Split Thread Signs of the End Times

[halleyscomet]

I have noticed that racists all too often forget that modern humans originated in Africa and that the variation in skin color is simply the result of the enviromental factors incurred where the humans who left Africa eventually settled.

Even a racist interpetation from a fairy book does not change that fact.

Ultimately white people are freaky mutants who've lost several defenses against a tropical climate as a result of not being exposed to one for multiple generations.

 

[GuitKitty]

Is your question relevant for today or is based on what can be derived at from the Scriptures?

I'm not sure I understand your question. My question is based on your statements that a woman must remain chaste until her rapist is executed in order to not commit adultery. I assumed you thought your statement was both related to today and scripturally based. I disagree, but I assumed that's what you thought and wanted you to justify the double-standard I frankly assumed you would have regarding male rape.

The question is a bit out of the ordinary, as it is not exactly the same as a woman being raped. Sex between men does not constitute marriage as it does with that between a man and a woman. Sex between men is described as detestable.
Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Because a detestable thing has been done to the man, the penalty prescribed for such a detestable act is death, this penalty is prescribe for two consenting men performing what is termed detestable. So it would be in order to carry out the same sentence on the man who raped another man.

But if the man or boy is forced to have sex with a woman, it is still rape because it was an act of violence, against an unwilling person who did not have the means to resist.

As with the man he does not need to remain chaste, as it cannot be considered as marriage.

The question is based entirely on your statements about what should happen if a woman is raped. If a man is raped by another man, should they both be executed, since it is so "detestable"? If a man is raped by a woman, it is not considered marriage, but it is considered marriage if a woman is raped by a man? What happens if a married woman is raped by someone other than her husband (since I know you do not believe marital rape even exists)? Must she forgo having an intimate relationship with her husband until her rapist is executed?

Regarding the bolded, why is it an act of violence, against an unwilling person who did not have the means to resist when it is comitted against a man, but not when it is against a woman? I want you to justify your ridiculous double standard here, Paul.

 

[GuitKitty]

I have noticed that racists all too often forget that modern humans originated in Africa and that the variation in skin color is simply the result of the enviromental factors incurred where the humans who left Africa eventually settled.

Even a racist interpetation from a fairy book does not change that fact.

As far as I can tell, this particular racist's interpretation of his fairy book just completely ignores that fact for the "fact" of a six thousand year old earth.

ETA: Oh, and the "obvious" "fact" that Adam and Eve were white. Of course.

 

[Border Reiver]

The Scripture as stated by the Hebrew scholars are an accurate account of what took place as recorded in that particular area.
In context does mean that there must be a constant referral to other sections of Scripture to prove that what is being referred to is not in opposition to any other part of Scripture, mainly they must harmonise.

The Torah/Pentateuch are most definitely not an accurate record of historical events. they are a compilation of oral histories. The Pentateuch was composed in the 7th and 6th centuries BC. As the Exodus is supposed to have happened about 600-700 years before that, the scribes who wrote it down could hardly be credited with recording accurate history. Particularly since much of the stories such as the conquest of Canaan, and the Exodus are not corroborated by physical evidence from archeology or references in the records of the other nation states in existence at the time. Egypt might not have wanted to record the loss of the large part of its army, but the Hittites would have noticed, written it down and probably acted on it.

The second part of what you are writing about above is called internal consistency, and the Bible is anything but internally consistent. Yahweh changes from a family deity tied to a specific tribal grouping, to a deity tied to locations, to an omnipresent deity, from a single deity among many to the only deity (where other "gods" are demons). The inconsistencies start with the differences in the creation myths found at Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, and just keep going.

Irrespective of that, internal consistency is no guarantee of historical accuracy. Bernard Cornwell and George MacDonald Fraser have composed multiple, internally consistent books with events tied to the historical record, but no amount of wishing is going to make Capt (brevet Colonel) Richard Sharpe, Esq. or Brigadier Harry Flashman real people, or some of their adventures part of history.

But now the Apologists claim there is ample proof to validate the Scriptures.

Except that none of the evidence that has been produced has actually done so. If you have any, feel free to share.

 

[halleyscomet]

You did read this -- http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume35/GOT035143.html

Oh lordy, that article took me on a trip through memory lane. My family had a subscription to that publication when it was known as "Searching the Scriptures." I even remember that specific article. The issue it ran in may still be in my parents' basement. It, and several articles like it, sparked a round of research on my part wherein I delved into the resources avaialbe at the public library. I was having trouble reconciling the simplistic "Dark continent" image of Africa presented by religious publications with the one seen in the pages of "National Geographic."

In the end, I realized the religious writing about Africa consisted largely of disgustingly over-simplified, insulting piles of trash. This one in particular takes an entire continent and boils it down to one stereotype of an "African Religion" told as if through the eyes of a missionary, not an anthropologist.

