Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JaronK · 04-01-2009, 11:55 AM

Right, so there was earlier mention of a bit in Corinthians I think?

JaronK

Toto · 04-01-2009, 12:09 PM

There is an ambiguous bit in Corinthians, apparently written by Paul, who seems to have had a pretty low opinion of heterosexual sex and has no interest in raising a generation of soldiers to fight any wars.

There has been a lot written about how this ambigous "bit" can be interpreted. Is there anything new to say about it?

Not to mention that the category "homosexuality" is a modern concept.

storytime · 04-01-2009, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

My apologies for getting off topic.

Back to "homosexuality in the bible." A necessary judged offense in support of re-production of children for war, imo.

You are not the worst offender.

But you keep asserting that this is in support of reproduction for purposes of raising soldiers, which has no support in the Biblical text.

If no one has anything to say about the TEXT, we can just close this abomination of a collection of bizarro theories.

You're right. There is a collection of bizarro theories as to why the prohibition against same sex couples is given to the Israelites. I just happen to think my "theory" is the most correct one, (at this time because I may change my mind later) as no other has been shown to be the answer to "be fruitful and multiple" and cover the earth with little warriors who will grow up to become adult soldiers and fight and die in wars over some dried-up piece of land.

Support of my theory in the OT bible is Moses training-up Israelites as an army and whom the script says other people would look on as "a terror" and so fear the Lord of Israel.

spamandham · 04-01-2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not to mention that the category "homosexuality" is a modern concept.

You don't think such distinctions existed among early Christians?

IamJoseph · 04-01-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Nor women's rights, multi-party elections, and no shortage of racism and disrespect for other religions or historical truth. In Iran, the Holocast was a lie, there was never a Jerusalem Temple - [there goes the Gospels and all Roman archives - which says one JC visited that mythical temple, destroyed by Rome - with the pre-islamic arabs in the front rows as paid mercenaries to destroy that mythical temple!] - and 9/11 is a Zionist Plot.

Better, I'd say there are no Freedom Fighters in that country - these must frst start at home. :wave:

Why would they need "freedom fighters" when they seem perfectly satisfied with their lifestyle. You're the one who seems oddly disatisfied with how they live in their own country and their own religion. Why not mind your own business and accept that people are different?

That is a crime: "YOU SHALL NOT WITNESS AN INNOCENT'S BLOOD AND REMAIN IDLE"

Nor are Iranians happy - they are under the feet of a one party Nazi-like dictatrship parading as a religion.

IamJoseph · 04-01-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Incepted? That's not good enough excuse, for the story says that Israel provoked people, created their enemy, and then blamed their enemy for defending themselves.

You can call it provoke, if one is not alowed to return to the land they came from. I have different descriptions for it. Israel never provoked anyone outside of the issue of her own land. Who else can make such a claim?

Quote:

If non Hebrew/Israelite people possessed the land, why shouldn't they have defended their land?

Typically, you expose yourself. I clearly gave evidence from the same source, that not all the non-hebrew canaanites agreed with your novel description: two of the six agreed with the Hebrew canaanites - were they also bad?!

Quote:

Just because a gang of Hebrews took a vacation to Egypt for many years and returned to village, should they have laid claim to the land?

Well, they got tired of club med, and decided to come back home. Thank you for agreeing that gang returned to their own land - they never occupied anyone else's land. Howmany can say the same?! How about the lands of the Kurds, Coptics, Druse and othe non-Islamic peoples - when do they get a chance to return to *THEIR LAND* stolen from them by British corruption?

Quote:

And why didn't Hebrews claim the land of Egypt, as it must have been some kind of luxury oasis or something, and they could just have easily told the Egyptians 'hey, god give us your land so get off it now or else?' Maybe God was not powerful enough to take land belonging to Egypt and God saw small villages as a more easy thieft?

Good question! They did not. Deal with it.

Quote:

Jews have a 4000 year history? That's not what the bible says, because "Jews" are not a named people until the days of Jacob and son Judah. Also the bible doesn't give dates of time for Hebrews. You're just making another funny aren't you?

