A Deep Theological Question

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

Are you saying we should just kill everyone who gets pregnant? Or are you specifically saying we should wipe Islam off the face of the planet? Maybe you are arguing that abortion is actually punishment for the sins of prior generations. I really don't know what point you are trying to make, especially since there is nothing either deep or theological about your question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One wonders WHY this particular passage is of such overweening importance to this poster......?

...and simultaneously so neglected or simply ignored by certain others, most notably those who normally base their beliefs on the scriptures.

Care to point out how I am ignoring a command to destroy an entire country that has already been destroyed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like the New International Version's rendering of Numbers 5:22, a verse concerning the proper way to find out whether your wife had ever screwed around on you or not:

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

The "water" referred to in the passage above would have been mixed with a handful of filth from the tabernacle floor. They really knew how to treat their women back then.

I love how you hypocrites ignore context. "Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."

The only women that would drink the water under those circumstances were the ones that were not guilty of infidelity, and a little dirt never hurt anyone. If you have ever eaten vegetables you have had the exact same thing yourself, yet you are still here posting, and complaining about the way other people deal with false accusations. Would you prefer they just kill the woman?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I like the New International Version's rendering of Numbers 5:22, a verse concerning the proper way to find out whether your wife had ever screwed around on you or not:

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

The "water" referred to in the passage above would have been mixed with a handful of filth from the tabernacle floor. They really knew how to treat their women back then.

Not bad, but you missed my favorite example of "God's" ignorance of His own creation. God, speaking as He does through his divine spokesmen, decreed that a woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night would be stoned to death, and that the proof of the woman's virginity was the presence of blood on the marital bed sheet. That's right, the omniscient God, the creator of all life, thought that ALL virgins bleed upon engaging in sex for the first time. The all-knowing Old Testament God did not know what every 10th-grade biology student should know: it is the tearing of the hymen that produces blood; however, not every woman is born with a perfect hymen, and a hymen my be torn by injury or excessive physical activity. When I was 12 years old, I knew that not every virgin bled on her wedding night, but the alleged creator of the Woman did not. Here is what the Bible says:

“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

"And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth [the marital bed sheet] before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, KJV, explanatory insertion my own).

I wonder how many innocent woman were stoned to death whose only “sin” was being born with an imperfect hymen, or whose hymen was torn through non-sexual activities. There are parts of the Old Testament which could not possibly have been inspired, and this is one of them. I don't mean to disparage Christians because many have acknowledged that the Old Testament was flawed, and hence the need for a New Testament. Even the New Testament Scriptures say that the OT had problems (all verses from KJV):

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second” Hebrew 8:6, 7).

“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13).

OK, I am done with the lot of you.

MHunterB: Read the Bible for half a century or so, and then perhaps you will be able to discuss it intelligently. Right now, your ignorance is showing.

I was going to let your whinging slide, but I see no reason to do so now.

Tell me something, is there a specific reason you left out the context that set up the circumstances of the situation you just described? Is it the fact that it would totally destroy your narrative?

"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives."


Being an expert on nature yourself, I am sure you understand exactly how easy it is for the parents of a young girl to come up with a bloody sheet if they want to defend the honor of their daughter. Feel free to give historical references listing all the young women, guilty or not, that were stoned at their parents front door. Alternatively, you could admit you are a complete idiot.

 

[G.T.]

The kjv of God is so devilish it's no wonder that as man became more civil they re-adopted a more modern approach..........but it doesn't bode well for either being God's word.

 

[amrchaos]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

A different yet more subtle question:

Why does the lord have an issue with the Amaleks?

 

[BreezeWood]

And on a related note here is the latest body count:

ETA. According to the Bible, that is.

Number of people killed by Yahweh: Countless

Number of people killed by Lucifer: Zero

Kinda makes you wonder who really is evil, don't it?

Kinda makes you wonder who really is evil, don't it?


no, violence of life and death are daily occurrences and obviously the pleasure of the Creator - the dead Satan is a good object lesson for what will / can happen and a reason to understand the rules.

* (Hint) Satan was evil ....

 

[Capstone]

Care to point out how I am ignoring a command to destroy an entire country that has already been destroyed?

For anyone who opposes the slaughter of unborn babies (read: abortion) on Biblical grounds, the numerous genocides ordered or directly carried out by the God of the Bible would have to be overlooked, because they certainly would have entailed the killing of pregnant women.

I love how you hypocrites ignore context. "Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."

The only women that would drink the water under those circumstances were the ones that were not guilty of infidelity, [...]

And I suppose the women who refused to drink the nasty water would have been free to go on their merry ways, with no threat of being stoned to death (along with whatever might be growing inside their wombs)?

See how the potential for God-sanctioned abortions remains fully intact either way?

[...] and a little dirt never hurt anyone. If you have ever eaten vegetables you have had the exact same thing yourself, yet you are still here posting, and complaining about the way other people deal with false accusations. [...]

Sorry to burst your little bubble here, but a little ingested dirt has on more than a few occasions hurt someone. Many forms of potentially deadly bacteria could've easily found their ways into the handfuls of filth from the tabernacle floor; but even assuming that your God would've prevented the innocent women from being harmed, the guilty ones (along with their fetuses) still would have been subject to death/abortion under the law of God.

[...] Would you prefer they just kill the woman?

There's really no telling how many perfectly innocent and/or guilty women and their unborn babies WERE harmed or killed as a result of this less than innocuous practice for easing the minds of overly jealous husbands, but again, that's really beside the point. The point is that we have a clear Biblical precedence for cases in which abortion was not only socially acceptable to the Jews ...but sanctioned by their God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For anyone who opposes the slaughter of unborn babies (read: abortion) on Biblical grounds, the numerous genocides ordered or directly carried out by the God of the Bible would have to be overlooked, because they certainly would have entailed the killing of pregnant women.

I oppose abortion because it is wrong, my sense of right and wrong does not come from the Bible. That means I do not have to deal with anything but my conscious, but I can easily deal with the genocide in the Bible because I am smarter than you are.

And I suppose the women who refused to drink the nasty water would have been free to go on their merry ways, with no threat of being stoned to death (along with whatever might be growing inside their wombs)?

Why would they be stoned to death? The only way they would be stoned is if they were caught in adultery, not if they didn't take this test.

By the way, if you look at those verses you will see that the woman doesn't die, the only thing that happens is that she has a miscarriage. I could be mistaken, but that is rarely fatal, and wouldn't affect a woman who is not pregnant.

See how the potential for God-sanctioned abortions remains fully intact either way?

There is a difference between God sanctioning something and someone doing it on their own, the clearest example of this is the census David ordered. If God was a simpleminded fool he would have had no grounds to punish David for that because he had previously ordered a census Himself. Since He is not you, He punished Israel for the sin of their king.

Sorry to burst your little bubble here, but a little ingested dirt has on more than a few occasions hurt someone. Many forms of potentially deadly bacteria could've easily found their ways into the handfuls of filth from the tabernacle floor; but even assuming that your God would've prevented the innocent women from being harmed, the guilty ones (along with their fetuses) still would have been subject to death/abortion under the law of God.

Actually, as I already pointed out, the effect of the bitter water was not fatal to the woman.

There's really no telling how many perfectly innocent and/or guilty women and their unborn babies WERE harmed or killed as a result of this less than innocuous practice for easing the minds of overly jealous husbands, but again, that's really beside the point. The point is that we have a clear Biblical precedence for cases in which abortion was not only socially acceptable to the Jews ...but sanctioned by their God.

I suggest you spend some time studying the Mishnah instead of simply assuming that Jews were stoning people left and right. There were so many restrictions placed on capital punishment that it was effectively illegal. Fewer people were stoned in the entire history of Israel than were stoned in Iraq since we invaded it.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

But you christers roll out the Hebrew bible when it suits you on homosexuality and the ten commandments

You have absolutley no working knowledge of Chrsitianity or the bible. Please stop displaying your abysmal ignorance.

I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[hortysir]

An atheist circle-jerk in the "Religion/Ethics" forum.

For a group of people that seem so content in their "non-belief", it sure bugs the ever-living-shit out of them that there are people that do believe.

 

[Capstone]

I oppose abortion because it is wrong, my sense of right and wrong does not come from the Bible. That means I do not have to deal with anything but my conscious, but I can easily deal with the genocide in the Bible because I am smarter than you are.

If your 'sense of right and wrong' doesn't come from the Bible (I.E. the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Pauline letters, ETC. have no bearing whatsoever on your personal code of ethics), yet you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then not only do you represent one of the tiniest minorities in history ...but I suspect that a large majority of mainstream Christians would argue that you're not a Christian at all.

Anyway, if you're not among the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians who DO look to the scriptures for moral guidance, then I wasn't referring to you in the first place.

Why would they be stoned to death? The only way they would be stoned is if they were caught in adultery, not if they didn't take this test.

Well, let's see, who was it that said, "The only women that would drink the water under those circumstances were the ones that were not guilty of infidelity..."? -- Was it Anselm? Aquinas? Oh, that's right, it was you. It doesn't take a MENSA candidate to see the extremely high likelihood that any woman who refused to take the test would have been viewed as guilty of infidelity whether she actually was or not.

By the way, if you look at those verses you will see that the woman doesn't die, the only thing that happens is that she has a miscarriage. I could be mistaken, but that is rarely fatal, and wouldn't affect a woman who is not pregnant.

She might not have died on the spot; but the verdict spelled out by either the swollen belly or the miscarriage would have called for her execution by stoning after the fact.

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that you're not quite as smart as you think you are.

There is a difference between God sanctioning something and someone doing it on their own, the clearest example of this is the census David ordered. If God was a simpleminded fool he would have had no grounds to punish David for that because he had previously ordered a census Himself. Since He is not you, He punished Israel for the sin of their king.

Beyond the idiocy of suggesting that following Yahweh's instructions (whether directly relayed or indirectly through the Prophets) was a matter with wiggle room for members of the proper bloodlines, your commentary betrays an all too common misconception (based on poor translation) regarding the story of David and the infamous census. While the KJV has 2 Samuel 24:1 as follows: "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."; 1 Chronicles 21:1 of the KJV later provides a clue as to how the earlier verse should have been rendered: "And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.". Accordingly, Young's Literal Translation rendered 2 Samuel 24:1 so: "And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and an adversary [presumably Satan] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'".-- The census was conducted by the will of Satan ...not Yahweh.

I suggest you spend some time studying the Mishnah instead of simply assuming that Jews were stoning people left and right. There were so many restrictions placed on capital punishment that it was effectively illegal. Fewer people were stoned in the entire history of Israel than were stoned in Iraq since we invaded it.

You seem incapable of getting the point here. Not to concede your point, but the numbers are inconsequential. If ONE pregnant woman miscarried or died as a result of the mandate handed down by your God through Moses, then the act of abortion in cases of infidelity was explicitly condoned in the Bible. End of story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If your 'sense of right and wrong' doesn't come from the Bible (I.E. the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Pauline letters, ETC. have no bearing whatsoever on your personal code of ethics), yet you claim to be a Christian nonetheless, then not only do you represent one of the tiniest minorities in history ...but I suspect that a large majority of mainstream Christians would argue that you're not a Christian at all.

Jesus got his sense of right and wrong from his conscious, not the Bible.

Anyway, if you're not among the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians who DO look to the scriptures for moral guidance, then I wasn't referring to you in the first place.

The last time I checked with actual living Christians, they all relied on their conscious for their sense of right and wrong. This explains why some Christians support the death penalty, and some do not. Quite a few of them, incorrectly, rationalize their conscious with Bible verses, but not a single one of them actually see the Bible the way you seem to think they do.

Come to think of it, that might explain why Christians are not trying to stone adulteresses outside your delusions.

