• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Women

Cainkane1 said:
Are you saying he isn't?
Click to expand...

Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.
 
David Henson said:
Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you, David, I have to give you props, usually WE're the ones to bring up those verses, only to have them casually dismissed. I'm at work (sorry, Boss) and can't look up scriptures right now, but I think there is a verse describing God as all-knowing.

A Christian (JW?) who isn't attached to this tri-omni stuff loses an all-powerful God in return for one that can have a coherent definition.
 
Also, in prioritizing which posts you respond to, David, I suggest you go after the most substantive. I think you will find that most of us will be sympathetic to your out-numbered position if you tackle the most difficult stuff and don't get to every single other response or query.
 
David Henson said:
Like I told Tim, show me where my redacted version of the Bible indicates that Jehovah God is omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.

However, the point as you presented it doesn't even require that He is those things because the people of the society in which we are considering are obviously not.
Click to expand...
.
Do be more precise.
"Russell began publishing the magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, highlighting his interpretations of biblical chronology..."
 
Darth Rotor said:
Well, no, not a pedophile, but perhaps a statutory rapist.

The age of consent being raised is a relatively recent phenomenon, and not quite universal across the globe.

For whatever reasons, the base Western (arbitrary) decision is that the age of consent should be 14/16/18 -- pick a year, or a state, the number will change in the US. (I'll let other nationals discuss what has transpired in their nations within the last century, a few years back a Canadian friend stunned me with "it's fourteen in Canada" which I am not sure of as of this writing).

Where to set this age of consent is a reflection of a societal change. Referring to somebody who marries a fifteen year old as a pedophile is damned foolishness, and very narrow minded.
Click to expand...

I think you misread my intentions there. I put my statement in quotes to show it was a paraphrase of that website's argument about why the bible itself doesn't proscribe pedophilia. Repeated here:
Secondly, it was not uncommon for a young maiden, such as Mary for example, at the age of 15 or 16, to be married to a much older man, like Joseph for example, at the age of about 32. By modern day American standards that would be classified as pedophilia.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that the arument is a good one. Not only because I wouldn't classify Joseph as a pedophile, but because they're saying the bible couldn't make laws specifically against pedophilia since some of their top guys might be accused of breaking said law.

And to clarify, yes, Canada previously set its age of consent to 14, and has only very recently raised it to 16. Thankfully. Because I don't think 14 year old girls can consent to sex with men in their 50s. Some are still prepubescent. (Sixteen is still pretty iffy in most cases, but it's a move in the right direction.)

What I read in your post puts appears to set him up as a pedophile.
Click to expand...
Again, a miscommunication on my part or misread on yours. My quote was purposely put in quotation marks to show that they weren't my thoughts but a sarcastic paraphrase of an apologist argument. I even tucked in an eyeroll at the end, so you must have been reading quickly. ;) Hopefully no harm, no foul. :)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Well, no, not a pedophile, but perhaps a statutory rapist.

The age of consent being raised is a relatively recent phenomenon, and not quite universal across the globe.

For whatever reasons, the base Western (arbitrary) decision is that the age of consent should be 14/16/18 -- pick a year, or a state, the number will change in the US. (I'll let other nationals discuss what has transpired in their nations within the last century, a few years back a Canadian friend stunned me with "it's fourteen in Canada" which I am not sure of as of this writing).

Where to set this age of consent is a reflection of a societal change. Referring to somebody who marries a fifteen year old as a pedophile is damned foolishness, and very narrow minded.

Let me offer you an example.

I work with a lady in her early 60's. She is originally from outside of San Antonio. She was married at the age of fifteen. She had to get permission of her parents to marry at that age, but having gotten it, the marriage was legal. The marriage lasted over 30 years, and produced one child. She and her husband adopted another. The marriage broke up years later over, you guessed it, infidelity.

Her ex passed away recently from cancer. She grieved, even though they had parted with much rancor.

What I read in your post puts appears to set him up as a pedophile.

This makes no sense.

A different example, where a charge of statutory rape might have been competently made, but not pedophilia.

My sister's youngest daughter liked to screw as a teenager. At one point, she did some screwing with a man who was twenty, or twenty-one) . She became pregnant. When she had the baby, my brother in law and I did some back of the napkin arithmetic, and realized that she had conceived under the age of 16. This was no big surprise, as she'd been sexually active for quite some time before that. (But with boys in school) .

Technically, someone could have brought charges against that young man/sperm donator/numbskull, but the family was not interested. IMO it helped that, unasked for, he and his parents ponied up child support and have, to their credit, kept it coming ever since. (More his parents than him, as he doesn't earn much money). It is my opinion, knowing the two personalities involved, that she was probably the sexual innovator between the two, not that it matters in a strict reading of the law.

What would have been the benefit to society for him to go to jail, I wonder, other than for the satisfaction of a few of us who wanted to cave in his head with a shovel? Dumbarse, never heard about wrapping the rascal.

As it works out now, he's still out, still paying some of the child support from his modest job, and the taxpayer isn't paying for his room and board. Imperfect, but it worked well enough. My sister in law adopted the little girl and raised her until her daughter got old enough to do so. (Passed the torch last year). More to the point, her and my wife's oldest sister offered to adopt the baby before it was born, knowing all the sordid details behind the whole story. Her opinion: not the baby's fault for being born. Her husband was fully on board with that course of action, though it was an option not pursued.

Pedophile? No. By strict rule a perp in a statutory rape? Yes. But I understand why charges were not pressed. (BTW, in our county, there are oodles of underage preganancies. Something in the water, I suppose, my daughter in eighth grade had three class mates who were pregnant, one for the second time).