It's great for drumming up racism. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been used to drum up donations for missionary trips to Africa, but it's as pale a shadow of Africa's rich religious diversity as claiming an episode of the 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" is an accurate depiction of life in American families from coast to coast, or that "Lethal Weapon II" accurately captures the essence of South Africans.

 

[Slowvehicle]

A black must marry a black and a white must marry a white,

As has been pointed out to you, this bit of racist bigotry is not in your "scriptures"; it is, instead, your personal decision based on your racist and bigoted interpolations of your "scriptures".

otherwise all whites will become extinct and everybody will become coloured.

Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that your racist, bigoted and prejudiced term, "coloured" has no basis in science, the fact that freely interbreeding humans will, eventually, approach the mean is no more than biology. Since we are all human, what difference does it make (to a rational person) what the average, or the majority, skin color is?

Remember that, despite your racist and bigoted denial, all humans once had dark skin (as a species, we developed in Africa). Lighter skin is a mutation, a deviation form the norm.

Besides there will always be a tendency to force whites to comply with the black customs.

I challenge you to support this assertion, for which you have provided no evidence.

In fact, the history of your own country demonstrates just the opposite.

You see, it is very dangerous for a black to deny their heritage, there is always fear of repercussion.

I challenge you to support this assertion, for which you have provided no evidence.

But most of all the plan of Satan, is to eliminate the whites as they are a threat to his plan to prevent God from setting up the Kingdom which will mean his defeat.

I challenge you to provide evidence for these assertions, starting with evidence for the actual existence of the "adversary" (despite the fact that your picture of it is almost wholly derived from puritan poetry). You may proceed with the rest of your folly when you have surpassed that first hurdle.

Now if you took the time to view those articles about Zuma—then you should be able to see how deep rooted the traditions are.
Apartheid failed in implementing their policy—so there is a partial set back, which will be rectified :soon:

Another 2000 years, then?

 

[Slowvehicle]

<racist comment snip>
There is a distinct difference between whites and blacks –look at all the failed unions that have occurred—Tiger Woods and the Simpson fella, here we have had a few. There is no way that we the whites can condescend to the level of the black culture.

I do not care what you call the color of your dermis, it is not "white". I don't care what you call (or imagine) the color of my dermis; you may not presume to recruit me into your evil racist schemes.

OTH, given your pervasive racism, bigotry, and superstition; and your willingness to dishonestly manhandle your "scriptures" into a similitude of support for your own ideas; there does not, in fact, appear to be a limit on how low you are willing to condescend with your arguments.

Jesus was a Hebrew and who said he was not white as the Jews in Israel are today?

How very...odd...to realize that you, personally, would lump "Jews in Israel" (today) in with "people of light skin".

They were not Arabs. We have the account that shows how the Hebrews viewed the Egyptians who were the descendants of Ham.

I wonder if you realize how silly it looks for you to justify a prejudice with a legend written for the express purpose of justifying that bigotry.

The grass saga will be of little consequence compared to what will take place when the Almighty shows his hand.

No, sir. No matter what else happens, you have demonstrated yourself a false prophet, a blind guide. Alas for you!

You did read this -- http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume35/GOT035143.html

No, I did not. Whyever should I?

 

[Slowvehicle]

But it is stated that the sexual conduct is detestable to God--it infers that they are not as it is following the Lamb.

Of course, given that you also claim that the passage "infers" that sexually active men can be referred to as "virgins", your inferential apologetics leave...a bit... to be desired.

Feel free to list every single word Jesus is said to be said ever to have said about homosexuality.

You are not clear on this statement.

You continue to evade, rather than answer, questions.

What are you on about now? I have clarified that point.

Are you, then, retracting your falsehood that "sex=marriage"? That would be a significant step, if you were sincere, and pondered the reasonable implications of so doing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

As far as I can tell, this particular racist's interpretation of his fairy book just completely ignores that fact for the "fact" of a six thousand year old earth.

ETA: Oh, and the "obvious" "fact" that Adam and Eve were white. Of course.

Just like Jesus...there are pictures!

 

[Craig4]

There are so many aspects that are dealt with, so where does one begin---there is a presentation, the a counter presentation, and it goes on and on, and nobody seems to convince the other or the audience.

The Red sea event, and the Exodus, and the flood---the Apolagist have all the answers.

But I am not reliant on this as I have my own evidence.

But your beliefs are unsupported and therefore inferior. It's not as if there are two equally valid arguments. Your arguments cannot be supported without your bible. Of course ours can be supported by multiple lines of evidence and disciplines of study. Your work just isn't good enough.

That's troubling since you're willing to let people die over a superstition.

 

[Jodie]

There is no historical evidence in the Egyptian records that Jews were slaves during the time of Ramses, no mention of plagues either.

