Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [biblicalapologetics] Moses Supports Child Molestation

Expand Messages
  • Jimmy Sloan
    This is abusive interpretation. The reason the non-virgins were not spared is found in verse 16; the nation was being punished in part for leading the sons of
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 23, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This is abusive interpretation.  The reason the non-virgins were not spared is found in verse 16; the nation was being punished in part for leading the sons of Israel to sexual impurity.  These objections have all been answered time and time again every six months or so that you bring them up on the various discussion boards ohwow.  It's time for some new tricks...


      ~ J. Sloan


      Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.


      To: thetruthofgodsword@yahoogroups.com
      From: empiricism101@...
      Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:03:50 -0700
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Moses Supports Child Molestation

      "15 And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the
      women?
      16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through
      the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in
      the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the
      congregation of the LORD.
      17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little
      ones, and kill every woman who has known man
      intimately.
      18 "But all the girls who have not known man
      intimately, spare for yourselves." (Numbers 31, NASB)

      Moses wants them to kill everybody except the little
      girls (the largest group of those "women" who were
      still virgins).

      Why spare only the little girls?

      Christian apologists would insist that Moses didn't
      think these men would sexually abuse the virgin girls.

      If that is the case, then why kill off the non-virgin
      women? Why kill off the little boys?

      What were the Israelites gonna use them for? Slaves?

      If so, cannot little boys and non-virgin women do the
      dishes and clean house and do other odd jobs in the
      Israelite camp just as efficiantly as virgin girls?

      If so, then why kill off the little boys and the
      non-virgin women?

      The text already told you why, but the blinders of
      Christian apologetics prevent you you from cutting
      through the worldliness and beholding the actual truth
      :)

      It was in that last verse.

      "18 But all the girls who have not known man
      intimately, spare for yourselves." (Numbers 31:18,
      NASB)

      If Moses didn't think his Israelite military men had
      sex on their mind, then why does Moses tell his men to
      take into account a certain VERY SEXUAL TRUTH in order
      to divide those who must die from those who will not?

      Everybody agrees that virgin girls have something that
      all ancient savage military men would just love to get
      their hands on. And Moses says the only thing that
      will save a captive here is if they are a virgin girl.

      The concern about a highly sexual truth is undeniable.

      Add that to "keep them alive FOR YOURSELVES", and
      you've got a good case that Moses was giving those
      poor traumatized virgin prisoners-of- war, not much
      differently than a college senior hands out love dolls
      to the freshmen at the frat house.

      Yeah, they can use the love-doll to stuff into the
      pillow to make it fluffier for a good night's rest,
      but chances that they will put such a doll to that
      sort of use are nil, amen?

      So when Moses specifies that it is only their being
      female and their being virgins that will get them
      spared from the death sentence, no, it isn't so his
      army men can take them home and make them wash the
      dishes.

      if you saw such a speech in a non-biblical text coming
      from pagan leader to pagan military, how much
      difficulty would you have in seeing the specifically
      stated sexual overtone?

      God will give you what you need to say, in the same
      hour as you need it.

      WHAT'S HE SAYING NOW!?

      --- Dave

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail. yahoo.com



      Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces Try it!
    • STEVEN SLOAN
      Jimmy, Where are you? You can E-mail me privately. ssloan47@hotmail.com Steve Sloan ... From: Jimmy Sloan To: Dave Wave Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:05
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 23, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Jimmy,
         
        Where are you?  You can E-mail me privately.  ssloan47@...
         
        Steve Sloan
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:05 AM
        Subject: RE: [biblicalapologetics] Moses Supports Child Molestation

        This is abusive interpretation.  The reason the non-virgins were not spared is found in verse 16; the nation was being punished in part for leading the sons of Israel to sexual impurity.  These objections have all been answered time and time again every six months or so that you bring them up on the various discussion boards ohwow.  It's time for some new tricks...


        ~ J. Sloan


        Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.


        To: thetruthofgodsword@ yahoogroups. com
        From: empiricism101@ yahoo.com
        Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:03:50 -0700
        Subject: [biblicalapologetic s] Moses Supports Child Molestation

        "15 And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the
        women?
        16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through
        the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in
        the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the
        congregation of the LORD.
        17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little
        ones, and kill every woman who has known man
        intimately.
        18 "But all the girls who have not known man
        intimately, spare for yourselves." (Numbers 31, NASB)

        Moses wants them to kill everybody except the little
        girls (the largest group of those "women" who were
        still virgins).

        Why spare only the little girls?

        Christian apologists would insist that Moses didn't
        think these men would sexually abuse the virgin girls.

        If that is the case, then why kill off the non-virgin
        women? Why kill off the little boys?

        What were the Israelites gonna use them for? Slaves?

        If so, cannot little boys and non-virgin women do the
        dishes and clean house and do other odd jobs in the
        Israelite camp just as efficiantly as virgin girls?

        If so, then why kill off the little boys and the
        non-virgin women?

        The text already told you why, but the blinders of
        Christian apologetics prevent you you from cutting
        through the worldliness and beholding the actual truth
        :)

        It was in that last verse.

        "18 But all the girls who have not known man
        intimately, spare for yourselves." (Numbers 31:18,
        NASB)

        If Moses didn't think his Israelite military men had
        sex on their mind, then why does Moses tell his men to
        take into account a certain VERY SEXUAL TRUTH in order
        to divide those who must die from those who will not?

        Everybody agrees that virgin girls have something that
        all ancient savage military men would just love to get
        their hands on. And Moses says the only thing that
        will save a captive here is if they are a virgin girl.

        The concern about a highly sexual truth is undeniable.

        Add that to "keep them alive FOR YOURSELVES", and
        you've got a good case that Moses was giving those
        poor traumatized virgin prisoners-of- war, not much
        differently than a college senior hands out love dolls
        to the freshmen at the frat house.

        Yeah, they can use the love-doll to stuff into the
        pillow to make it fluffier for a good night's rest,
        but chances that they will put such a doll to that
        sort of use are nil, amen?

        So when Moses specifies that it is only their being
        female and their being virgins that will get them
        spared from the death sentence, no, it isn't so his
        army men can take them home and make them wash the
        dishes.

        if you saw such a speech in a non-biblical text coming
        from pagan leader to pagan military, how much
        difficulty would you have in seeing the specifically
        stated sexual overtone?

        God will give you what you need to say, in the same
        hour as you need it.

        WHAT'S HE SAYING NOW!?

        --- Dave

        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail. yahoo.com



        Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces Try it!

      • Dave Wave
        ... There are numerous problems with your interpretation, which haven t been answered whenever I bring this up: a - How did killing the little boys, contribute
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Jimmy Sloan <jimmysloan@...> wrote:

          > This is abusive interpretation. The reason the
          > non-virgins were not spared is found in verse 16;
          > the nation was being punished in part for leading
          > the sons of Israel to sexual impurity.

          There are numerous problems with your interpretation,
          which haven't been answered whenever I bring this up:

          a - How did killing the little boys, contribute toward
          the goals intended to be reached when killing the men,
          and non-virgin women? Perhaps the little boys helped
          the poor Israelites fall into this sexual sin? Maybe
          they stood outside the city gates of Peor shouting
          "come here and have illicit sex!!" ? Even the 2 year
          old babies? If not, then why kill little boys who
          have nothing to do with Israel's person choice to go
          chase sex?

          b - Ever hear of personal responsibility? If Jimmy
          Swaggert fell into sin with a prostitute who enticed
          him...what would you think if he later killed her, and
          then justified the murder the same way Moses did?
          IOW, "she caused me to fall into sin". If you would
          fault Swaggert, you fault Moses at the same time.

          c - Would you say the leader of the military in this
          passage was giving live sex-dolls to his military
          brutes, if this passage came from ancient pagan
          sources and NOT the bible or the Hebrews? If a
          Canaanite leader told his men "kill all the Hebrew
          captives, but spare the Hebrew virgin girls for
          yourselves, " what would it mean? You cannot argue
          the Canaanite analogy would be about child molestation
          because they were more corrupt. The bible supports
          the position that the Hebrews were every bit as prone
          to evil, sin and gross immorality, as their own text
          insists the Canaanites were.

          > These
          > objections have all been answered time and time
          > again every six months or so that you bring them up
          > on the various discussion boards ohwow.

          Pointless, I don't feel that the answers seriously
          address the specific points I make. I gave you plenty
          of reasons for my position. Now here you are again,
          insisting that Numbers 31:16 makes my interpretation
          false. Sorry, I gave you far too much, for you to
          just sweep it under the rug with a single verse.
          Notice how I demonstrated that verse 16 does nothing
          to rescue your tottering notion that God doesn't pick
          child-molestors to be his prophets.

          > It's time
          > for some new tricks...~ J. SloanGloria Patri, et
          > Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio,
          > et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

          Translation: I hate it when you bring up bible verses
          we can't reconcile with our belief in biblical
          inspiration. Please stop.

          The truth is, YOU need some new
          tricks...like...directly answering my specific points.

          So anyway, how did the 6 month old little boys
          contribute toward Israel's choice to fall into sin?

          And if you could actually squeeze such sick
          justification out of your brain, how much damage could
          such a little boy do, that he deserved to die just as
          much as the older non-virgin women who actually
          enticed Israel and engaged in the sexual immorality?

          DO you see how one bible verse cannot answer my argument?

          --- Dave

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Louise
          This is pretty sick Dave. I m removing this post. Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with you can do so in private email. Louise Dave Wave
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            This is pretty sick Dave.  I'm removing this post.  Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with you can do so in private email.
             
            Louise

            Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
            .



            Do you Yahoo!?
            Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

          • Robert Nusom
            Louise, I know I haven t posted much, if anything, to this group, so you don t know me from a hole in the wall. However, I have been working on a response to
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 25, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Louise,

              I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
              group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
              However, I have been working on a response to this
              thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
              Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
              correspondence). Since the subject matter concerns
              the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a bit,
              also because I think it might open an interesting
              serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I think
              you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.

              Sincerely,

              Bob
              --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

              > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
              > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with
              > you can do so in private email.
              >
              > Louise
              >
              > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
              > Recent Activity
              >
              > 1
              > New Members
              >
              > Visit Your Group
              > Yahoo! Avatars
              > Share Your Style
              > Show your face in
              > Messenger & more.
              >
              > Y! GeoCities
              > Share Your Resume
              > Show off your
              > talent and skills.
              >
              > Y! Toolbar
              > Groups in 1 Click
              > Add Groups to
              > Yahoo! Toolbar.
              >
              >
              >
              > .
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
              Mail.


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Louise
              Robert, I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave s subject line that Moses supported child molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list. If you
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Robert,
                 
                I guess what really upset me (at first) what Dave's subject line that Moses supported child molestation.  It was so inapproriate for this list.  If you would like to continue the discussion, then I suggest that you rename the subject line to something that doesn't sound so blatantly inappropriate. 
                 
                If you think a good discussion will result from the subject manner and you present it in an appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me. 
                 
                Louise

                Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:

                Louise,

                I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
                group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
                However, I have been working on a response to this
                thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
                Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
                correspondence) . Since the subject matter concerns
                the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a bit,
                also because I think it might open an interesting
                serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I think
                you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.

                Sincerely,

                Bob
                --- Louise <mclouus@yahoo. com> wrote:

                > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
                > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it with
                > you can do so in private email.
                >
                > Louise
                >
                > Dave Wave <empiricism101@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                > Recent Activity
                >
                > 1
                > New Members
                >
                > Visit Your Group
                > Yahoo! Avatars
                > Share Your Style
                > Show your face in
                > Messenger & more.
                >
                > Y! GeoCities
                > Share Your Resume
                > Show off your
                > talent and skills.
                >
                > Y! Toolbar
                > Groups in 1 Click
                > Add Groups to
                > Yahoo! Toolbar.
                >
                >
                >
                > .
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
                Mail.

                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail. yahoo.com


                Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

              • Robert Nusom
                Louise, So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the term as those of us who believe in God in some fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 26, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Louise,

                  So often we (and I say we in the loosest intent of the
                  term as those of us who believe in God in some
                  fashion) tend to prefer to deal with questions of
                  scripture only in the sense that they presume certain
                  preconditions regarding God. To the atheistic world
                  those preconditions do not exist. Frequently, those
                  who choose not to believe in God do so simply as a
                  means to shock and discredit those "fools" who lack
                  the intellect or ability to see the "realities" of a
                  happenstance world. In the case of Dave, his goal is
                  not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                  debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                  preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God of
                  Abraham, hold most dearly.

                  There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                  first is to get angry at them and offer them no pulpit
                  from which to voice their poison. The second is to
                  let them run on with the venom until they expose
                  themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                  them every consideration and benefit of the doubt. In
                  my experience the former reaction is the one they most
                  like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                  engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                  and if you challenge the fantasy, they become enraged,
                  these God fearers suffer from a form of schizophrenia.

                  Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their lack
                  of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                  God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                  tenuous than our own. People like Dave want to prove
                  that they are right, so they get "in your face". This
                  need to prove they are right is a certain and obvious
                  sign that they have doubts. My correspondence on the
                  issue at hand will center on those doubts.

                  It is at worst, a lot of fun. At best, it well might
                  make a dent in Dave's psyche that one day might make
                  him look at God in a different way.

                  I was once a Dave. I am not anymore because someone
                  took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                  them for what they were. I am not a Christian, but
                  the efforts of that person turned me around until I
                  came to love God as a Noahide.

                  Sincerely,

                  Bob



                  --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

                  > Robert,
                  >
                  > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
                  > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
                  > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
                  > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
                  > suggest that you rename the subject line to
                  > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
                  > inappropriate.
                  >
                  > If you think a good discussion will result from
                  > the subject manner and you present it in an
                  > appropriate and polite manner, that is ok with me.
                  >
                  > Louise
                  >
                  > Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Louise,
                  >
                  > I know I haven't posted much, if anything, to this
                  > group, so you don't know me from a hole in the wall.
                  >
                  > However, I have been working on a response to this
                  > thread for a couple days that I plan to post on
                  > Apologia (where Dave posted an exact copy of the
                  > correspondence). Since the subject matter concerns
                  > the Hebrew Scriptures, I wanted to run with it a
                  > bit,
                  > also because I think it might open an interesting
                  > serious discussion. If you reopen the thread, I
                  > think
                  > you may be pleasantly surprised at where it leads.
                  >
                  > Sincerely,
                  >
                  > Bob
                  > --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > This is pretty sick Dave. I'm removing this post.
                  > > Topic is closed and whoever wants to discuss it
                  > with
                  > > you can do so in private email.
                  > >
                  > > Louise
                  > >
                  > > Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
                  > > Recent Activity
                  > >
                  > > 1
                  > > New Members
                  > >
                  > > Visit Your Group
                  > > Yahoo! Avatars
                  > > Share Your Style
                  > > Show your face in
                  > > Messenger & more.
                  > >
                  > > Y! GeoCities
                  > > Share Your Resume
                  > > Show off your
                  > > talent and skills.
                  > >
                  > > Y! Toolbar
                  > > Groups in 1 Click
                  > > Add Groups to
                  > > Yahoo! Toolbar.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > .
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ---------------------------------
                  > > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo!
                  > Mail.
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                  > protection around
                  > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make
                  > PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Dave Wave
                  ... I understand if you use the inappropriateness argument. But as far as I can tell, I supported my interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Louise <mclouus@...> wrote:

                    > Robert,
                    >
                    > I guess what really upset me (at first) what
                    > Dave's subject line that Moses supported child
                    > molestation. It was so inapproriate for this list.
                    > If you would like to continue the discussion, then I
                    > suggest that you rename the subject line to
                    > something that doesn't sound so blatantly
                    > inappropriate.

                    I understand if you use the "inappropriateness"
                    argument.

                    But as far as I can tell, I supported my
                    interpretation with the bible. You are of course free
                    to remove any posts whatsoever, but when you delete
                    posts that are bible-based, because they are
                    "inappropriate", it tells me that us skeptics have
                    some really hot arguments, so hot that even some
                    apologetics forums on the internet (the places you'd
                    most likely get an answer from) will not dare touch
                    the stuff.

                    "keep the little girls alive for yourselves..."

                    Not exactly how you greet each other in Sunday School,
                    is it?


                    --- Dave

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Dave Wave
                    ... Psalm 14, the fool has said in his heart, there is no god . They are all corrupt... Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter s goal is not truly understanding, but
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
                      > In the case of Dave, his goal
                      > is
                      > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                      > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                      > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
                      > of
                      > Abraham, hold most dearly.

                      Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                      no god'. They are all corrupt..."

                      Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
                      understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
                      underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                      choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                      dearly.

                      > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                      > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                      > pulpit
                      > from which to voice their poison.

                      "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                      admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

                      > The second is to
                      > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                      > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                      > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                      > In
                      > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                      > most
                      > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                      > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                      > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                      > enraged,
                      > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                      > schizophrenia."

                      Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                      still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

                      If I thought my belief system could not stand
                      scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                      everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                      after the first or second admonition.

                      Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

                      > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                      > lack
                      > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                      > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                      > tenuous than our own.

                      On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                      the something.

                      Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

                      Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
                      the burden of proof.

                      If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                      jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                      obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
                      UNBELIEF would be the default position.

                      It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                      is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                      Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                      My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                      and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                      belief.

                      > People like Dave want to
                      > prove
                      > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

                      That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                      more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                      they disagreed with.

                      > This
                      > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                      > obvious
                      > sign that they have doubts.

                      So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
                      he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                      in Acts:

                      "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
                      speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                      withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                      reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                      took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                      Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                      Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

                      Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                      Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                      harboring all that doubt, eh?

                      > I was once a Dave.

                      I was once a Robert.

                      > I am not anymore because someone
                      > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                      > them for what they were.

                      I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                      attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

                      --- Dave

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • Robert Nusom
                      Dave, Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay format when I discuss and debate. The cut and paste approach, setting out each line and then issuing
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dave,

                        Just for the record, I generally prefer an essay
                        format when I discuss and debate. The "cut and paste"
                        approach, setting out each line and then issuing a
                        scathing rebuttal is a bit amateurish to my mind. The
                        effect of it is to make anything someone says look
                        foolish. In that way, it is disrespectful and I will
                        not do it to you. However, you are free to discourse
                        however you feel most comfortable.

                        Before getting into your thoughts, I should again
                        clarify that I am not a Christian and do not believe
                        in the body of books called the "New Testament" or the
                        "Apocrypha". I also do not believe in the various
                        Talmuds or the Kabal. My faith is entirely derived
                        from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thusly, your comments
                        regarding Paul, the Christian Scriptures and even
                        Jesus are not something I am competent to discuss, I
                        will leave that to Christians who are far more
                        knowledgeable on such things. Frankly, I cannot
                        disagree with your assessment of Paul, but that is a
                        discussion for another time.

                        However, your quotation of the fourteenth Psalm is
                        very interesting. I should point out (and I assume
                        that you already know) that the term "fool" as used
                        here is more closely identified as being someone who
                        is morally deficient. The term is not used in the
                        same context as the modern idea of a "fool" who is
                        someone rather considered intellectually deficient or
                        very gullible. The term fool is used, as near as I
                        can guess, in its context as a lack of wisdom, meaning
                        a lack of Godly wisdom, which is also fodder for a
                        whole different discussion. The term is used to say
                        that atheists are morally evil and is completely
                        appropriate in that context. Given that the best
                        definition that I can give for Godly morality is
                        obedience to and love of God, an atheist is ipso facto
                        incapable of being moral. That isn't to say that
                        atheists have no values or even virtues. It does not
                        mean that Atheists cannot be "nice" people. It simply
                        means that Atheists are in a state of rebellion to
                        God, which means they are not obedient to his will and
                        therefore cannot, by Godly definition, be moral.

                        I guess I don't see how a simple truth that says that
                        someone who doesn't believe in God cannot be a part of
                        the morality of God is "degrading and debasing the
                        underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                        choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                        dearly." If you truly are an Atheist, you should wear
                        the monikor like a badge of honor. It attests to the
                        reality that you have not been taken in by this
                        non-existent God and those fatuous people who have
                        fallen for the whole hoax. You are not one of his
                        people, and thus are not bound by his sense of
                        morality or his expectations. Thus, you are
                        absolutely devoid of Godly Morality and, in this
                        context, a fool. Of course, to your mind, those of us
                        who have been "taken in" by this non-existent God are
                        fools in the more modern sense of the term, people who
                        are gullible and lack the intelligence to see through
                        the whole charade.

                        As for the rest of your response, the majority regards
                        Christian Scriptures and Christian Dogma, for which I
                        am absolutely unqualified to offer answer.

                        Then you move on to the question of a burden of proof.
                        This is an argument I will shrink from. The question
                        of a burden of proof is defined by the court system in
                        which evidence is presented, I am not on trial and
                        neither are you. The only trial we must concern
                        ourselves with is the one that will be held before
                        God, and that is one for which you have no concern.
                        Or do you? I cannot prove there is a God and you
                        cannot prove there is not one. It is a debate that
                        goes back to the beginnings of recorded history and
                        probably well beyond. We will not settle it here. Of
                        course, you believe the debate is over and the
                        Atheists have won. I, of course, would point to the
                        fact that the overwhelming majority of people continue
                        to believe in God (or at least, some supernatural
                        entity or perception) and the debate can continue
                        ad-nauseum.

                        I have responded to your Moses post in the other
                        forum, where the wording regarding Moses being a
                        pedophile (May it never be) was not banned. If the
                        people in this group would like to see it, I will post
                        it here as well, but I will not change the name of the
                        thread, shameful as it may be. Such are my views of
                        free speach.

                        In the love of God,

                        Bob

                        --- Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:

                        > --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@...> wrote:
                        > > In the case of Dave, his goal
                        > > is
                        > > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                        > > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                        > > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the
                        > God
                        > > of
                        > > Abraham, hold most dearly.
                        >
                        > Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                        > no god'. They are all corrupt..."
                        >
                        > Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter's goal is not truly
                        > understanding, but that of degrading and debasing
                        > the
                        > underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we,
                        > who
                        > choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold
                        > most
                        > dearly.
                        >
                        > > There are two ways of dealing with such people.
                        > The
                        > > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                        > > pulpit
                        > > from which to voice their poison.
                        >
                        > "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                        > admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)
                        >
                        > > The second is to
                        > > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                        > > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                        > > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                        >
                        > > In
                        > > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                        > > most
                        > > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                        > > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy
                        > world
                        > > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                        > > enraged,
                        > > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                        > > schizophrenia."
                        >
                        > Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                        > still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.
                        >
                        > If I thought my belief system could not stand
                        > scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                        > everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                        > after the first or second admonition.
                        >
                        > Paul knew what was good for business and what
                        > wasn't.
                        >
                        > > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                        > > lack
                        > > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                        > > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                        > > tenuous than our own.
                        >
                        > On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                        > the something.
                        >
                        > Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.
                        >
                        > Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who
                        > has
                        > the burden of proof.
                        >
                        > If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                        > jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                        > obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So
                        > your
                        > UNBELIEF would be the default position.
                        >
                        > It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                        > is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my
                        > heart.
                        > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                        > My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position,
                        > unless
                        > and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                        > belief.
                        >
                        > > People like Dave want to
                        > > prove
                        > > that they are right, so they get "in your face".
                        >
                        > That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                        > more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                        > they disagreed with.
                        >
                        > > This
                        > > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                        > > obvious
                        > > sign that they have doubts.
                        >
                        > So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity
                        > after
                        > he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                        > in Acts:
                        >
                        > "But when some were becoming hardened and
                        > disobedient,
                        > speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                        > withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                        > reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                        > took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                        > Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                        > Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)
                        >
                        > Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                        > Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                        > harboring all that doubt, eh?
                        >
                        > > I was once a Dave.
                        >
                        > I was once a Robert.
                        >
                        > > I am not anymore because someone
                        > > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and
                        > recognized
                        > > them for what they were.
                        >
                        > I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                        > attacks seriously and recognized them for what they
                        > were.
                        >
                        > --- Dave
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                        > protection around
                        > http://mail.yahoo.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Ramon
                        Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dave, you are a perfect example of why Paul admonishes us "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."  You are a black hole, sucking up all the energy within your reach.  You don't think Titus 3:9 is wise?  Of course you do, but only after giving yourself  way too much credit, all unwarranted.   
                           
                          And the psalmist?  Simply speaking the truth as the Creator knows it, and desires to communicate that to us. Very basic really.  But you are so obviously defensive your take on it is amazing.  I have seen these arguments refuted before but you just either ignore them, act unfazed, whatever. 
                           
                          Burden of proof?  Please.  Who's been telling you Jesus is knocking at your heart?  Then talk to that person. You stick to your faith and I will stick to mine.  At least I know I have faith.  A very good thing, because it is a primary requirement for a believer.  BELIEVER.
                           
                          Now you're going to suck up more energy from whomever wants to engage you, whether in love or in vanity, but this is all you're gonna get from me.  But don't worry, in my book, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am not condemning you in any way.  After all there is only one unforgivable sin, and you are very obviously not capable of committing that sin, so you're pretty safe in terms of eternal damnation.  But you will still be paying this all back.  And you know what they say about paybacks...
                           
                          Ramon
                           
                           
                          Ephesians 5:11
                          And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.


                          Dave Wave <empiricism101@...> wrote:
                          --- Robert Nusom <caliburndulac@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                          > In the case of Dave, his goal
                          > is
                          > not truly understanding, but that of degrading and
                          > debasing the underpinnings of the most basic
                          > preconceptions we, who choose to believe in the God
                          > of
                          > Abraham, hold most dearly.

                          Psalm 14, "the fool has said in his heart, 'there is
                          no god'. They are all corrupt..."

                          Wow, I guess the Psalmwriter' s goal is not truly
                          understanding, but that of degrading and debasing the
                          underpinnings of the most basic preconceptions we, who
                          choose not to believe in the God of Abraham, hold most
                          dearly.

                          > There are two ways of dealing with such people. The
                          > first is to get angry at them and offer them no
                          > pulpit
                          > from which to voice their poison.

                          "a man that is a heretic after the first and second
                          admonition, reject..." (Titus 3:10)

                          > The second is to
                          > let them run on with the venom until they expose
                          > themselves for what they are, all the while giving
                          > them every consideration and benefit of the doubt.
                          > In
                          > my experience the former reaction is the one they
                          > most
                          > like, since it allows them to walk away from the
                          > engagement saying "see, they live in a fantasy world
                          > and if you challenge the fantasy, they become
                          > enraged,
                          > these God fearers suffer from a form of
                          > schizophrenia. "

                          Most Christians do that. It's nice to know there's
                          still a few violators of Titus 3:9 hanging around.

                          If I thought my belief system could not stand
                          scrutiny, I would follow Paul's example, and tell
                          everybody to reject a person if they don't convert
                          after the first or second admonition.

                          Paul knew what was good for business and what wasn't.

                          > Now, I know atheists who are very strong in their
                          > lack
                          > of faith in God, and they do not challenge
                          > God-fearers, knowing that their views are no less
                          > tenuous than our own.

                          On the contrary, you are AFFIRMING the existence of
                          the something.

                          Atheists are DENYING the existence of something.

                          Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has
                          the burden of proof.

                          If I say there is an invisible purple people-eater
                          jumping up and down on your left ear, are you under
                          obligation to prove this wrong? Not a chance. So your
                          UNBELIEF would be the default position.

                          It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                          is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                          Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                          My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                          and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                          belief.

                          > People like Dave want to
                          > prove
                          > that they are right, so they get "in your face".

                          That's exactly what Paul and Jesus did, and did it
                          more extremely so in the case of religious leaders
                          they disagreed with.

                          > This
                          > need to prove they are right is a certain and
                          > obvious
                          > sign that they have doubts.

                          So Paul must have had doubts about Christianity after
                          he converted, as proven by his long debates recorded
                          in Acts:

                          "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient,
                          speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he
                          withdrew from them and took away the disciples,
                          reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this
                          took place for two years, so that all who lived in
                          Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
                          Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10)

                          Disputing and reasoning in a SCHOOL, for two years.
                          Wow, Paul must have been on the verge of atheism,
                          harboring all that doubt, eh?

                          > I was once a Dave.

                          I was once a Robert.

                          > I am not anymore because someone
                          > took my ridiculous attacks seriously and recognized
                          > them for what they were.

                          I am not anymore because someone took my ridiculous
                          attacks seriously and recognized them for what they were.

                          --- Dave

                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail. yahoo.com



                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

                        • Jimmy Sloan
                          Dave, With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 28, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dave,

                            With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule
                            (with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
                            proposition incur a burden of proof and those that deny a proposition don't
                            incur the burden of proof?

                            You stated that if you claimed that there were a purple people-eater jumping
                            around on my leaft ear, that I would be under no obligation to prove this
                            statement wrong. I am inclined to agree, but not because there is any rule
                            of logic that states this. I would agree only because your proposition is
                            not something that people would be inclined to agree with for very good
                            reasons: We don't have experiential justifications that would lead us to
                            believe in purple people-eaters and even if we did, such a belief would not
                            change our lives in areas of knowledge, morality, our eternal destiny and so
                            on. Plus, it is obvious that your proposition is ad-hoc, so when you move
                            from burden of proof claims in purple people-eaters to that of God, I
                            believe that your move is unwarranted. You said:


                            "It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there is a man named Jesus
                            knocking at the door of my heart. Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not
                            a chance. My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless and until
                            evidence comes in to substantiate your belief."

                            You went from purple people-eaters to Christianity and claimed that it is
                            the same. How is it the same (other than your say so)? It seems to me that
                            you are comparing apples and oranges. Unbelief in purple people-eaters may
                            be one thing but just because we are warranted in our unbelief of such
                            entities, it doesn't follow that there is a warranted universal unbelief in
                            all existential entities and that atheism is a default position. What if I
                            don't believe that existence is real, can you prove that existence is real
                            (as opposed to an allusion)? And, if you can't (and I can assure you that
                            you can't), am I justified in my lack of belief until you provide evidence
                            to substantiate your claims that existence is real? Burden of proof claims
                            are always viewed from within a context; there are no rules of logic that
                            state that unbelief is a default position of some kind. If you think there
                            are, then prove that I have to prove that God exists.

                            I know I could argue quite successfully that -- if anything -- agnosticism
                            is the default position, but I think I can do more than that and argue that
                            theism is the default position. There are no atheistic societies and from
                            our earliest history, man has always held to some type of belief in higher
                            powers. Atheists have always been a minority and without appealing to pure
                            numbers, it seems that such a near universal belief gives warrant to the
                            fact that our belief is justified. Just because some skeptic comes along
                            and says, "I am not happy with that, there is no evidence for God, etc.
                            etc." does not mean that we theists have a burden of proof. Anyone can be a
                            skeptic, that's easy. But until you show me a law of logic or text in a
                            reliable logic textbook, I see no reasons to accept your claim other than
                            just your assertion. An assertion that is, up this point, a baseless
                            assertion without merit.




                            ~ J. Sloan


                            Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
                            nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.





                            >
                            >It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
                            >is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
                            > Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
                            >My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
                            >and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
                            >belief.

                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo
                            ttp://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com/
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.