Well, let's see, who was it that said, "The only women that would drink the water under those circumstances were the ones that were not guilty of infidelity..."? -- Was it Anselm? Aquinas? Oh, that's right, it was you. It doesn't take a MENSA candidate to see the extremely high likelihood that any woman who refused to take the test would have been viewed as guilty of infidelity whether she actually was or not.

I said that because there was no inherent obligation for the woman to drink the bitter water. Unless you can find something in the Bible that I missed I will continue to say the exact same thing, and point out the test is not fatal. Personally, I don't care if the woman was viewed as guilty of infidelity, In case you are as stupid as I actually think you are, that means she ended up divorced.

She might not have died on the spot; but the verdict spelled out by either the swollen belly or the miscarriage would have called for her execution by stoning after the fact.

As I already pointed out, the only way anyone could be actually stoned for adultery is if they were caught flagrante delicto and both people were stoned. That was without the additional requirements imposed by Israeli law, which made the death penalty extremely rare. Or did you totally skip over the fact that Jews are generally against the death penalty?

You know, I'm beginning to suspect that you're not quite as smart as you think you are.

Wouldn't that require you to be smarter than me?

Beyond the idiocy of suggesting that following Yahweh's instructions (whether directly relayed or indirectly through the Prophets) was a matter with wiggle room for members of the proper bloodlines, your commentary betrays an all too common misconception (based on poor translation) regarding the story of David and the infamous census. While the KJV has 2 Samuel 24:1 as follows: "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."; 1 Chronicles 21:1 of the KJV later provides a clue as to how the earlier verse should have been rendered: "And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.". Accordingly, Young's Literal Translation rendered 2 Samuel 24:1 so: "And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and an adversary [presumably Satan] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'".-- The census was conducted by the will of Satan ...not Yahweh.

Didn't I just say that?

You seem incapable of getting the point here. Not to concede your point, but the numbers are inconsequential. If ONE pregnant woman miscarried or died as a result of the mandate handed down by your God through Moses, then the act of abortion in cases of infidelity was explicitly condoned in the Bible. End of story.

What point? That you think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that is valid? Do you have some sort of special qualification that comes direct from God? Isn't a belief that you have a special relationship with God a symptom of schizophrenia?

 

[LittleNipper]

And on a related note here is the latest body count:

ETA. According to the Bible, that is.

Number of people killed by Yahweh: Countless

Number of people killed by Lucifer: Zero

Kinda makes you wonder who really is evil, don't it?

Lucifer takes them to hell and is the reason for their death. There worse thing in life then dying... We all do that eventually.

 

[Capstone]

Jesus got his sense of right and wrong from his conscious, not the Bible.

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

Or is there a scriptural basis, after all, for the idea of the primacy of conscience over your God's other inspired scribblings?

The last time I checked with actual living Christians, they all relied on their conscious for their sense of right and wrong. This explains why some Christians support the death penalty, and some do not. Quite a few of them, incorrectly, rationalize their conscious with Bible verses, but not a single one of them actually see the Bible the way you seem to think they do. [...]

And you know this, because, obviously, your understanding of holy writ's PROPER relationship to Christian ethics is based on some special qualification that came to you directly courtesy of God? Do tell! ....

Come to think of it, that might explain why Christians are not trying to stone adulteresses outside your delusions.

Yeah, the VOLUMES on Christian apologetics written and distributed over the past 2 thousand years, including the advent of special modes of exegesis and loads of mind-fucked lines of reasoning (like dispensationalism), all in the interest of explaining why it's okay to obey some Biblical mandates and not others, probably didn't have nearly as much to do with it as YOUR delusion that most Christians think like you do whether they realize it or not.

I said that because there was no inherent obligation for the woman to drink the bitter water. Unless you can find something in the Bible that I missed I will continue to say the exact same thing, and point out the test is not fatal. Personally, I don't care if the woman was viewed as guilty of infidelity, In case you are as stupid as I actually think you are, that means she ended up divorced.

How about an objective historical source like Josephus?

Antiquities 3.270:

3.270

But if any one suspect that his wife has been guilty of adultery, he was to bring a tenth deal of barley flour; they then cast one handful to God and gave the rest of it to the priests for food. One of the priests set the woman at the gates that are turned towards the temple, and took the veil from her head, and wrote the name of God on parchment, and enjoined her to swear that she had not at all injured her husband; and to wish that, if she had violated her chastity, her right thigh might be put out of joint; that her belly might swell;and that she might die thus: but that if her husband, by the violence of his affection, and of the jealousy which arose from it, had been rashly moved to this suspicion, that she might bear a male child in the tenth month. Now when these oaths were over, the priest wiped the name of God out of the parchment, and wrung the water into a vial. He also took some dust out of the temple, if any happened to be there, and put a little of it into the vial, and gave it her to drink; whereupon the woman, if she were unjustly accused, conceived with child, and brought it to perfection in her womb: but if she had broken her faith of wedlock to her husband, and had sworn falsely before God, she died in a reproachful manner; her thigh fell off from her, and her belly swelled with a dropsy. And these are the ceremonies about sacrifices, and about the purifications thereto belonging, which Moses provided for his countrymen. He also prescribed the following laws to them: - [...][emphasis Capstone's]

Fatal enough for ya'?

As I already pointed out, the only way anyone could be actually stoned for adultery is if they were caught flagrante delicto and both people were stoned. That was without the additional requirements imposed by Israeli law, which made the death penalty extremely rare. Or did you totally skip over the fact that Jews are generally against the death penalty?

Damnit! If only I had something to prove that claim false! Not that an argument from silence is proof that it's true.

Anyway, this:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
New International Version (NIV)
Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

...is an indication that it might have been cool to stone a woman for a "marriage violation" minus knowledge of any other involved party.

Wouldn't that require you to be smarter than me?

Not necessarily.

In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."...

Beyond the idiocy of suggesting that following Yahweh's instructions (whether directly relayed or indirectly through the Prophets) was a matter with wiggle room for members of the proper bloodlines, your commentary betrays an all too common misconception (based on poor translation) regarding the story of David and the infamous census. While the KJV has 2 Samuel 24:1 as follows: "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."; 1 Chronicles 21:1 of the KJV later provides a clue as to how the earlier verse should have been rendered: "And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.". Accordingly, Young's Literal Translation rendered 2 Samuel 24:1 so: "And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and an adversary [presumably Satan] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'".-- The census was conducted by the will of Satan ...not Yahweh.

Didn't I just say that?

No, you said there's a difference between God sanctioning something and someone doing it on their own. You then referenced the story of David and the census as an example, implying that David's lack of discernment in terms of identifying what spiritual power was at work in him was somehow relevant to the adultery test handed down by your God through Moses.

What point? That you think that your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that is valid? [...]

Not even close.

It was that the passage on induced miscarriages, especially in light of the other relevant scriptures, is clear enough to be seen for what it is by anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty (which might explain why you apparently can't see it that way).

I'll leave you with a bitterly poetic verse from Hosea:

Hosea 13:16
New International Version (NIV)

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”[a]

Ahh, more magical images of abortions of the lowest order...

 

[LittleNipper]

I like the New International Version's rendering of Numbers 5:22, a verse concerning the proper way to find out whether your wife had ever screwed around on you or not:

The "water" referred to in the passage above would have been mixed with a handful of filth from the tabernacle floor. They really knew how to treat their women back then.

Not bad, but you missed my favorite example of "God's" ignorance of His own creation. God, speaking as He does through his divine spokesmen, decreed that a woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night would be stoned to death, and that the proof of the woman's virginity was the presence of blood on the marital bed sheet. That's right, the omniscient God, the creator of all life, thought that ALL virgins bleed upon engaging in sex for the first time. The all-knowing Old Testament God did not know what every 10th-grade biology student should know: it is the tearing of the hymen that produces blood; however, not every woman is born with a perfect hymen, and a hymen my be torn by injury or excessive physical activity. When I was 12 years old, I knew that not every virgin bled on her wedding night, but the alleged creator of the Woman did not. Here is what the Bible says:

“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

"And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth [the marital bed sheet] before the elders of the city. And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, KJV, explanatory insertion my own).

I wonder how many innocent woman were stoned to death whose only “sin” was being born with an imperfect hymen, or whose hymen was torn through non-sexual activities. There are parts of the Old Testament which could not possibly have been inspired, and this is one of them. I don't mean to disparage Christians because many have acknowledged that the Old Testament was flawed, and hence the need for a New Testament. Even the New Testament Scriptures say that the OT had problems (all verses from KJV):

“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second” Hebrew 8:6, 7).

“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13).

OK, I am done with the lot of you.

MHunterB: Read the Bible for half a century or so, and then perhaps you will be able to discuss it intelligently. Right now, your ignorance is showing.

I was going to let your whinging slide, but I see no reason to do so now.

Tell me something, is there a specific reason you left out the context that set up the circumstances of the situation you just described? Is it the fact that it would totally destroy your narrative?

"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives."


Being an expert on nature yourself, I am sure you understand exactly how easy it is for the parents of a young girl to come up with a bloody sheet if they want to defend the honor of their daughter. Feel free to give historical references listing all the young women, guilty or not, that were stoned at their parents front door. Alternatively, you could admit you are a complete idiot.

I am going a step further to say that if a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her was the usual. I believe most men would most likely cut themselves and bloody the sheet before they would bring any harm to the woman they LOVED. This is exactly what Christ did on the cross to save those He loved ----- he shed his own blood.

 

[Agit8r]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

Are you saying we should just kill everyone who gets pregnant? Or are you specifically saying we should wipe Islam off the face of the planet? Maybe you are arguing that abortion is actually punishment for the sins of prior generations. I really don't know what point you are trying to make, especially since there is nothing either deep or theological about your question.

Fundies always find some way to justify the quote by acting as if the children, babies, etc had no rights. I thought perhaps by bringing the fetuses into it that perhaps I could humanize the victims for the fundy mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

I am sure you can site all sorts of verses where Jesus told us to use the Bible.

Wait, you can't, because there aren't any. In fact, he specifically defended ignoring the laws when there was a higher purpose, like in Mathew 12.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are insisting you know more about the Bible and being a Christian than I do.

Imagine that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 when it says:

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

...did any of the women who were slaughtered have fetuses growing inside of them?

Are you saying we should just kill everyone who gets pregnant? Or are you specifically saying we should wipe Islam off the face of the planet? Maybe you are arguing that abortion is actually punishment for the sins of prior generations. I really don't know what point you are trying to make, especially since there is nothing either deep or theological about your question.

Fundies always find some way to justify the quote by acting as if the children, babies, etc had no rights. I thought perhaps by bringing the fetuses into it that perhaps I could humanize the victims for the fundy mind.

Care to point out any place I ever argued they do not have rights?

 

[Capstone]

I guess it follows that the absence of scriptures in which Jesus told us to use our consciences (instead of the Bible) as our moral guides doesn't really matter, since they could have totally been disregarded along with the rest of the scriptures anyway? The sheer genius of it all!

I am sure you can site all sorts of verses where Jesus told us to use the Bible.

Wait, you can't, because there aren't any. In fact, he specifically defended ignoring the laws when there was a higher purpose, like in Mathew 12.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

You don't know what you are talking about, yet you are insisting you know more about the Bible and being a Christian than I do.

Imagine that.

By any chance did you happen to catch the insignia on the tail-fin of the jumbo jet that just flew by directly over your head?

I suppose it's easier to miss the point entirely by simply leaving out some of the parts that sort of illuminate it?

Case in point:

... Or is there a scriptural basis, after all, for the idea of the primacy of conscience over your God's other inspired scribblings?

You see, referring to holy writ as a means to justify the rejection of basing one's code of ethics on holy writ is called an affirmation of possession of that which is expressly denied: namely a code of ethics based on holy writ.