 

[Paul Bethke]

I have noticed that racists all too often forget that modern humans originated in Africa and that the variation in skin color is simply the result of the enviromental factors incurred where the humans who left Africa eventually settled.

Even a racist interpetation from a fairy book does not change that fact.

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.
Adam was white and Eve who came from Adam would naturally be of the same pigmentation as Adam, would be a beautiful white couple. Now God gave laws that would incur a change if disregarded.

So the injunction not to drink blood would incur this mutation of pigmentation.

So out of Africa, we have the black people who did consume blood in vast quantities, and so the black man originated in Africa—coupled to this the added consumption of the raw meat of primates added to this as a result of violating the Torah.

Man through his disregard for the laws of the Creator is suffering the current problems of sickness and diseases.

This Crossbow is the logical conclusion derived from the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Now that is the way you see it, but me I see it as revelation from the proven Word of Yahweh.
<snipped racist twaddle>

How is this possible, when you have already admitted you have no evidence that anything in the Bible is true?

This Crossbow is the logical conclusion derived from the infallible word of God that he entrusted to men to record.

Why does the "infallible word of God" state that insects have 4 legs?

 

[Paul Bethke]

So, in your interpretation of scripture, if a virgin man is raped by a virgin woman, are they "married" and the man required to remain chaste if the female rapist is never executed or forced to marry him?

Would a female rapist be allowed to pay the same silver price to her victim's father as if the genders were reversed?

Well as you might know this situation is not dealt with in the Torah.
Also these laws were given to Israel as a nation to implement—so when in Rome do as the Romans do.

Today nations have their own laws, even Israel has abandoned the injunctions of the Laws of the Torah. But what can be considered is how these crimes will be dealt with in the coming Kingdom of God.

 

[Paul Bethke]

I'm not sure I understand your question. My question is based on your statements that a woman must remain chaste until her rapist is executed in order to not commit adultery. I assumed you thought your statement was both related to today and scripturally based. I disagree, but I assumed that's what you thought and wanted you to justify the double-standard I frankly assumed you would have regarding male rape
The question is based entirely on your statements about what should happen if a woman is raped. If a man is raped by another man, should they both be executed, since it is so "detestable"? If a man is raped by a woman, it is not considered marriage, but it is considered marriage if a woman is raped by a man? What happens if a married woman is raped by someone other than her husband (since I know you do not believe marital rape even exists)? Must she forgo having an intimate relationship with her husband until her rapist is executed?
Regarding the bolded, why is it an act of violence, against an unwilling person who did not have the means to resist when it is comitted against a man, but not when it is against a woman? I want you to justify your ridiculous double standard here, Paul.

To clarify what I have stated in the past regarding marriage, which to the Creator is the main reason for creation is that a man and woman through marriage should be joined together through the sexual act, consummation (the action of making a marriage complete by having sexual intercourse.) (Gen 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Jesus confirmed this four thousand years later. (Mat 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
So God in the beginning did not intend for there to be divorce, but this was introduced by man, thereby violating the marriage covenant.

So in the Decalogue, it is detailed not to commit adultery which is the violation of the marriage covenant—further it states not to covet another man’s wife.

So now Jesus decrees the following—( Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.)

Now in Leviticus 18, and 20 a list of sexual offence is given explaining what is adultery, among that is is the sexual act between men described as detestable, with a subsequent penalty.

So now if a man rapes a virgin, the sexual act is that of marriage, but because it was done without the consent of the virgin that is a violation of her right to choose who she will marry—it then becomes a judicial act being a crime for which the penalty is death for the rapist.

So now if a man rapes another man against his will then the rapist must be put to death and not the man who was raped.

If a man rapes a married woman, then the rapist must be put to death.The woman is free to carry on having sex with her husband, even if the rapist escapes justice.

The laws were given to protect society from those who have no regard for another person’s freedom.

 

[Paul Bethke]

The Torah/Pentateuch are most definitely not an accurate record of historical events. they are a compilation of oral histories. The Pentateuch was composed in the 7th and 6th centuries BC. As the Exodus is supposed to have happened about 600-700 years before that, the scribes who wrote it down could hardly be credited with recording accurate history. Particularly since much of the stories such as the conquest of Canaan, and the Exodus are not corroborated by physical evidence from archeology or references in the records of the other nation states in existence at the time. Egypt might not have wanted to record the loss of the large part of its army, but the Hittites would have noticed, written it down and probably acted on it.

The second part of what you are writing about above is called internal consistency, and the Bible is anything but internally consistent. Yahweh changes from a family deity tied to a specific tribal grouping, to a deity tied to locations, to an omnipresent deity, from a single deity among many to the only deity (where other "gods" are demons). The inconsistencies start with the differences in the creation myths found at Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, and just keep going.

Irrespective of that, internal consistency is no guarantee of historical accuracy. Bernard Cornwell and George MacDonald Fraser have composed multiple, internally consistent books with events tied to the historical record, but no amount of wishing is going to make Capt (brevet Colonel) Richard Sharpe, Esq. or Brigadier Harry Flashman real people, or some of their adventures part of history.

Never the less as I see it there is no inconsistencies with how the Scripture relay knowledge of the Creator to us. A person with a biased mind will always see a thing from a different perspective.
There are no inconsistencies with Genesis 1 and 2, it was the way Moses wrote the account, to show creation and then to show the advent of man.
I do find some problems with the two genealogies, and from the different explanation still cannot reconcile the two, but I will continue to pursue the matter.

Granted I will agree that the Apologists do have a difficult task to try and prove events where there is little or no evidence.
But my convictions are sufficient for me to continue to believe the account of the events recorded in the Scripture are authentic, and I will be able to prove this in the coming months.

Except that none of the evidence that has been produced has actually done so. If you have any, feel free to share.

Well these Apologist do claim that the evidence they have is reliable—the web has numerous articles regarding this. The flood the Exodus and many other events—surely you do not want me to direct you to all this?

 

[Paul Bethke]

As has been pointed out to you, this bit of racist bigotry is not in your "scriptures"; it is, instead, your personal decision based on your racist and bigoted interpolations of your "scriptures".

Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that your racist, bigoted and prejudiced term, "coloured" has no basis in science, the fact that freely interbreeding humans will, eventually, approach the mean is no more than biology. Since we are all human, what difference does it make (to a rational person) what the average, or the majority, skin color is?
Remember that, despite your racist and bigoted denial, all humans once had dark skin (as a species, we developed in Africa). Lighter skin is a mutation, a deviation form the norm.

I challenge you to support this assertion, for which you have provided no evidence.
In fact, the history of your own country demonstrates just the opposite.

I challenge you to support this assertion, for which you have provided no evidence.

I challenge you to provide evidence for these assertions, starting with evidence for the actual existence of the "adversary" (despite the fact that your picture of it is almost wholly derived from puritan poetry). You may proceed with the rest of your folly when you have surpassed that first hurdle.

Another 2000 years, then?

I do not care what you call the color of your dermis, it is not "white". I don't care what you call (or imagine) the color of my dermis; you may not presume to recruit me into your evil racist schemes.

OTH, given your pervasive racism, bigotry, and superstition; and your willingness to dishonestly manhandle your "scriptures" into a similitude of support for your own ideas; there does not, in fact, appear to be a limit on how low you are willing to condescend with your arguments.
How very...odd...to realize that you, personally, would lump "Jews in Israel" (today) in with "people of light skin".

I wonder if you realize how silly it looks for you to justify a prejudice with a legend written for the express purpose of justifying that bigotry.

No, sir. No matter what else happens, you have demonstrated yourself a false prophet, a blind guide. Alas for you!

No, I did not. Whyever should I?

Of course, given that you also claim that the passage "infers" that sexually active men can be referred to as "virgins", your inferential apologetics leave...a bit... to be desired.

Feel free to list every single word Jesus is said to be said ever to have said about homosexuality.
You continue to evade, rather than answer, questions.
Are you, then, retracting your falsehood that "sex=marriage"? That would be a significant step, if you were sincere, and pondered the reasonable implications of so doing.

Just like Jesus...there are pictures!

From all your challenging Slowvehicle, you show that you have no working knowledge of the Scriptures.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to add full username. Slowvehicle has requested that you do not shorten his username, and you have also had a moderator instruction to not shorten his username. Do not shorten it again, please.

 

[Paul Bethke]

But your beliefs are unsupported and therefore inferior. It's not as if there are two equally valid arguments. Your arguments cannot be supported without your bible. Of course ours can be supported by multiple lines of evidence and disciplines of study. Your work just isn't good enough.

That's troubling since you're willing to let people die over a superstition.

People die because death is the result of getting old or making the wrong decision. Death is not a problem unless you are going to hell, otherwise death is a reward.

So in preaching we attempt to get people to repent as to avert hell, which Jesus said is a certainty for those who refuse to repent and change their ways.

 

[Paul Bethke]

There is no historical evidence in the Egyptian records that Jews were slaves during the time of Ramses, no mention of plagues either.

Well the events are recorded in the Bible--but tell me where did you glean your information from, it was not derived from you own research, was it?

 

[Paul Bethke]

How is this possible, when you have already admitted you have no evidence that anything in the Bible is true?



Why does the "infallible word of God" state that insects have 4 legs?

Well the tangible evidence of God is all around us in creation--even the four leg insects. Should we refuse to believe because two legs are missing, there may have been an evolutionary process that has brought about a change--you are surely not insinuating that people could not count past four?