I'd like to see less use of "pedophile" in discussions regarding underage sex, since the age in underage has a sliding scale.

As to the law, I can't find the ref that is reliable, but SC Justice Ginsburg had attributed to her a remark that the age of consent could be set at 12. Biologically, it's a tenable position ... but as with age of consent in a lot of ways, an arbitrary social rule/reason is adopted that a given society can live with. As a father of a teenaged girl, I held it to be my wife's and my responsibility to teach our daughter well. We did what we could, but what it boils down to is our daughter simply exercised good judgment.

Aside: The allusion bugs me, as Ginsburg is no idiot, so I looked a bit. An old Slate article points out that it was taken more than a bit out of context, and Lindsey Graham was being less than honest in his political attack.



http://www.slate.com/id/2126491/


DR
Click to expand...

AOC in the Vatican is 12. Lowest AOC of any country/state that has one.
 
David Henson said:
Could you give a scripture where "ish et re'ehu" is used?
Click to expand...
Any place where the English version says "each other", "one another" etc.

David Henson said:
Ishshah literally means female man
Click to expand...
Or female human person, when "ish" means male human person.

I don't expect this study of Hebrew language (as used by the writers of the Hebrew Scripture) to lead us anywhere anyway.

David Henson said:
Explain this, please? The name was replaced with the generic term lord, not mispelled intentionally.
Click to expand...
Many (if not most?) modern academics (notably excluding religious Jews) assume that the original spelling of YHWH was Yahweh (based on early transliterations of the word into Greek and other languages), which appears to be causative (HiF'iL) singular 3. masculine of the verb "to be / to exist" and thus would mean "He causes existence". The less meaningful forms "Yehowah" and "Yehowih" are supposed to be intentionally mis-vowelized by the Jewish Masorets of post-Temple era:
- to prevent anyone from accidentally spelling aloud the Name (which has been forbidden in Judaism for more than 2000 years)
- to guide the reader to pronounce Yehowah as "Adonay" (but then why "e" and not "a" under the first consonant? because Adonay begins with a very short "half a", and Hebrew grammar forces using "half e" instead of "half a" when the preceding consonant is Yod)
- to guide the reader to pronounce Yehowih as "Elohim" (see any OT verse where YHWH occurs immediately after the word Adonay, mostly in the Latter Prophets I guess, try to google for Adonay YHWH or Adonai Elohim or something)

David Henson said:
The religion we are discussing? Religion has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I am aware of this inner circle terminology:
- "religion" = customs and practices invented by humans, void of the presence of God
- "faith" = service of God in Truth and in Holy Spirit

Any common dictionary calls both of these as "religion", but let us not stumble into that and simply change "religion" into "faith" in my previous question.


-----


PARENTAL ADVISORY to all participants of this thread. DON'T USE the term "religion", it means a different thing for you and for David Henson. Use the term "FAITH" instead, so both parties will interpret the meaning (approximately) in the same way.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
Yes. If God is omnipotent that means there isn't anything that he can't do, correct? God can't lie.

If God is omnipresent that means he has no central location. There is no need in placing him here or there, correct? God is in hell. God was in the temple of Solomon. God's central location is Heaven. God will be with us in a new Earth.

If God is omniscient he would know everything without having to think about it, correct? God asked Adam, Cain and others what had they done? God sent messengers to see if Sodom was as bad as the complaints against it.
Click to expand...

That's great. So now we are left with a vague idea of a 'god' that's neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.

Why call it a 'god' then? Why worship it? How can you assert that it cannot lie? It certainly did lie to 'his people' according to the Bible. How can we know then that it's even capable of creating the Universe?

Once your god looses those properties, it's not a god anymore. It's just another being like the rest of us. Would you worship a human? A really great human? I didn't think so...
 
David Henson said:
...
Women played an important part throughout Bible history, as judges, prophetesses and as an extremely important part of the early Christian ministerial effort.
Click to expand...
And yet they are almost never important enough to have been named in the Bible. I can't find that reference but I found this one:

The worth of a woman: the Bible vs. the Quran
..praised be Jesus and Muhammed (peanut butter and jelly be upon them)! The Bible and the Quran agree: a woman is worth half as much as a man.
Click to expand...
 
Beerina said:
It's interesting that, biologically, men are really "male females". We have nipples because the basic human body plan has nipples. That means female.

Also, it's brutally clear from evolution that males of species evolved from hermaphroditic species. Somewhere along the line, someone failed to be impregnable, but still managed to pass along their genes, of course, with the partner doing the heavy lifting. Whether the "dandy-ification" of the male started before this physical inability to bear children, or after, I have no idea.


And yes, human males, like those of almost all other species, are the dandies, with their manes (AKA beard + hair) and, yes, their beer bellies. Oh, and their wars for dominance.
Click to expand...
I have no clue when sexual reproduction evolved, but I wouldn't leave out the part where single celled organisms developed the means of inserting DNA into unrelated organisms which then incorporated the DNA into their own before dividing.

In other words, there may be more of a chicken and egg argument here than you realize.
 
Most bacteria do have sexual reproduction.
Sure, they are only exchanging a small part of their genome, but still, this is only a matter of degree.
Sex is old.

It also seem to evolve independently in various lineage, sometime being reinvented by organism whose ancestors "forgot" it, suggesting a tremendous evolutionary value under the right circumstances.
Sex is powerful.
 
Sun Countess said:
Thankfully. Because I don't think 14 year old girls can consent to sex with men in their 50s.
Click to expand...
That isn't the most common pairing up, is it? Why did you choose that age split?

Also, thanks for clearing up how I read your post. Much appreciated.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom