anything atheist are more humbled then Christians.I use to believe in Christ til i was BETRAYED,JUDGE & PUT DOWN by a christian asshole in my family,that's what drove me to atheism. if that's what Jesus is condoning i want no part of it.By The Way EXCELLENT VIDEO YOU SET A PERFECT EXAMPLE. :-)
@Guitarriff1988ii same here im not exactly athiest but it seems that way. during school i said one thing bad and they all judged me and my friend. THERE all 2 face
You're talking about the "dark Christians". They're the Christians on the right wing of politics. They are hateful people who have truly lost their way.
Luckily, there are still Christians around who actually care about people and believe in forgiveness and social justice just like Jesus and many of the atheists, Jews, and Muslims do. So don't forget about us reasonable Christians on the left. We're right here with you dude. And one more thing, we except everything from science too.
You should be pissed off at those lunatics and so should the entire planet- a religion that teaches that God will send you to Hell, if you don't abide by his endless NO-NO list, while religious hypocrites and loonies rake in your money, is a disease that threatens the prospect for an enlightened and more equitable society(meaning fewer rich PEOPLE, more justice for us). Ever wonder why 99.9% of all die-hard republicans are bible quoting evangelicals? It's cause the bible wants us to be SLAVES !
The atheists, not all of them, but many blame the world problems on Christians, despite the error falls more on man's bad decisions in general regardless of faith.
The guy in this video is right to an extent; however, he neither does speak for all Christians nor as all Christians. Though I must question why true believers who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit are directing toward atheist and not the darkness that holds them in spiritual death and bondage?
@wattsnick30 They will in due time for those who don't take the mark of the beast, except those who they deem insane will be killed. I hope you don't take the mark of the beast out of ignorance.
@wattsnick30 His death is not for you to sin again. His death is for your ability to ask for forgiveness and turn from your sins with a sincere heart. Instead of burning sheep and taking a trip to Jerusalem you can simply trust in Christ and believe he'll help you with your problems.
I totally agree with this video. We Christians can't blame Atheists for all of the problems. Ha, I was just about to post Ephesians 6:12 . You beat me to it (in the vid). Very inspirational
@wattsnick30 That isn't what their religion says, they link Atheism with Satan blinding people. It doesn't make sense bc "God" wants people to abuse themselves into belief, or else they'll go to hell (belief is not choice, even when called being smart or "Satan's blinding powers of mass destruction"). God isn't a very nice imaginary friend (see Jesus Camp kid).
"Jesus & God" are definitely no saints considering the appalling things done to both non-followers and followers in order to be "saved".
@Bourtini I agree that god isn't very nice. In fact, to me, god is the satanic one. I thorougly reject Yahweh because any deity who demands that you worship it or you will burn in hell for an eternity is a sick, evil, petty, scummy, egotistical, vile deity whose character flaws make him an even lesser creature than the very lowest of humans.
Hate to say this but one point is incorrect. You were dead on with hypocrisy linking with some members but, some churches of Christianity have a war with Atheists because it's a war against sin; sin, to some Christians, is the non-belief in Jesus. Some Christians in this war on sin are sinners because they spread a message to nonbelievers in a hostile, contemptuous and rude manner. I appreciate your message of love because those who won't convert do not deserve hate.
I am a 28 year old x-evangelical athiest from a family that is still Christian, and I would have to say that this video is one of the most honest and true-to-Biblical-teachings rants that I have ever seen. I am no longer a self proclaimed Christian thanks to all the hypocritical people this guy is talking about, but I still do respect Jesus' teachings and I just wish their were more "Christians" like this guy that really use Bible verses without taking them out of context....props man!
@graphixfanatic You can't blame hypocritical Christians for your falling away from Christ. You should have and have a need to keep your trust in Christ instead. But it's your choice.
@2682nscovell I'm beginning to think that maybe I do have a bias against Christians, originating from my opinion of my grandfather. I would explain why I despise him so, but all that's ever gotten me is pity. That or people use it to make fun of me, neither of which I want.
@2682nscovell Firstly, I'm a girl. Secondly, I'm smart enough to know that I don't know much of anything. Do I think I know the world a bit better than most of my peers I'm aware of (per se, the kids in my grade), yes. Do I really know the world? Not really. Maybe I am whiney, but it's because of the people that constantly persecute me and others. I don't come in contact with many people that aren't Christian, as I am from a Christian community, so all I ever know is the Christian influence.
@2682nscovell Evedentally you're too set on the path of self-righteousness to see what's really here. There are bad Christians. What are the odds that I haven't been persecuted sometime in this life? You don't know me. You don't know the hell I've gone through, and not just because of the atheism either. I HAVE been through hell, but I didn't show it by dying my hair black and joining a clique that may or may not understand me. I'm stronger than that. You don't have a fucking clue.
@2682nscovell Right... So basically, I'm a child and believe in something other than what you believe so I deserve to be persecuted. Not just by you, but by my classmates, and the people on youtube, and my grandfather before he died. THAT'S what this is about. Not some whiny kid looking to make trouble. Not some jerk looking to justify innocent Christians. It's about the Christians, about the anyone, who persecute others because they're different. This isn't about me or you, it's everywhere.
@2682nscovell tch. Hardly. The emo kids I go to school with would beat the living hell out of you for saying I was one of them. I'm an outcast. So are my two friends. I'm anthropophobic. I don't fit well in any group. In any case, my grandfather was a Fundamentalist Christian. An Evangelist. I don't even want to start talking about him.
@2682nscovell No, chief bitch, I meant that it's not just some bias I have against Christians. I'm just tired of Fundies ragging on me because I'm atheist, ok? Do you comprehend?
@2682nscovell No, not every Christian. My best friend is Catholic. I'm cool with her. I don't keep track of every douche bag I talk to, especially when their username doesn't appear to have any rhyme or reason to it that I recognize. You can't honestly believe it doesn't happen. I'm not making Christians into something they aren't. It's just a matter of a fact that some Christians are jerks. There are jerks in every religion, of course, it's just Christians I've come into contact with.
@2682nscovell They use it quite often... "God is punishing the world because you don't believe in him and we all have to suffer because of it..." Blah, blah, blah. A whole lot of hateful crap from people who worship a "loving" god.
All your points are right on the money. Christ was a "Progressive" figure wether it was in his dealings with other people, other cultures, the organised religious or the politics of the day. I take my own sence of humanity, my sence of Christianity (Catholism) & my own limited influence on promoting "Progressive" policies in world politics from the New Testament. A shame on the Christians who focus to much on the "Old Testament" & all the categorizing for ill purposes that people embrace with it
the whole concept of there being one correct religion is something that only simpletons like most christians believe. if god is a christian, then hes a dick and he can go to hell
You see peoples, Jesus said "If you judge you shall be judged", we are already judged for our sins by the father and sense we have already been judged for this, we have the right to warn people of this judgement.
hey bodid50..whatever religious Christians you've been talking to have it all wrong with "blaming Atheists with EVERYTHING bad in the world"..don't bash them on Youtube, but hopefully go to them in love and humility and let them know their faults..Galatians 6:1...btw with unbelievers you want to befriend them, but not "be friends" with them...there's a difference....ur testimony is thru ur life and the light that shines thru you....Matt 5:16
I agree.your interpretation of Ephesians 6:12 is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. We as Christians should just spread the Good News and let God do the rest. When we judge someone for disbelief we are no different than they are. An atheist is not the enemy; the enemies are those principalities, and powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. The biggest distraction of a Christian is focusing on those on earth with us as the enemy; meanwhile Satan moves on to do evil
If it wasnt for sin then we wouldnt be having this dialogue. Its not about athiests or Christians. Sin is like most diseases in that it know no boundaries. Boths groups are full of sinners so we are all in the same boat so to speak. We as Chistians must share our faith and beliefs with those that will hear and then let God do the rest. Your interpretation of the Ephesian 6:12 is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!! As I said we are all in the same boat and at some point we must come together.
judgemental/hateful christians suck. its actually pretty sad because it makes the good christians, look bad and it gives them a bad reputation because people form the opinion that all christians are like this.
We atheist blame religion in the same way I think; which is just stupid. everyone should be able to do whatever they want. I just think that some people of the christian faith ( with political power ) use it to enforce their morals over others.
. Just we wouldn't be around to see how amazing it all really is. We just to have to look up at night and relise, we are just something very small somewhere in something very big. And it's up to us to learn and understand this :)
I don't want to end on a sad note but we have to understand. Everything here in this beautiful world is here due to coinsidence. If we was to all vanish the universe would simply carry on as it is. The planets would keep spinning and time would continue.
science is there to truely understand what it is going on around us. To understand why and how we are here. Because it's just too easy for someone to say it is like that because god wanted it that way. Just too easy.
It brings warmth and life to plants and food for us to grow but we don't have to belive this now due to science. But just because we know this for fact that it's a burning ball of gas doesn't make it less beautiful.
To me faith is a very primitive way of thinking and I don't say this in a arrogant, belittling or patronising way at all but we now live in a world that sadly christian catholic and anyother faith is cancelled out by science. Think of it this way. Before god was a non entity, we beleived the sun was the all mighty god, and why wouldn't you?
The real only benifit I can see with peoples believes with their god or gods is a comfort with a sence of belonging. People today need a sence if belonging wether it be a belonging to a faith or belonging with friend or family.
Ok by the look of the vid this guy is a Christian. I understand his views and see no harm in them. I feel sad that people still need to look at god for answers. Without athiests and scientists you would never have the computers we use now to express your believes.
im a christian but I dont believe its right to judge people, because , everyone is entitled to their own belief, one of my good friends is an athiest because we dont let differences come between us
I am a christian and I am frankly tired of war. I can't even figure out how they equate love and war. If christ died over love??? Think about it killing in the name of love is like saying I am so happy about being depressed. Of course neither is possible.
Im a Christian, and I think your right. According to 1 Corinthians 5:13 we are not to judge those outside the church. The Christians who are saying all of our world problems are because of athiests are naive. For instance, most Christians voted for the war in iraq. Thats just one example. Jesus never promoted violence or anger. He promoted peace. So all you Christians out there, read your bible. Love people, treat others as you would like to be treated. Follow Christ. Dont use words, use action.
i get really tired of christians telling me that i secretly believe in god and that i have all these secret thoughts in my head that i won't talk about etc.
it's that sort of thing that annoys me as they think they're always right when most of the time they're wrong
..and most of all our ethics and morale come from a humane and intelligent contemplation of the issues in question by contemporary fellow humans, and not from a 4-2000 year old book written by power-hungry men living in the desert. Our way is the most humane and right thing to do. And you know it! Why you have to "interpret"?
But I'm sorry to tell you that you will NEVER "convert" an atheist by setting an "example" of good deeds. Atheists number such people as Buddha, Einstein, Gandi,... And the most "atheist" countries in the world - Norway, Sweden, Denmark - all have in common:
Hopefully you see this since it's not so crowded in here...
I'm an atheist and I salute your sincerity -- it's rare among (western) christians.
For one you appear to have read the bible -- I read it from start to end 3 times (that's why I'm an atheist). It's true that the legend Jesus Christ in the fictional story in the the bible DID have most of his issues with the religious people of his time. But, that is WHY he was starting a new religion. It's just sensible...
but your still trying to show people theyre wrong and your god will still judge them and torture them for eternity, so whats the difference lol, i mean come on. wheres god's love for those people once they die and go to hell? so love makes no difference then to your god in the end if they dont convert.
you know what? the bible is so old thy should write a new one that fits into our modern world....the storys are about 2009 years old and the times have changed alot...and i know i will be crucified for this but i hate almost every religion..think about it....they caused so many wars and pain over the centurys and it goes on and on..for what? why dont the gods fight eachother in the sky or where they are...stupid religions...stupid people..believe in whatever you want but leave me out of it
Amen, your exactly right a person that states they are a christian and reacts with others with condemnation and hate are exactly like you said just "religous "because it's by God's grace we are saved and it has nothing to do with the merit of man.We are all sinners no one is exempt from there sin.Christian has become a loosely used term and is being misrepresented by individuals that have not received the Holy Spirit therefore aren't saved at all no renewing of their minds or hearts.
If you put these people on block they can't bother you. I don't know what this is about but just delete them. Someone threatened my life and you tube took them off. Lots of luck.
AngelJenny55 was resorting to threat(s) ~ coz, she's, higly allegeric to objectivity ~ I'll keep a dialogue open w/n reason ~ yeah, it's obnoxious no doubt, she stopped, once her threats, were scoffed.
1:15 "If it wasn't for atheists, we wouldn't have wars ..." Well does that include the CRUSADES and JIHADS ... too? Why yes! Hitler was an atheist, others would say. LOL. It is quite evident that these people lack research. LOL. Excellent observation, btw my friend! Kudos!
Jesus was and is a friend of sinful ones. Who among us is without sin? He died for our sins. Jesus loves everyone. Would that we all could be that way but we are just sinners saved by grace.
Aaaaaa---men! I could just imagine Him making up a parable about the Good Muslim, Atheist or Buddhist today in the hearing of a Christian, as He did made a parable about a good Samaritan in the hearing of a Jew (who harbors hard-feelings n resetment towards them). GBU, heu!
will you dickhead Christians stop posting stupid comments like you need to be saved from evil or you are a sinner. You all claim to be trying to save people from evil or hell yet religion is the main cause of death and hate.
Where is your logic honey? If you don't like what is being said about the Lord, then quit reading what is being written. What do you mean no body cares? I care and a lot of others do too.
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
shamika1984, I'll send you some links that should clear up some of your confusion.
"selling your own daughter as a sex slave"
You've actually misread the text. Go back and look at it without reading into it what is not there. Remember, good scholarship does not read motives into the texts where no motives are implied. Unless you're willing to study without inserting unimplied meanings and hasty judgments, you're not fit for proper Biblical analysis.
Lol.. right... if YOU say so..I guess it also DOESN'T condone SLAVERY..lol.. mmk.. I guess I should READ it more closely in order to understand the (pretty obvious) passages in reference to RAPE as well.
shamika1984, Yes, that's pretty-much it. Being a biased reader is not being an "Objective" reader. If sexual motives were not implied in the context, then don't make the implication. It's that simple. Forming strawman conclusions on Biblical passages is not the best way of making your point. It only shows lack of honest to goodness study and intellectually crippling bias.
Read the link I sent to you. And, read it with an honest perspective. Humility gets you to knowlefge faster than arrogance
How am I a biased reader..JoelJW?..Because I have taken time to read a book that CLEARLY states that slavely is NOT something looked down upon considering that in several passages God himself goes so far as to not only condone slavery but even goes as far as to tell how much to SELL them for and how to BRAND them as well as how hard you can BEAT THEM.. so I supposed IN YOUR mind I also misread those passages?
shamika1984, Actually, your assertion that God condones slavery is dealt with by the link I sent you. He did not. There is a vast difference between "Regulating" a practice and "Condoning" it.
For instance, God does not 'condone' divorce. Scripture states that emphatically. But, He 'regulates' it because it would have happened regardless.
In the same way, God regiulated slavery to keep the practice from being abused. And, ancient slaves were not made involuntarily. Read the link.
No it's NOT dealt with.. that is no more than some nutjob Christian attempting to explain away his screwed up interpretation of a clearly stated passage.
shamika1984 "No it's NOT dealt with.. that is no more than some nutjob Christian attempting to explain away his screwed up interpretation of a clearly stated passage."
Actually you're dead wrong. The author of that article offers far more historical and social evidence for the Scriptures on slavery than you have. All you have is a baseless implication. It wouldn't fly in court. Sorry.
And, if anyone else wants to read the site, let me know, and I'll send you the link. : )
If a God like entity has the power to STOP such a horrible practice such as slavery but instead decides to REGULATE its use then he is truely monstrous AND he CONDONES it. You do not regulate something you dont like when you HAVE the POWER to end it. Period. God didnt condone divorce but he did condone forced marriage even upon the grounds of RAPE.
shamika1984 "If a God like entity has the power to STOP such a horrible practice such as slavery but instead decides to REGULATE its use then he is truely monstrous AND he CONDONES it"
You're dead wrong about this too. Slavery in ancient times looked nothing like it did in early America. Read the link.
That's the problem with interpreting ancient history through a modern mindset.
No.. Im actually dead right.. If i told you that I hate the fact that I have a smoking problem yet I make absolutely NO attempt to STOP it but instead decide to regulate it.. would you take ME seriously?.. No you would be likely to tell me that I am full of shit because I HAVE the POWER to put a stop to it no matter how hard. Also It doesn't matter WHAT slavery was like back them.. it sure as hell wasnt equality. To even suggest that ANY kind of slavery was acceptable is atrocious.
shamika1984 "forced marriage even upon the grounds of RAPE."
You're wrong about this too, because it implies that God was forcing the victim into a situation that she didn't want to be in. In fact, the command was for her benefit. The one who harmed her was to take care of her the rest of her life. Read the context, and stop assuming that the ancient women thought and felt like "You" do. They did not. Their' laws and customs look alien to us because they thought differently in many things.
lol.. Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
shamika1984 "Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "
Context - "If in a city, a man lay with a virgin who was engaged to a man, then the authorities were to take the two of them to the town gate and stone them to death — the girl because she did not cry for help"
Always read the context. It's not rape. It's fornication between two consenting parties.
Thats funny Joel because usually when two CONSENTING people have relations.. One of the TWO usually has NO REASON to CRY OUT FOR HELP. Seems obvious to ME.He's being stoned because he VIOLATED his neighbors wife and the girl because she allowed HERSELF TO BE VIOLATED.
Joel.. ok lets stop for a minute because I am ASTOUNDED at what you have just written in regards to a woman being forced to marry her rapist as a form of benefit for "HER".. I seriously dont even know how to respond to such a ludicris statement. This is a prime example of the screwed up mindset of religious folks. To suggest such a thing is wow. Why in the world would a woman (regardless of the era)willingly marry a man who has violated her Joel?She didn't have a CHOICE JOEL.
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
Hey JoelJW... I fail to understand what you mean when you say " NO IMPLIED motives". Are we talking about the same book here? Also what Qualifies YOU fit for PROPER biblical analysis?. The fact that you like to twist around passages that make your God seem monstrous?
shamika1984 "The fact that you like to twist around passages that make your God seem monstrous?"
Don't make strawman arguments. I don't shirk difficult passages or twist them. But, I'm honest enough to look at the context, and not let bias influence my judgment. If you can't separate emotional reactivity from biblical study, you are in no place to offer conclusions on Scripture.
LMAO.. IIIII like to TWIST passages?..lmao.. OK if YOU say so JoelJW..you are a prime example of a manipulative Christian. I grew up in a Christian household so I have to say that it doesn't surprise me the length to which you are willing to go to in order to salvage your God's image. No matter how blatantly ridiculous.Strawman arguements?..Nice! Bias?..lol..How about this.. You dont let BIAS influence your judgement but you sure do allow niavity to cloud your judgement.
shamika1984, Your lates statement about bias and naivity is irrelevant. I'm actually a very skeptical believer. But, my skepticism is not based on emotional reaction. This leads me to much firmer ground with regards to study because I can see the Scriptures with clearer eyes. Making assertions based on unfounded implications is not as sound as forming conclusions based on the available context. Throwing the context out to support a biased interpretation is foolish.
Emotional?.. No.. My skeptism is based on LOGIC rather than some trumped up B.S that someone decided more appropriate. Also I fail to understand how these "implications" are anything but accurate. I mean have you READ this book? Also How can you base your opinion on anything OTHER than the available texts? Everything we know is based on the information that is available to us. Reading the text closer and with "clearer eyes" isn't going to CHANGE it's meaning and to think otherwise is foolish.
shamika1984"Emotional?.. No.. My skeptism is based on LOGIC rather than some trumped up B.S that someone decided more appropriate".
Logic teaches you to honor context. Not disregard it. It teaches you to be considerate of different times and places rather than inserting your own point of view on history. Logic is not about making baseless implications. Therefore you are not acting "Logically" when you imply that the Scripture means something that it clearly does not in 'context'.
How can you say that I am implying what it clearly doesn't?.. I think you have that the other way around .. YOU are implying that they mean something that they don't.
shamika1984 "How can you say that I am implying what it clearly doesn't?.. I think you have that the other way around .. YOU are implying that they mean something that they don't."
Not really. I am honest enough to let the 'context' do the explaining rather than bias. That is the difference between you and me. Read the link.
But you continuously use the word Biased. On what grounds am I biased?.. I have no problem with people who take part in religion and I also have no problem with religon itself. What I have a problem with are people who decided to twist things in an attempt to validate their postion.
shamika1984 "What I have a problem with are people who decided to twist things in an attempt to validate their postion."
You are biased because you read implications into the Scriptures that are not there. The link I sent you explains the scriptural and historical 'Context' of those passages, and you just dismissed it in your attempt to hold onto a baseless opinion that has no supporting evidence. (That) is Bias.
lol..thats is not being biased.. reading into things that are not there is a matter of delusion which I assure you i am NOT delusional but rather intelligent enough to understand when something is GOOD and something is BAD. Being biased is the act of having a tendency toward a particular persepective which I do not. I just read what the book says.
shamika1984 "Being biased is the act of having a tendency toward a particular persepective which I do not. I just read what the book says. "
No you do not. The example I used of the word "Gay" for instance. If you said that word back in Victorian times, people would not have pictured what they picture today.
You see then the folly of inserting your modern mindset onto a culture who did not think the way you do. You read into the text what it does not say, and that is not being wise.
We all know that the particular word "Gay" has deterred from its original meaning. That however is irrelevant to the question that I again will present.. When has VIOLATED ever been used in a positive manner?
shamika1984 "When has VIOLATED ever been used in a positive manner?"
Nobody ever said that it (was) used in a positive manner. The passage you are referring to is dealt with like this.
If a man had sex with another man's betrothed, if she did not cry out, it was up to the judges to conclude that the act was conbsentual. If no wounds were found that indicated that she could not have cried out for help, then that strengthened the case against her.......
Ok.. joel.. The woman was VIOLATED by the man and during she did not cry out which in turn resulted in her being stoned because of course back then THE WOMAN was the one responsible for calling for help and if she did not do she was the one held accountable. It is STILL happening in parts of the world TODAY. He on the other hand was found guilt of ONLY VIOLATING his neighbors wife..meaaning that RAPE charges were never brought up only ADULTERY on his behalf.
The Hebrew context disagrees with you. Your interpretation is not at all what the original word meant. There's a vast difference between the words "Shakab" which means to lie with, and "Chazaq" which means to force.
When verse 25 used the word "Chazaq", the woman is not killed. Only her attacker.
Well then MY suggestion Joel is that the publishers of the Bible then add a hebrew version along with a dictionary in order for us to dicipher what it REALLY written because as far as I am concerned it is written in ENGLISH and in ENGLISH it is pretty damn CLEAR. Regardless of what Hebrew interprets.. Violated in a sexual manner is to RAPE.. Period
shamika1984, "as far as I am concerned it is written in ENGLISH"
And, that is why you should not come to hasty conclusions regarding Scriptural text. You've got not only the barriers between ancient language and modern language to deal with, you also have cultural considerations and historical analysis as well to tackle. Reading the Bible as merely an "English" book is a horrible way to read it. It was not english people who wrote it.
shamika1984 "No.. I have WHAT is WRITTEN right in front of me.. which is obvious to me."
Many things are "Obvious" to those who form hasty conclusions. Honset study however would take the other linguistic, historical and cultural factors into consideration. Not even the english word used in the King James Version renders it "Rape" or "Violate". It renders it "Lie With"
Joel again I ask.. Why would it have been necessary for her to cry out for help if it was voluntary?.. It something is voluntary you would have no need to cry out.. You want to make it about hebrew and english when in reality you are dsregarding an entire half of the passage.And again.. I highly doubt that the translators would have used lay and lay together in the same passage when they OBVIOUSLY mean two different things.
shamika1984 "Why would it have been necessary for her to cry out for help if it was voluntary?"
Exactly the point. By her refusal to cry for help and resist, guilt was implied, in spite of her claim. Of course she would not cry out if it was voluntary. That was the point.
But the point im making here is that this woman was stoned for being RAPED and God didn't object. Do you not see a problem? Did God not allow for this woman to be wrongfully killed?
shamika1984 "But the point im making here is that this woman was stoned for being RAPED and God didn't object"
No, the point is that this verse is dealing with consentual sex, and an attempt at deception. Verse 25 clears up the idea of actual rape. The woman would not be killed for being raped. Only her attacker. The verse you are using says nothing of rape.
The verse I used deals directly with rape .. from the beginning to the end. It directly implies that she was to be killed for the simple fact that she did not cry for help.I fail to see how you separate cry for help and "lay with"... why would I cry for help if I willingly laid with you.. makes no sense what you are saying.
shamika1984 "I fail to see how you separate cry for help"
The reason you "Fail" to see it can be for one of two reasons. Either you are not making the connection between consentual act and denial of said consentual act to save one's life, or you are trying to save your own argument by making the verse say something it's clearly not saying. I've read it though, so I know. I've studied the words that are used. There's a vast difference between the Hebrew words "Lie With" and "Rape". Learn it.
No.. I am most deffinitely making the connection between the two very DIFFERENT acts.. it is YOU who cannot answer why a person would need to call for HELP though it is consentual. If I as a woman have any sort of need to call for some other person to HELP me during a sexual act that would mean that Something is happening that I obviously dont want to take place therefore causing me to seek HELP. Would YOU call for help in the middle of consentual sex Joel?
shamika1984 "it is YOU who cannot answer why a person would need to call for HELP though it is consentual"
Okay, let me spell it out for you. Two people are found having sex. The woman is the wife of another man. She did not cry out for help, so the judges conclude that the act was consentual.
She then lies to protect herself, saying she was violated, but she has no evidence of "Chazaq", or of being forced. So, the evidence points to consent.
lol.. Joel let me spell this out for YOU.. she should have cried out for HELP.. RAPE joel... if it was not rape then why wouldnt it simply say that she should have abstained?.. THEN it would not imply rape.Also why if it is consentual would she need to PROTECT herself?.. YOU are grasping at straws Joel.
If I am willingly having sex with you I would have no need to PROTECT myself from you.. if I didn't want to I would have simply said NO and that would have been the end of it. You are not understanding how the words are put together to implicate RAPE.
shamika1984 "If I am willingly having sex with you I would have no need to PROTECT myself from you."
Agreed. But, if the law of the land meant your "death" for it, you would have a reason to lie and accuse me of "raping" you to save your own skin, even though you originally consented. And, since you did not cry out, and no evidence of force could be found, you would be found just as guilty as I was if such laws applied today.
Ok.. so if God commanded that she be punished for something that wasnt her fault.. (I mean the Bible is supposed to be the word of God is it not)? the question then becomes.. isn't it more likely that this book was NOT the word of God but rather the laws of MEN?
shamika1984 "so if God commanded that she be punished for something that wasnt her fault"
That is "Your" interpretation. The language itself disagrees with you. You're clinging to a false shadow here, and calling it substance. It's not going to work. The context rebutts you quite soundly.
No.. not my interpretation.. did YOU not just say that those were the LAWS?.. is the bible not GODS law Joel?The language agrees with me completely.. it is YOU who does not.. I understand it clearly even while using the hebrew meaning of violate.. i understand that to lay with and to cry for help means something BAD.
shamika1984 "i understand that to lay with and to cry for help means something BAD"
The way you understand the scripture is faulty. Plain and simple. People can tell lies to protect themselves. That is what the verse is dealing with. She gave no cry for help, and no evidence of force could be found. Therefore, any claim of "Rape" she makes to save herself is nullified.
No.. it is NOT faulty.. I hardly think that the guy who believes that a woman screaming for help during a sexual act can rightly judge MY interpretation without seriously taking his own interpretation into account. I am no more faulty in my interpretation than you THINK you are.
Yes, it is. Because you're intentionally denying what the original language intends to say so you can justify your own interpretation of it. To lie with, as verse 23 asserts, and to be "Forced" to lie with as verse 25 asserts are two entirely different things.
lol..what?.. you keep going back to this and I keep saying the same thing.. ONE WORD JOEL.. ONE WORD does not change the whole meaning of the passage.. again.. a rapist DOES "lay with" his victim.. and given the chance a victim SHOULD scream for help. You are implying that the entire Book is faulty because it is interpreted wrong.
shamika1984"ONE WORD does not change the whole meaning of the passage"
No, but it does show that "Your" meaning is in error. The verse does not need to be changed. There is no act of "Force" in it. There is in verse 25 however. And, in the verse that actually (Does) discuss rape, the woman is vindicated, not judged.
Sorry, but your interpretation doesn't fly. The Scripture itself has defeated your assertion.
No it does NOT... the verse is perfect in its interpretation of rape.. what I think you want or expect Joel.. is for the actual word RAPE to be used in order for it to be really considered rape.lol.. But a person who understands implications wouldnt need such a blantant statement to get it....If I told you that "A man lay with me and I screamed for help" what would YOU take that to mean joel?.. Take into account i am not using Violate but instead using it in its original hebrew meaning.
shamika1984 "the verse is perfect in its interpretation of rape"
No it's not. If it were, we would not be having this conversation.
"If I told you that "A man lay with me and I screamed for help" what would YOU take that to mean joel"
I would take it to mean you were raped. And, if the woman in the passage did the same thing, she would have been believed. She would have had evidence of her non-consent. She didn't however, therefore she was judged guilty.
lol.. hypocricy.. was it not you who wrote in several posts that she made a "claim" which could NOT be provin and therefore her "claim" was considered to be false and she was doomed to be stoned?Where does it say she DIDN'T make such claim?where does it say she did?.. I sure didnt see THAT. It just said IF SHE DON'T CALL FOR HELP.PERIOD... you have just admitted that it IMPLIES RAPE. Thank YOU!
shamika1984 "Where does it say she DIDN'T make such claim?"
The context of the passage implies it. In verse 23, the act is not an act of violence, otherwise it would have been described similarly to verse 25. So, the woman is guilty by lack of evidence, implying that she was lying to protect herself. Her claim of innocence would not be good enough. Evidence mattered, just like it does today.
Exactly.. so in God's eyes a woman without evidence should be stoned. The point i am trying to make Joel.. is why would a righteous moral God deem it necessary to create a law hurting the victim?.. I as a woman find it sexist and astonishgly perverse. I have never been through such trama but i know it could happen to me at anytime.. I could only imagine what it would have been like to have been alive during that time and to be vilified simply due to the lack of evidence.. just horrible.
lol.. Joel Joel Joel.. scroll down and see what you wrote when I asked you what it would sound like if I presented it to you please...you may be surprised at your admission. it was raped... and regardless if she was vindicated it still does not answer my question..why was it a law in the first place.God wouldnt do such a thing.
So is that NOT hypocricy according to HIS OWN LAW?...and what particular victim are we referring to because I wasnt referring to any particular woman considering it was a law which would have affected ALL women. So what is it... does God not know how to make up his damn mind or something or is he just simply screwing with peoples lives here?
Which had the same potential to commit sin as all "Men." Which also meant that sin had to be dealt with so it wouldn't have ruined the nation of Israel.
Victims were not condemed?.. oh excuse me but from what I read THEY WERE.. If you are a victim but didnt call for help well.. bye bye bitch is pretty much the gist.
shamika1984 "If you are a victim but didnt call for help well"
Actually, the evidence would not support that. If a victim of rape knew that she would be stoned to death if she did not resist her attacker, she had a lot more to fear from being judged than her attacker.
And besides, assuming that victims would have remained silent under threat is not evidence. It's just a scenario.
I refuse to believe that MY God.. would allow me to be violated and then turn around and violated me (in a whole different form)again by violating my trust in him. Why would he allow me to be punished for something that was out of my control..God is better than what this book discribes him to be. Atleast I believe so.The character in this book is evil and his punishment is arbitrary.
shamika1984 "Why would he allow me to be punished for something that was out of my control"
He wouldn't. That verse has nothing to do with "You". It was given in a time when moral standards were low, and God had to make sure that people feared to disobey. Read the ten commandments. They deal with how people should treat one another.
lol.. Joel.. we already went over this.. is doesnt matter WHEN God gave the original command.. all that matters is that a supposed all powerful and righteous God allow it to take place upon HIS word. You seem to be under the impression that THOSE people and their plight dont matter because well.. it was a long long time ago and well times were different. HOW?. were they not PEOPLE with feelings and emotions who deserved to be treated FAIRLY?.. were THOSE women diserving of such brutality?
So should women in this day and age who dont have evidence of their attack be vilified because they cant prove it joel? What about women who have been raped but the attacker (in this day and age)wore a condom therefore leaving no physical evidence? what if she cant prove who this man is because she didnt see his face?.. Do you NOT believe her and disregard her claim?
shamika1984 "Do you NOT believe her and disregard her claim?"
Many innocent men have been accused by vindictive women of crimes they didn't commit, and vice versa. Unless evidence of violence is actually present, the "Claim" is not good enough to warrant conviction.
@BigMessInPinkHeels I agree with u there, that is why I am no part of religion.
MrUNIXman 1 month ago
anything atheist are more humbled then Christians.I use to believe in Christ til i was BETRAYED,JUDGE & PUT DOWN by a christian asshole in my family,that's what drove me to atheism. if that's what Jesus is condoning i want no part of it.By The Way EXCELLENT VIDEO YOU SET A PERFECT EXAMPLE. :-)
Guitarriff1988ii 2 months ago 2
@Guitarriff1988ii same here im not exactly athiest but it seems that way. during school i said one thing bad and they all judged me and my friend. THERE all 2 face
DanJinwonKim 2 months ago
@bodid50 this is BEAUTIFUL. thank you for sharing your heart.
poetessbritt 2 months ago
You're talking about the "dark Christians". They're the Christians on the right wing of politics. They are hateful people who have truly lost their way.
Luckily, there are still Christians around who actually care about people and believe in forgiveness and social justice just like Jesus and many of the atheists, Jews, and Muslims do. So don't forget about us reasonable Christians on the left. We're right here with you dude. And one more thing, we except everything from science too.
SuperToughnut 4 months ago
You should be pissed off at those lunatics and so should the entire planet- a religion that teaches that God will send you to Hell, if you don't abide by his endless NO-NO list, while religious hypocrites and loonies rake in your money, is a disease that threatens the prospect for an enlightened and more equitable society(meaning fewer rich PEOPLE, more justice for us). Ever wonder why 99.9% of all die-hard republicans are bible quoting evangelicals? It's cause the bible wants us to be SLAVES !
lotuseater999 4 months ago
The atheists, not all of them, but many blame the world problems on Christians, despite the error falls more on man's bad decisions in general regardless of faith.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
The guy in this video is right to an extent; however, he neither does speak for all Christians nor as all Christians. Though I must question why true believers who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit are directing toward atheist and not the darkness that holds them in spiritual death and bondage?
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
@wattsnick30 They will in due time for those who don't take the mark of the beast, except those who they deem insane will be killed. I hope you don't take the mark of the beast out of ignorance.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
@wattsnick30 His death is not for you to sin again. His death is for your ability to ask for forgiveness and turn from your sins with a sincere heart. Instead of burning sheep and taking a trip to Jerusalem you can simply trust in Christ and believe he'll help you with your problems.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
I totally agree with this video. We Christians can't blame Atheists for all of the problems. Ha, I was just about to post Ephesians 6:12 . You beat me to it (in the vid). Very inspirational
DragonBreathJeff 6 months ago
They are being hypocrites. In fact those Judgmental Fundamentalists have nothing to do with Christianity in anyway.
judaemic 6 months ago
@wattsnick30 That isn't what their religion says, they link Atheism with Satan blinding people. It doesn't make sense bc "God" wants people to abuse themselves into belief, or else they'll go to hell (belief is not choice, even when called being smart or "Satan's blinding powers of mass destruction"). God isn't a very nice imaginary friend (see Jesus Camp kid).
"Jesus & God" are definitely no saints considering the appalling things done to both non-followers and followers in order to be "saved".
Bourtini 6 months ago
@Bourtini I agree that god isn't very nice. In fact, to me, god is the satanic one. I thorougly reject Yahweh because any deity who demands that you worship it or you will burn in hell for an eternity is a sick, evil, petty, scummy, egotistical, vile deity whose character flaws make him an even lesser creature than the very lowest of humans.
StarsAbove100 5 months ago
Really liked your video.
Hate to say this but one point is incorrect. You were dead on with hypocrisy linking with some members but, some churches of Christianity have a war with Atheists because it's a war against sin; sin, to some Christians, is the non-belief in Jesus. Some Christians in this war on sin are sinners because they spread a message to nonbelievers in a hostile, contemptuous and rude manner. I appreciate your message of love because those who won't convert do not deserve hate.
Bourtini 6 months ago
I am a 28 year old x-evangelical athiest from a family that is still Christian, and I would have to say that this video is one of the most honest and true-to-Biblical-teachings rants that I have ever seen. I am no longer a self proclaimed Christian thanks to all the hypocritical people this guy is talking about, but I still do respect Jesus' teachings and I just wish their were more "Christians" like this guy that really use Bible verses without taking them out of context....props man!
graphixfanatic 6 months ago
@graphixfanatic You can't blame hypocritical Christians for your falling away from Christ. You should have and have a need to keep your trust in Christ instead. But it's your choice.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
I have to disagree with the title bro. If you find someone who's judgmental or hateful they're most likely not Christians.
The79Machine 7 months ago
@2682nscovell I'm beginning to think that maybe I do have a bias against Christians, originating from my opinion of my grandfather. I would explain why I despise him so, but all that's ever gotten me is pity. That or people use it to make fun of me, neither of which I want.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell Firstly, I'm a girl. Secondly, I'm smart enough to know that I don't know much of anything. Do I think I know the world a bit better than most of my peers I'm aware of (per se, the kids in my grade), yes. Do I really know the world? Not really. Maybe I am whiney, but it's because of the people that constantly persecute me and others. I don't come in contact with many people that aren't Christian, as I am from a Christian community, so all I ever know is the Christian influence.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell Evedentally you're too set on the path of self-righteousness to see what's really here. There are bad Christians. What are the odds that I haven't been persecuted sometime in this life? You don't know me. You don't know the hell I've gone through, and not just because of the atheism either. I HAVE been through hell, but I didn't show it by dying my hair black and joining a clique that may or may not understand me. I'm stronger than that. You don't have a fucking clue.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell Right... So basically, I'm a child and believe in something other than what you believe so I deserve to be persecuted. Not just by you, but by my classmates, and the people on youtube, and my grandfather before he died. THAT'S what this is about. Not some whiny kid looking to make trouble. Not some jerk looking to justify innocent Christians. It's about the Christians, about the anyone, who persecute others because they're different. This isn't about me or you, it's everywhere.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell tch. Hardly. The emo kids I go to school with would beat the living hell out of you for saying I was one of them. I'm an outcast. So are my two friends. I'm anthropophobic. I don't fit well in any group. In any case, my grandfather was a Fundamentalist Christian. An Evangelist. I don't even want to start talking about him.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell No, chief bitch, I meant that it's not just some bias I have against Christians. I'm just tired of Fundies ragging on me because I'm atheist, ok? Do you comprehend?
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@2682nscovell No, not every Christian. My best friend is Catholic. I'm cool with her. I don't keep track of every douche bag I talk to, especially when their username doesn't appear to have any rhyme or reason to it that I recognize. You can't honestly believe it doesn't happen. I'm not making Christians into something they aren't. It's just a matter of a fact that some Christians are jerks. There are jerks in every religion, of course, it's just Christians I've come into contact with.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
Wow, thanks Buddy! Respect.
Roland2581 7 months ago
@2682nscovell They use it quite often... "God is punishing the world because you don't believe in him and we all have to suffer because of it..." Blah, blah, blah. A whole lot of hateful crap from people who worship a "loving" god.
JaceaRise 7 months ago
@JoannsReborns2011 SEND ME A MESSAGE IF YOU WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT BUDDHISM?
Buddhist1986 8 months ago
All your points are right on the money. Christ was a "Progressive" figure wether it was in his dealings with other people, other cultures, the organised religious or the politics of the day. I take my own sence of humanity, my sence of Christianity (Catholism) & my own limited influence on promoting "Progressive" policies in world politics from the New Testament. A shame on the Christians who focus to much on the "Old Testament" & all the categorizing for ill purposes that people embrace with it
MichaelPAUSA 8 months ago
You had it almost right, Jesus's biggest problem was with the "HYPOCRITES" which definitely includes most Christians.
shitfacedprincess99 8 months ago
the whole concept of there being one correct religion is something that only simpletons like most christians believe. if god is a christian, then hes a dick and he can go to hell
ddvs2012 8 months ago
YOUVE GOT IT GUY AMEN!
missionstudiosFL 1 year ago
Dude I completely agree with you! Thank you for making this video! :)
UnfamiliarStranger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wrote a song about judgmental people.... come check it out in my vids.. its called blacksong...I understand completely!
Soundslikeshavon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AngelJenny55 sends her regrds:
(Christian doctrine & AngelJenny)
if you write to me again I will call the police. You are stalking me, and believe me, they take this seriously.
TJae1 1 year ago
I couldn't agree with you more!! well said
BradCreatedDisco 1 year ago
You see peoples, Jesus said "If you judge you shall be judged", we are already judged for our sins by the father and sense we have already been judged for this, we have the right to warn people of this judgement.
Domodeath 1 year ago
hey bodid50..whatever religious Christians you've been talking to have it all wrong with "blaming Atheists with EVERYTHING bad in the world"..don't bash them on Youtube, but hopefully go to them in love and humility and let them know their faults..Galatians 6:1...btw with unbelievers you want to befriend them, but not "be friends" with them...there's a difference....ur testimony is thru ur life and the light that shines thru you....Matt 5:16
Enrichardson 1 year ago
I agree.your interpretation of Ephesians 6:12 is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. We as Christians should just spread the Good News and let God do the rest. When we judge someone for disbelief we are no different than they are. An atheist is not the enemy; the enemies are those principalities, and powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. The biggest distraction of a Christian is focusing on those on earth with us as the enemy; meanwhile Satan moves on to do evil
FruitFullServant 1 year ago
If it wasnt for sin then we wouldnt be having this dialogue. Its not about athiests or Christians. Sin is like most diseases in that it know no boundaries. Boths groups are full of sinners so we are all in the same boat so to speak. We as Chistians must share our faith and beliefs with those that will hear and then let God do the rest. Your interpretation of the Ephesian 6:12 is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!! As I said we are all in the same boat and at some point we must come together.
FruitFullServant 1 year ago
right on man, i hate them judging me all the time, what a bunch of dicks
06spe09 1 year ago
Great vid! Could'nt agree more.
'Hell knows no fury like a Christian who has been shown the Truth."
NoHellForeverandever 1 year ago
judgemental/hateful christians suck. its actually pretty sad because it makes the good christians, look bad and it gives them a bad reputation because people form the opinion that all christians are like this.
THEALTERNATIVEWEIRDO 1 year ago
We atheist blame religion in the same way I think; which is just stupid. everyone should be able to do whatever they want. I just think that some people of the christian faith ( with political power ) use it to enforce their morals over others.
UprisingOfTheYawn 1 year ago
. Just we wouldn't be around to see how amazing it all really is. We just to have to look up at night and relise, we are just something very small somewhere in something very big. And it's up to us to learn and understand this :)
liam110885 1 year ago
I don't want to end on a sad note but we have to understand. Everything here in this beautiful world is here due to coinsidence. If we was to all vanish the universe would simply carry on as it is. The planets would keep spinning and time would continue.
liam110885 1 year ago
science is there to truely understand what it is going on around us. To understand why and how we are here. Because it's just too easy for someone to say it is like that because god wanted it that way. Just too easy.
liam110885 1 year ago
It brings warmth and life to plants and food for us to grow but we don't have to belive this now due to science. But just because we know this for fact that it's a burning ball of gas doesn't make it less beautiful.
liam110885 1 year ago
To me faith is a very primitive way of thinking and I don't say this in a arrogant, belittling or patronising way at all but we now live in a world that sadly christian catholic and anyother faith is cancelled out by science. Think of it this way. Before god was a non entity, we beleived the sun was the all mighty god, and why wouldn't you?
liam110885 1 year ago
The real only benifit I can see with peoples believes with their god or gods is a comfort with a sence of belonging. People today need a sence if belonging wether it be a belonging to a faith or belonging with friend or family.
liam110885 1 year ago
Ok by the look of the vid this guy is a Christian. I understand his views and see no harm in them. I feel sad that people still need to look at god for answers. Without athiests and scientists you would never have the computers we use now to express your believes.
liam110885 1 year ago
im a christian but I dont believe its right to judge people, because , everyone is entitled to their own belief, one of my good friends is an athiest because we dont let differences come between us
cocobutter1983 1 year ago
@cocobutter1983 wow ... impressive ... good for you.
irendelle 1 year ago
I am a christian and I am frankly tired of war. I can't even figure out how they equate love and war. If christ died over love??? Think about it killing in the name of love is like saying I am so happy about being depressed. Of course neither is possible.
lucy9359 2 years ago
Let me guess "All Christians can't spell" now right? YAWN.
ihateneveen 2 years ago
Yea, b/c you know it's only CHRISTIANS that are hatefula and narrowminded. Boy, I am sick of hearing the same lame accusations
ihateneveen 2 years ago
I am a christian and agree with you. Very well said.
DezzyRayz 2 years ago
Took the words right out of my mouth. Awesome dude.
Johnboks 2 years ago
Im a Christian, and I think your right. According to 1 Corinthians 5:13 we are not to judge those outside the church. The Christians who are saying all of our world problems are because of athiests are naive. For instance, most Christians voted for the war in iraq. Thats just one example. Jesus never promoted violence or anger. He promoted peace. So all you Christians out there, read your bible. Love people, treat others as you would like to be treated. Follow Christ. Dont use words, use action.
Johnboks 2 years ago 2
@Johnboks Talk like a REAL Christian ... GOD must be very proud of you! May your race increase!!!
irendelle 1 year ago
bodid50 nailed things with this video
ramenlover7000 2 years ago
Never get tired watchin this video .. thanks bodhi!
irendelle 2 years ago
i get really tired of christians telling me that i secretly believe in god and that i have all these secret thoughts in my head that i won't talk about etc.
it's that sort of thing that annoys me as they think they're always right when most of the time they're wrong
GarryW05 2 years ago
dude,,,your quoting from a ancient book.
you're just another Christian appolgetic.
dazamaru 2 years ago
cont..
..and most of all our ethics and morale come from a humane and intelligent contemplation of the issues in question by contemporary fellow humans, and not from a 4-2000 year old book written by power-hungry men living in the desert. Our way is the most humane and right thing to do. And you know it! Why you have to "interpret"?
The proof:
10-15 percent of USA population is atheist
0.2% of the inmates in prisons are atheist.
It's something to think about Bodid!
Have a nice day!:)
daNorse 2 years ago
Those athiest statistics are quite off.
xdairybastardx 2 years ago
cont..
But I'm sorry to tell you that you will NEVER "convert" an atheist by setting an "example" of good deeds. Atheists number such people as Buddha, Einstein, Gandi,... And the most "atheist" countries in the world - Norway, Sweden, Denmark - all have in common:
Lowest crime rates
Highest social benefits
Lowest murder rates
Most peace-loving countries
Giving most to charity
Active in peace talks around the world
Programs for third-world countries
Richest and safest countries...
daNorse 2 years ago
i lived in sweden...and you are totally right.
except for the fact that those countries are going backwards in their acomplishments because of muslim fundamentalist coming as inmigrants.
fuck religion!!
odinmp5 2 years ago
Hi Bodid!
Hopefully you see this since it's not so crowded in here...
I'm an atheist and I salute your sincerity -- it's rare among (western) christians.
For one you appear to have read the bible -- I read it from start to end 3 times (that's why I'm an atheist). It's true that the legend Jesus Christ in the fictional story in the the bible DID have most of his issues with the religious people of his time. But, that is WHY he was starting a new religion. It's just sensible...
daNorse 2 years ago
Lets be REAL about this
gandhara496 2 years ago
but your still trying to show people theyre wrong and your god will still judge them and torture them for eternity, so whats the difference lol, i mean come on. wheres god's love for those people once they die and go to hell? so love makes no difference then to your god in the end if they dont convert.
gandhara496 2 years ago
you know what? the bible is so old thy should write a new one that fits into our modern world....the storys are about 2009 years old and the times have changed alot...and i know i will be crucified for this but i hate almost every religion..think about it....they caused so many wars and pain over the centurys and it goes on and on..for what? why dont the gods fight eachother in the sky or where they are...stupid religions...stupid people..believe in whatever you want but leave me out of it
assasin1754 2 years ago
Amen, your exactly right a person that states they are a christian and reacts with others with condemnation and hate are exactly like you said just "religous "because it's by God's grace we are saved and it has nothing to do with the merit of man.We are all sinners no one is exempt from there sin.Christian has become a loosely used term and is being misrepresented by individuals that have not received the Holy Spirit therefore aren't saved at all no renewing of their minds or hearts.
skilla23 2 years ago
There is a difference between Preaching and judging. Big one. Christians are told not to judge. That is up to God.
heupiedupey 2 years ago
SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX :D
Unknnnnn 2 years ago
SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX :D : I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic :(
irendelle 2 years ago
SEXXXXXXXXXXXXX? :o
Unknnnnn 2 years ago
Replies are via the comment brd.
TJae1 2 years ago
AngelJenny55 now says:
if you write to me again I will call the police. You are stalking me, and believe me, they take this seriously.
TJae1 2 years ago
If you put these people on block they can't bother you. I don't know what this is about but just delete them. Someone threatened my life and you tube took them off. Lots of luck.
heupiedupey 2 years ago
AngelJenny55 was resorting to threat(s) ~ coz, she's, higly allegeric to objectivity ~ I'll keep a dialogue open w/n reason ~ yeah, it's obnoxious no doubt, she stopped, once her threats, were scoffed.
TJae1 2 years ago
1:15 "If it wasn't for atheists, we wouldn't have wars ..." Well does that include the CRUSADES and JIHADS ... too? Why yes! Hitler was an atheist, others would say. LOL. It is quite evident that these people lack research. LOL. Excellent observation, btw my friend! Kudos!
irendelle 2 years ago
"Actually I see Jesus spending His time with the sinful ones and the atheists and loving them ..."1:44-45
I agree. To the disgust of MODERN pharisees IF He were born today, I presume they would reproach Him and condescendingly say:
"Is that your preacher? A friend of atheists, witches and immorals?"
Well---as it was BEFORE, so it is TODAY.
Nothing's new under the sun really.
Excellent observation btw bodid, have a great day!
irendelle 2 years ago
Jesus was and is a friend of sinful ones. Who among us is without sin? He died for our sins. Jesus loves everyone. Would that we all could be that way but we are just sinners saved by grace.
heupiedupey 2 years ago
Aaaaaa---men! I could just imagine Him making up a parable about the Good Muslim, Atheist or Buddhist today in the hearing of a Christian, as He did made a parable about a good Samaritan in the hearing of a Jew (who harbors hard-feelings n resetment towards them). GBU, heu!
irendelle 2 years ago
I love everyone.
Hodassa 2 years ago 3
will you dickhead Christians stop posting stupid comments like you need to be saved from evil or you are a sinner. You all claim to be trying to save people from evil or hell yet religion is the main cause of death and hate.
nobody cares use a bit of logic please
rockieroadmate666 3 years ago
Where is your logic honey? If you don't like what is being said about the Lord, then quit reading what is being written. What do you mean no body cares? I care and a lot of others do too.
heupiedupey 2 years ago
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984, I'll send you some links that should clear up some of your confusion.
"selling your own daughter as a sex slave"
You've actually misread the text. Go back and look at it without reading into it what is not there. Remember, good scholarship does not read motives into the texts where no motives are implied. Unless you're willing to study without inserting unimplied meanings and hasty judgments, you're not fit for proper Biblical analysis.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Lol.. right... if YOU say so..I guess it also DOESN'T condone SLAVERY..lol.. mmk.. I guess I should READ it more closely in order to understand the (pretty obvious) passages in reference to RAPE as well.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984, Yes, that's pretty-much it. Being a biased reader is not being an "Objective" reader. If sexual motives were not implied in the context, then don't make the implication. It's that simple. Forming strawman conclusions on Biblical passages is not the best way of making your point. It only shows lack of honest to goodness study and intellectually crippling bias.
Read the link I sent to you. And, read it with an honest perspective. Humility gets you to knowlefge faster than arrogance
JoelJW 2 years ago
How am I a biased reader..JoelJW?..Because I have taken time to read a book that CLEARLY states that slavely is NOT something looked down upon considering that in several passages God himself goes so far as to not only condone slavery but even goes as far as to tell how much to SELL them for and how to BRAND them as well as how hard you can BEAT THEM.. so I supposed IN YOUR mind I also misread those passages?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984, Actually, your assertion that God condones slavery is dealt with by the link I sent you. He did not. There is a vast difference between "Regulating" a practice and "Condoning" it.
For instance, God does not 'condone' divorce. Scripture states that emphatically. But, He 'regulates' it because it would have happened regardless.
In the same way, God regiulated slavery to keep the practice from being abused. And, ancient slaves were not made involuntarily. Read the link.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No it's NOT dealt with.. that is no more than some nutjob Christian attempting to explain away his screwed up interpretation of a clearly stated passage.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "No it's NOT dealt with.. that is no more than some nutjob Christian attempting to explain away his screwed up interpretation of a clearly stated passage."
Actually you're dead wrong. The author of that article offers far more historical and social evidence for the Scriptures on slavery than you have. All you have is a baseless implication. It wouldn't fly in court. Sorry.
And, if anyone else wants to read the site, let me know, and I'll send you the link. : )
JoelJW 2 years ago
If a God like entity has the power to STOP such a horrible practice such as slavery but instead decides to REGULATE its use then he is truely monstrous AND he CONDONES it. You do not regulate something you dont like when you HAVE the POWER to end it. Period. God didnt condone divorce but he did condone forced marriage even upon the grounds of RAPE.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "If a God like entity has the power to STOP such a horrible practice such as slavery but instead decides to REGULATE its use then he is truely monstrous AND he CONDONES it"
You're dead wrong about this too. Slavery in ancient times looked nothing like it did in early America. Read the link.
That's the problem with interpreting ancient history through a modern mindset.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No.. Im actually dead right.. If i told you that I hate the fact that I have a smoking problem yet I make absolutely NO attempt to STOP it but instead decide to regulate it.. would you take ME seriously?.. No you would be likely to tell me that I am full of shit because I HAVE the POWER to put a stop to it no matter how hard. Also It doesn't matter WHAT slavery was like back them.. it sure as hell wasnt equality. To even suggest that ANY kind of slavery was acceptable is atrocious.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "forced marriage even upon the grounds of RAPE."
You're wrong about this too, because it implies that God was forcing the victim into a situation that she didn't want to be in. In fact, the command was for her benefit. The one who harmed her was to take care of her the rest of her life. Read the context, and stop assuming that the ancient women thought and felt like "You" do. They did not. Their' laws and customs look alien to us because they thought differently in many things.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "
Context - "If in a city, a man lay with a virgin who was engaged to a man, then the authorities were to take the two of them to the town gate and stone them to death — the girl because she did not cry for help"
Always read the context. It's not rape. It's fornication between two consenting parties.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Thats funny Joel because usually when two CONSENTING people have relations.. One of the TWO usually has NO REASON to CRY OUT FOR HELP. Seems obvious to ME.He's being stoned because he VIOLATED his neighbors wife and the girl because she allowed HERSELF TO BE VIOLATED.
shamika1984 2 years ago
Joel.. ok lets stop for a minute because I am ASTOUNDED at what you have just written in regards to a woman being forced to marry her rapist as a form of benefit for "HER".. I seriously dont even know how to respond to such a ludicris statement. This is a prime example of the screwed up mindset of religious folks. To suggest such a thing is wow. Why in the world would a woman (regardless of the era)willingly marry a man who has violated her Joel?She didn't have a CHOICE JOEL.
shamika1984 2 years ago
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
shamika1984 2 years ago
Hey JoelJW... I fail to understand what you mean when you say " NO IMPLIED motives". Are we talking about the same book here? Also what Qualifies YOU fit for PROPER biblical analysis?. The fact that you like to twist around passages that make your God seem monstrous?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "The fact that you like to twist around passages that make your God seem monstrous?"
Don't make strawman arguments. I don't shirk difficult passages or twist them. But, I'm honest enough to look at the context, and not let bias influence my judgment. If you can't separate emotional reactivity from biblical study, you are in no place to offer conclusions on Scripture.
JoelJW 2 years ago
LMAO.. IIIII like to TWIST passages?..lmao.. OK if YOU say so JoelJW..you are a prime example of a manipulative Christian. I grew up in a Christian household so I have to say that it doesn't surprise me the length to which you are willing to go to in order to salvage your God's image. No matter how blatantly ridiculous.Strawman arguements?..Nice! Bias?..lol..How about this.. You dont let BIAS influence your judgement but you sure do allow niavity to cloud your judgement.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984, Your lates statement about bias and naivity is irrelevant. I'm actually a very skeptical believer. But, my skepticism is not based on emotional reaction. This leads me to much firmer ground with regards to study because I can see the Scriptures with clearer eyes. Making assertions based on unfounded implications is not as sound as forming conclusions based on the available context. Throwing the context out to support a biased interpretation is foolish.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Emotional?.. No.. My skeptism is based on LOGIC rather than some trumped up B.S that someone decided more appropriate. Also I fail to understand how these "implications" are anything but accurate. I mean have you READ this book? Also How can you base your opinion on anything OTHER than the available texts? Everything we know is based on the information that is available to us. Reading the text closer and with "clearer eyes" isn't going to CHANGE it's meaning and to think otherwise is foolish.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984"Emotional?.. No.. My skeptism is based on LOGIC rather than some trumped up B.S that someone decided more appropriate".
Logic teaches you to honor context. Not disregard it. It teaches you to be considerate of different times and places rather than inserting your own point of view on history. Logic is not about making baseless implications. Therefore you are not acting "Logically" when you imply that the Scripture means something that it clearly does not in 'context'.
JoelJW 2 years ago
How can you say that I am implying what it clearly doesn't?.. I think you have that the other way around .. YOU are implying that they mean something that they don't.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "How can you say that I am implying what it clearly doesn't?.. I think you have that the other way around .. YOU are implying that they mean something that they don't."
Not really. I am honest enough to let the 'context' do the explaining rather than bias. That is the difference between you and me. Read the link.
JoelJW 2 years ago
But you continuously use the word Biased. On what grounds am I biased?.. I have no problem with people who take part in religion and I also have no problem with religon itself. What I have a problem with are people who decided to twist things in an attempt to validate their postion.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "What I have a problem with are people who decided to twist things in an attempt to validate their postion."
You are biased because you read implications into the Scriptures that are not there. The link I sent you explains the scriptural and historical 'Context' of those passages, and you just dismissed it in your attempt to hold onto a baseless opinion that has no supporting evidence. (That) is Bias.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol..thats is not being biased.. reading into things that are not there is a matter of delusion which I assure you i am NOT delusional but rather intelligent enough to understand when something is GOOD and something is BAD. Being biased is the act of having a tendency toward a particular persepective which I do not. I just read what the book says.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Being biased is the act of having a tendency toward a particular persepective which I do not. I just read what the book says. "
No you do not. The example I used of the word "Gay" for instance. If you said that word back in Victorian times, people would not have pictured what they picture today.
You see then the folly of inserting your modern mindset onto a culture who did not think the way you do. You read into the text what it does not say, and that is not being wise.
JoelJW 2 years ago
We all know that the particular word "Gay" has deterred from its original meaning. That however is irrelevant to the question that I again will present.. When has VIOLATED ever been used in a positive manner?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "When has VIOLATED ever been used in a positive manner?"
Nobody ever said that it (was) used in a positive manner. The passage you are referring to is dealt with like this.
If a man had sex with another man's betrothed, if she did not cry out, it was up to the judges to conclude that the act was conbsentual. If no wounds were found that indicated that she could not have cried out for help, then that strengthened the case against her.......
JoelJW 2 years ago
Ok.. joel.. The woman was VIOLATED by the man and during she did not cry out which in turn resulted in her being stoned because of course back then THE WOMAN was the one responsible for calling for help and if she did not do she was the one held accountable. It is STILL happening in parts of the world TODAY. He on the other hand was found guilt of ONLY VIOLATING his neighbors wife..meaaning that RAPE charges were never brought up only ADULTERY on his behalf.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Ok.. joel.. The woman was VIOLATED"
The Hebrew context disagrees with you. Your interpretation is not at all what the original word meant. There's a vast difference between the words "Shakab" which means to lie with, and "Chazaq" which means to force.
When verse 25 used the word "Chazaq", the woman is not killed. Only her attacker.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Well then MY suggestion Joel is that the publishers of the Bible then add a hebrew version along with a dictionary in order for us to dicipher what it REALLY written because as far as I am concerned it is written in ENGLISH and in ENGLISH it is pretty damn CLEAR. Regardless of what Hebrew interprets.. Violated in a sexual manner is to RAPE.. Period
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984, "as far as I am concerned it is written in ENGLISH"
And, that is why you should not come to hasty conclusions regarding Scriptural text. You've got not only the barriers between ancient language and modern language to deal with, you also have cultural considerations and historical analysis as well to tackle. Reading the Bible as merely an "English" book is a horrible way to read it. It was not english people who wrote it.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No.. I have WHAT is WRITTEN right in front of me.. which is obvious to me. Also RAPE is decribed within the hebrew Bible as well.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "No.. I have WHAT is WRITTEN right in front of me.. which is obvious to me."
Many things are "Obvious" to those who form hasty conclusions. Honset study however would take the other linguistic, historical and cultural factors into consideration. Not even the english word used in the King James Version renders it "Rape" or "Violate". It renders it "Lie With"
JoelJW 2 years ago
Joel again I ask.. Why would it have been necessary for her to cry out for help if it was voluntary?.. It something is voluntary you would have no need to cry out.. You want to make it about hebrew and english when in reality you are dsregarding an entire half of the passage.And again.. I highly doubt that the translators would have used lay and lay together in the same passage when they OBVIOUSLY mean two different things.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Why would it have been necessary for her to cry out for help if it was voluntary?"
Exactly the point. By her refusal to cry for help and resist, guilt was implied, in spite of her claim. Of course she would not cry out if it was voluntary. That was the point.
JoelJW 2 years ago
But the point im making here is that this woman was stoned for being RAPED and God didn't object. Do you not see a problem? Did God not allow for this woman to be wrongfully killed?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "But the point im making here is that this woman was stoned for being RAPED and God didn't object"
No, the point is that this verse is dealing with consentual sex, and an attempt at deception. Verse 25 clears up the idea of actual rape. The woman would not be killed for being raped. Only her attacker. The verse you are using says nothing of rape.
JoelJW 2 years ago
The verse I used deals directly with rape .. from the beginning to the end. It directly implies that she was to be killed for the simple fact that she did not cry for help.I fail to see how you separate cry for help and "lay with"... why would I cry for help if I willingly laid with you.. makes no sense what you are saying.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "I fail to see how you separate cry for help"
The reason you "Fail" to see it can be for one of two reasons. Either you are not making the connection between consentual act and denial of said consentual act to save one's life, or you are trying to save your own argument by making the verse say something it's clearly not saying. I've read it though, so I know. I've studied the words that are used. There's a vast difference between the Hebrew words "Lie With" and "Rape". Learn it.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No.. I am most deffinitely making the connection between the two very DIFFERENT acts.. it is YOU who cannot answer why a person would need to call for HELP though it is consentual. If I as a woman have any sort of need to call for some other person to HELP me during a sexual act that would mean that Something is happening that I obviously dont want to take place therefore causing me to seek HELP. Would YOU call for help in the middle of consentual sex Joel?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "it is YOU who cannot answer why a person would need to call for HELP though it is consentual"
Okay, let me spell it out for you. Two people are found having sex. The woman is the wife of another man. She did not cry out for help, so the judges conclude that the act was consentual.
She then lies to protect herself, saying she was violated, but she has no evidence of "Chazaq", or of being forced. So, the evidence points to consent.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. Joel let me spell this out for YOU.. she should have cried out for HELP.. RAPE joel... if it was not rape then why wouldnt it simply say that she should have abstained?.. THEN it would not imply rape.Also why if it is consentual would she need to PROTECT herself?.. YOU are grasping at straws Joel.
shamika1984 2 years ago
If I am willingly having sex with you I would have no need to PROTECT myself from you.. if I didn't want to I would have simply said NO and that would have been the end of it. You are not understanding how the words are put together to implicate RAPE.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "If I am willingly having sex with you I would have no need to PROTECT myself from you."
Agreed. But, if the law of the land meant your "death" for it, you would have a reason to lie and accuse me of "raping" you to save your own skin, even though you originally consented. And, since you did not cry out, and no evidence of force could be found, you would be found just as guilty as I was if such laws applied today.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Ok.. so if God commanded that she be punished for something that wasnt her fault.. (I mean the Bible is supposed to be the word of God is it not)? the question then becomes.. isn't it more likely that this book was NOT the word of God but rather the laws of MEN?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "so if God commanded that she be punished for something that wasnt her fault"
That is "Your" interpretation. The language itself disagrees with you. You're clinging to a false shadow here, and calling it substance. It's not going to work. The context rebutts you quite soundly.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No.. not my interpretation.. did YOU not just say that those were the LAWS?.. is the bible not GODS law Joel?The language agrees with me completely.. it is YOU who does not.. I understand it clearly even while using the hebrew meaning of violate.. i understand that to lay with and to cry for help means something BAD.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "i understand that to lay with and to cry for help means something BAD"
The way you understand the scripture is faulty. Plain and simple. People can tell lies to protect themselves. That is what the verse is dealing with. She gave no cry for help, and no evidence of force could be found. Therefore, any claim of "Rape" she makes to save herself is nullified.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No.. it is NOT faulty.. I hardly think that the guy who believes that a woman screaming for help during a sexual act can rightly judge MY interpretation without seriously taking his own interpretation into account. I am no more faulty in my interpretation than you THINK you are.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "No.. it is NOT faulty"
Yes, it is. Because you're intentionally denying what the original language intends to say so you can justify your own interpretation of it. To lie with, as verse 23 asserts, and to be "Forced" to lie with as verse 25 asserts are two entirely different things.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol..what?.. you keep going back to this and I keep saying the same thing.. ONE WORD JOEL.. ONE WORD does not change the whole meaning of the passage.. again.. a rapist DOES "lay with" his victim.. and given the chance a victim SHOULD scream for help. You are implying that the entire Book is faulty because it is interpreted wrong.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984"ONE WORD does not change the whole meaning of the passage"
No, but it does show that "Your" meaning is in error. The verse does not need to be changed. There is no act of "Force" in it. There is in verse 25 however. And, in the verse that actually (Does) discuss rape, the woman is vindicated, not judged.
Sorry, but your interpretation doesn't fly. The Scripture itself has defeated your assertion.
JoelJW 2 years ago
No it does NOT... the verse is perfect in its interpretation of rape.. what I think you want or expect Joel.. is for the actual word RAPE to be used in order for it to be really considered rape.lol.. But a person who understands implications wouldnt need such a blantant statement to get it....If I told you that "A man lay with me and I screamed for help" what would YOU take that to mean joel?.. Take into account i am not using Violate but instead using it in its original hebrew meaning.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "the verse is perfect in its interpretation of rape"
No it's not. If it were, we would not be having this conversation.
"If I told you that "A man lay with me and I screamed for help" what would YOU take that to mean joel"
I would take it to mean you were raped. And, if the woman in the passage did the same thing, she would have been believed. She would have had evidence of her non-consent. She didn't however, therefore she was judged guilty.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. hypocricy.. was it not you who wrote in several posts that she made a "claim" which could NOT be provin and therefore her "claim" was considered to be false and she was doomed to be stoned?Where does it say she DIDN'T make such claim?where does it say she did?.. I sure didnt see THAT. It just said IF SHE DON'T CALL FOR HELP.PERIOD... you have just admitted that it IMPLIES RAPE. Thank YOU!
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Where does it say she DIDN'T make such claim?"
The context of the passage implies it. In verse 23, the act is not an act of violence, otherwise it would have been described similarly to verse 25. So, the woman is guilty by lack of evidence, implying that she was lying to protect herself. Her claim of innocence would not be good enough. Evidence mattered, just like it does today.
JoelJW 2 years ago
Exactly.. so in God's eyes a woman without evidence should be stoned. The point i am trying to make Joel.. is why would a righteous moral God deem it necessary to create a law hurting the victim?.. I as a woman find it sexist and astonishgly perverse. I have never been through such trama but i know it could happen to me at anytime.. I could only imagine what it would have been like to have been alive during that time and to be vilified simply due to the lack of evidence.. just horrible.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "is why would a righteous moral God deem it necessary to create a law hurting the victim?"
He didn't. Verse 25 'vindicates' the victim, and condemns her attacker.
Verse 23, the one you are using, deals with a consentual act, not a forced act.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. Joel Joel Joel.. scroll down and see what you wrote when I asked you what it would sound like if I presented it to you please...you may be surprised at your admission. it was raped... and regardless if she was vindicated it still does not answer my question..why was it a law in the first place.God wouldnt do such a thing.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "God wouldnt do such a thing"
You're right. He would not condemn an actual rape victim. Verse 25 is clear in that. :)
JoelJW 2 years ago
So is that NOT hypocricy according to HIS OWN LAW?...and what particular victim are we referring to because I wasnt referring to any particular woman considering it was a law which would have affected ALL women. So what is it... does God not know how to make up his damn mind or something or is he just simply screwing with peoples lives here?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "which would have affected ALL women"
Which had the same potential to commit sin as all "Men." Which also meant that sin had to be dealt with so it wouldn't have ruined the nation of Israel.
Victims were not condemned. Liars were.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. Who said those women were liars?.. No evidence means your a liar? wow.. I didn't know THAT!
shamika1984 2 years ago
Victims were not condemed?.. oh excuse me but from what I read THEY WERE.. If you are a victim but didnt call for help well.. bye bye bitch is pretty much the gist.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "If you are a victim but didnt call for help well"
Actually, the evidence would not support that. If a victim of rape knew that she would be stoned to death if she did not resist her attacker, she had a lot more to fear from being judged than her attacker.
And besides, assuming that victims would have remained silent under threat is not evidence. It's just a scenario.
JoelJW 2 years ago
I refuse to believe that MY God.. would allow me to be violated and then turn around and violated me (in a whole different form)again by violating my trust in him. Why would he allow me to be punished for something that was out of my control..God is better than what this book discribes him to be. Atleast I believe so.The character in this book is evil and his punishment is arbitrary.
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Why would he allow me to be punished for something that was out of my control"
He wouldn't. That verse has nothing to do with "You". It was given in a time when moral standards were low, and God had to make sure that people feared to disobey. Read the ten commandments. They deal with how people should treat one another.
JoelJW 2 years ago
lol.. Joel.. we already went over this.. is doesnt matter WHEN God gave the original command.. all that matters is that a supposed all powerful and righteous God allow it to take place upon HIS word. You seem to be under the impression that THOSE people and their plight dont matter because well.. it was a long long time ago and well times were different. HOW?. were they not PEOPLE with feelings and emotions who deserved to be treated FAIRLY?.. were THOSE women diserving of such brutality?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "were THOSE women diserving of such brutality?"
Not if they were actual victims of rape.
JoelJW 2 years ago
So should women in this day and age who dont have evidence of their attack be vilified because they cant prove it joel? What about women who have been raped but the attacker (in this day and age)wore a condom therefore leaving no physical evidence? what if she cant prove who this man is because she didnt see his face?.. Do you NOT believe her and disregard her claim?
shamika1984 2 years ago
shamika1984 "Do you NOT believe her and disregard her claim?"
Many innocent men have been accused by vindictive women of crimes they didn't commit, and vice versa. Unless evidence of violence is actually present, the "Claim" is not good enough to warrant conviction.
JoelJW 2 years ago