Jacob was Abraham's grandson, and Abraham lived 4000 years ago. Its called advanced math.

Quote:

Other people were robbed and displaced in the middle east of ancient times, so why do you think the Jews deserve special recognition in the mix?

Those who did the robbing - they must not get special treatment. You have it backwards?

Quote:

You've even forgotten about the other Israeli tribes, and where they were exiled(?) to. I'm not so convinced of your definition of "exiled" either, for tribes of people moved wherever a more life sustaining enviroment was to be had. This is why the bible story has Israelites running in and out of Egypt and Babylon. So, being taken captive might not have meant their being held prisoner in exile. They may have simply been captivated - in awe of civilized producing people. I seem to remember reading that Israelites were considered an abomination by Egyptians. Would you happen to have an answer for that somewhat oddity? Is that where Israelites learned to degrade other people as abominations?

You are distorting and will continue to do so. The notion of apologising for being off the subject makes no sense when you post such nonsense, as if it is history or logic.

IamJoseph · 04-01-2009, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Support of my theory in the OT bible is Moses training-up Israelites as an army and whom the script says other people would look on as "a terror" and so fear the Lord of Israel.

Unlike Mohammed? Moses took a rag tag gang of slaves and returned to their own land. The difference is that inalienable human rights, liberty and equal justce for all - was born! In contrast, the new kid on the block says:

'NO OTHER RELIGION CAN PREVAIL IN ARABIA'

Someone's looking lost: there are christian coptics and lebanese, kurds, Bahai, atheists and gay in Israel today. Looks like your prophet wisely harkened to the God of Israel, no? :wave:

spamandham · 04-01-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Well, they got tired of club med, and decided to come back home. Thank you for agreeing that gang returned to their own land - they never occupied anyone else's land. Howmany can say the same?! How about the lands of the Kurds, Coptics, Druse and othe non-Islamic peoples - when do they get a chance to return to *THEIR LAND* stolen from them by British corruption?

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Hebrew were forced out of their land. Biblically, *they abandoned it voluntarily due to famine*. When they did that, they gave up all claim and right to it. It was no longer their land, it was the land of whoever found it.

(not that I believe any of this nonsense, but let's at least be honest about what the text actually states).

IamJoseph · 04-01-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Jewish bankers? :devil1: Wasn't there a connection to that Maddoff guy who transfered billions all over the world and wasn't put in jail but continued living in his NY penthouse apartment? I'm almost sure that Joseph would say he's being persecuted in exile.

On the contrary - justice is being duly processed.

But what about the Regimes who think a host of countrys are their private and personal property, thick thumbs sitting on golden toilets and using mother earth's resources to teach people its a blessing to kill infidels? Who's going to put them on trial for the deaths of millions of innocent folk!

If Sadaam murdered 700,000 Iraqis in 22 years, the Saudi regime is responsble for millions of deaths. I know my math. :wave:

IamJoseph · 04-01-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

There is nothing in the Bible that says the Hebrew were forced out of their land. Biblically, *they abandoned it voluntarily due to famine*. When they did that, they gave up all claim and right to it. It was no longer their land, it was the land of whoever found it.

(not that I believe any of this nonsense, but let's at least be honest about what the text actually states).

No that is not the case. One does not have to remain in the land when a tsunami or fire comes. They have the right to return. The problem was that Egypt never allowed this. The law says one who looses his property [e.g. home or car], by force, and is barred to claim it again by force - the statutory period does not apply, and all rights remain in force. The law comes from the Hebrew - and it is accepted by all bona fide judiciary systems.

Any more funnies?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2009, 11:55 AM	#131
JaronK Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: California Posts: 1,710	Right, so there was earlier mention of a bit in Corinthians I think? JaronK

04-01-2009, 12:09 PM	#132
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There is an ambiguous bit in Corinthians, apparently written by Paul, who seems to have had a pretty low opinion of heterosexual sex and has no interest in raising a generation of soldiers to fight any wars. There has been a lot written about how this ambigous "bit" can be interpreted. Is there anything new to say about it? Not to mention that the category "homosexuality" is a modern concept.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.