheap new slaves, I'm sure you would be all for this wonderful example of financial genius.  Free new slaves!  All you have to do is rape!  No drugs needed!  Ooh, and you SAVED them too!  They had babies, now they're saved.

   Wow, just wow.  I have run into despicable xtians who turned off their brain and defended the Yahweh Sky War-Demon, but - - this is disgusting.

 Your lack of understanding is a terrible thing, I never condoned rape and never will, so you can take this and put it where the sun doesn't shine, 

GC  


Your previous arguments show you to be unbelievably misogynistic.  You clearly do not think that a female should have any say over her own life or her own body.  If you had any problem with the enslavement of females (which includes most of the married state up until 1993) then you would never have argued FOR the possibility that a female could watch her family being murdered, then kidnapped, and being forced to marry her captor/rapist or be thrown out, which would have meant death.  And then you brought up "they didn't have drugs".  And your only response to your offensive post is to tell me to "shove it where the sun don't shine".  Yes, you're a very typical good christian, all right.  I'll bet you masturbated to that thought.  You remind me of the preacher of my parent's church when I was 14.  He got half of the 7th grade girls pregnant and had to be sent away.  Yes, he was a very typical preacher.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/north-ca...to-slaves/
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
Reply
#65
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 08:06)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(Yesterday, 04:45)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Yeshua didn't become Jesus until after 1630 and christ wasn't associated with the Yeshua character until around 830 A.D.  And Christ wasn't capitalized until the 17th Century.  
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

So it's just a modern day fairy tale, like Ben Hur.

That is a cool resource (Etymology Dictionary).  However, I think that you are mis-using it in your conclusion.
When reading religious fairy tales it pays to know the origins of words and when they were first used.  That helps to determine the veracity of the story.  It's being intellectually honest.
Reply
#66
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 21:47)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(Yesterday, 08:06)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That is a cool resource (Etymology Dictionary).  However, I think that you are mis-using it in your conclusion.
When reading religious fairy tales it pays to know the origins of words and when they were first used.  That helps to determine the veracity of the story.  It's being intellectually honest.

Yes, but that is the etymology of the English word and how it was used.   As the article states, it goes back to the Greek, and the Hebrew before that.  Since they where not speaking English in that area at that time, I don't think it helps that much in the veracity of the story.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  - Alexander Vilenkin
Reply
#67
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Yesterday, 04:45)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
Quote:The Bible says that all who believe in Jesus Christ and follow Him will be saved and enter the New Jerusalem. The all covers women, too.

GC

Sure it does.  It has to promise the sheep something for their cash, right?  

Yeshua didn't become Jesus until after 1630 and christ wasn't associated with the Yeshua character until around 830 A.D.  And Christ wasn't capitalized until the 17th Century.  
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

So it's just a modern day fairy tale, like Ben Hur.

 Your opinion and that's all it is.

GC

(Yesterday, 08:51)Inkfeather132 Wrote:
(Yesterday, 00:12)Godscreated Wrote:

 Paul could have argued circles around you. The argument came from the creation and the punishment God laid out to Adam and Eve. The sin has always been passed down to every human being it belongs to us from birth and thus the punishments God laid down. An man in Adams position would have eaten the fruit, Eve had the knowledge he did not and so she in actuality had a power over him though it was a deadly one. That's not what the Bible says and it's not exactly what Paul was trying to get across to his readers either. i used the Bible verses and shot down WoG's argument. I wasn't afraid to correct WoG and show the real verses either, so no I'm quoting scripture and it defends itself.

GC

Yeah no, Paul was a moron who couldn't win an argument with a two-year-old. I just showed you the fault in his logic, but like a little child you just cover your ears an whine "nuh uh! nuh uh!" You'll probably just call me childish again, like the child you are, but I'd rather be considered childish than defend a god who allows his people to murder and rape. It's probably best that you leave this conversation, you clearly aren't capable of even attempting to argue maturely anymore.

 I gave you an argument from scripture that you totally ignored, if you are going to argue against God and His word you will need to do it from the scriptures since there is no other place to do it from.

GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Reply
#68
RE: Lol the bible is actually ok with pedophilia, proof from passage
(Today, 01:55)Godscreated Wrote:
(Yesterday, 04:45)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Sure it does.  It has to promise the sheep something for their cash, right?  

Yeshua didn't become Jesus until after 1630 and christ wasn't associated with the Yeshua character until around 830 A.D.  And Christ wasn't capitalized until the 17th Century.  
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=christ

So it's just a modern day fairy tale, like Ben Hur.

 Your opinion and that's all it is.

GC

(Yesterday, 08:51)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Yeah no, Paul was a moron who couldn't win an argument with a two-year-old. I just showed you the fault in his logic, but like a little child you just cover your ears an whine "nuh uh! nuh uh!" You'll probably just call me childish again, like the child you are, but I'd rather be considered childish than defend a god who allows his people to murder and rape. It's probably best that you leave this conversation, you clearly aren't capable of even attempting to argue maturely anymore.

 I gave you an argument from scripture that you totally ignored, if you are going to argue against God and His word you will need to do it from the scriptures since there is no other place to do it from.

GC

I already showed you how that "argument" isn't logical. Paul judges all women based on Eve's behavior, which is not how the world works. I don't judge all men based on Noah, or all black people based on Martin Luther King, Jr. It's stupid because there is diversity in large groups. Not all women would have eaten the fruit, not all men would have just done what their wife told them without questioning. Paul's argument was incorrect and you are the one ignoring that.
Being careful is for people who can't handle surprises.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proof that there is no God Nihilist Virus 10 459 31st March 2017, 01:58
Last Post: ronedee
  LOL. Way To Go Britain. Minimalist 2 225 30th March 2017, 15:23
Last Post: vorlon13
  Christians, your god is gay. I have proof! Atheist_BG 82 3779 10th March 2017, 13:22
Last Post: Nay_Sayer
  Christianity actually condones murder Rolandson 50 1502 21st January 2017, 22:09
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Catholicism would actually be the most likely controlled Christianity Rolandson 10 496 1st January 2017, 11:44
Last Post: Redoubtable
  Old Testament Prophecy Proof of Jesus Nihilist Virus 45 2128 12th August 2016, 12:50
Last Post: Nihilist Virus
  LOL. Stands as proof of Minimalist 10 856 6th July 2016, 17:50
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  I Have Proof the the Christian God Does Not and Cannot Eist Rhondazvous 89 4233 5th July 2016, 13:51
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  What do non-fundamentalist Christians actually believe? Fromper 66 7092 30th June 2016, 19:08
Last Post: vorlon13
Shocked Proof that god, exists. Checkmate atheists! Christian Poe-try 25 4320 31st May 2016, 09:10
Last Post: Homeless Nutter



Users browsing this thread: