FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-09-2004, 04:11 AM   #281
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
jtb: A Hebrew woman would have thought so, yes. The Celts allowed women to become warriors. Try telling a single Celtic woman that she couldn't survive without a man, and you'd probably find out what a Celtic longsword can do.

A celtic woman may have THOUGHT she could survive without men but she would be dead wrong. It is a scientific fact that men are stronger than women.
She could CERTAINLY have survived without men.

She could tend goats JUST as easily as a man, fired a bow at attacking marauders just as effectively as a man, and dismbowelled an attacker almost as effectively as a man: certainly good enough to kill.

Your misogyny is showing, Ed.
Quote:
jtb: I note that you've still not explained why the "morally superior" Hebrews would allow Caananite raiders across their borders to attack unmarried women only.

They didn't have a massive border patrol like modern nations nor a police force.
Try answering the question.

Please explain why their border patrols stopped and interrogated marauders, asked them their business, and allowed them to pass if they were after UNMARRIED Hebrew women.
Quote:
Ed: The existence and characteristics of the universe.

jtb: ...Which are fundamentally incompatible with the Bible, of course.

Fraid not, as I aptly demonstrated on another thread. They are fundamentally incompatible with atheism however.
I assume you are hallucinating again.
Quote:
jtb:..Oh, dear. After a comparison with the Holocaust was made, you now seek to make excuses by using a verse which justifies the Holocaust.

...So you think the Jews deserved to die in the Nazi camps because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?

The Bible says exactly why the Amalekites were killed: because of the actions of their ancestors. You know this: it is inescapable.


They deserved to die just as we all do, but they DID NOT deserve to die by the hands of the Nazis.
...So those killed by Nazis are "more dead"? Or do they go to a lower circle of Hell?

Please explain why being killed by Nazis is worse than being killed by Hebrews.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 06-09-2004, 09:30 PM   #282
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
(the divine-name argument for JEDP...)
Originally Posted by Ed
It is not the only one but it is the foundational one.

lp: Says who?
Says me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
... Especially when that alleged deity hides most of the time.

Originally Posted by Ed
He doesn't hide from me.

lp: An omnipotent, omniscient being ought to be able to tell Ed:

* What I've named my computer's hard disks.
* What my computer's video card(s) is/are.
* What the brand names are of the computer keyboard, mouse, and monitor(s) that I'm currently using.
He is able but probably not willing given the fact we are commanded not to put Him to the test.
Ed is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 11:37 AM   #283
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
An omnipotent, omniscient being ought to be able to tell Ed:

* What I've named my computer's hard disks.
* What my computer's video card(s) is/are.
* What the brand names are of the computer keyboard, mouse, and monitor(s) that I'm currently using.
He is able but probably not willing given the fact we are commanded not to put Him to the test.
That seems to me to be an evasive response, sort of like ESP researchers claiming that ESP powers do not work when skeptics are around. If one makes far-reaching claims, one ought to be willing to submit them to critical scrutiny.

If I claim to have invented a medicine I'll call Peachtree that can cure everything from cancer to the common cold, I am willing to accept that many people will be skeptical of that and will want to see Peachtree tested.

Which is why I ask those questions above.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 06-10-2004, 09:10 PM   #284
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Since Ed's knowledge of Hebrew is so excellent, he might enjoy translating this sentence, forwarded to me by someone who knows the language:

מלכת החרבות תיהתה לחשוף ×?ת טפשותך להר×?ות לכל העול×?

mlkt hxrbwt tyhnh lxSwp 't TpSwtk lhr'wt lkl h`wlm

Malkat haharavot tehaneh lahasof et tipshutkha lehar'ot lekhol ha'olam.

You other guys, please let Ed take a whack at it first.
I looked in my Strong's Concordance but I couldn't find any of those words. Why don't you translate it for me?
Ed is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 12:13 AM   #285
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich
(in Hebrew, courtesy of Heathen Dawn)

מלכת החרבות תיהתה לחשוף ×?ת טפשותך להר×?ות לכל העול×?

mlkt hxrbwt tyhnh lxSwp 't TpSwtk lhr'wt lkl h`wlm

Malkat haharavot tehaneh lahasof et tipshutkha lehar'ot lekhol ha'olam.
I looked in my Strong's Concordance but I couldn't find any of those words. Why don't you translate it for me?
Ed, someone who claims to know Hebrew ought at least to know the alphabet -- which ought to be enough to search Strong's Concordance with.

And now for the translation:

The Queen of Swords will enjoy exposing your foolishness for all the world to see.

I could identify the first two words in Strong's Concordance:
m-l-k-h - malkah - 04436 - queen
ch-r-b - chereb - 02719 - sword

combined in the phrase

m-l-k-t h-ch-r-b-w-t
queen-of the-swords
lpetrich is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 01:00 AM   #286
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,242
Default

[Moderator]

I think we're getting a bit off-topic. The subject isn't supposed to be "Ed's knowledge of Hebrew", which he's already admitted is dependent upon Strong's Concordence.

It's supposed to be "Did God harden Pharaoh's heart and other moral quandaries?"

I agree that is a diverse subject, but it's getting personal, and that is not the aim of the Upper Fora.

Please confine yourselves to the subject at hand rather than engage in subtle flaming. In other words, please refrain from Ed-bashing.

If you wish to debate the accuracy or relevence of Strong's Concordance, please start a seperate thread.

[/Moderator]
Jeremy Pallant is offline  
Old 06-11-2004, 02:27 AM   #287
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Well, I think Ed has now conceded that God DID harden Pharaoh's heart (at least, he's gone very quiet since I demonstrated that the Bible says this).

As for the rest: it seems that his only defence against other Biblical atrocities is either "yes he did that... so what?", or "no he didn't, the Hebrew says otherwise (I hope)".
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 06-13-2004, 08:46 PM   #288
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisor
I am by no means a biblical scholar (probably the fartherst thing from it one could get) but I have skimmed the debate so far (more of a maze than a debate) and have a few questions that I don't think have been asked before. If they have, please excuse me and the questions if they seem to simple. However,

ed
(1)I will give you the possibility they pharoh hardened his heart the first time or two, though the text reads differently from where I stand, that of course being neither here nor there. My question is, if pharoh hardened his heart only two times and then god took over from there, why did it take so few times? I could understand if pharoh had hardened his own heart after repeated attempts from moses and arron to "Let his people go," and then god said "so be it." But that does not seem to be the case. Instead, pharoh says "no" twice and god takes the drivers seat. This does not sound like the workings of a patient, all knowing, all loving god.
Well actually he doesn't deserve ANY chances but God is gracious and gives him two.

Quote:
crisor: (2)I am no Egyptologist either, but given the fact that ancient Egypt believed in a host of gods and their workings, it has never sat well with me that after seeing even one plague pharoh would not oblige the request of any god, even one he himself did not know. This would surely stop him from hardening his heart twice.
He was probably was a skeptic about a god he couldn't see and rationalized the plagues as "natural events". Sound familiar?

Quote:
crisor: (3)You stated at one time that you only have so many time to give into god before it is too late (not quoted, but the idea is still there I believe). I am unfamiliar with that. Could you please give me chapter and verse as to where I might find that and how it may be used in this situation.

Crisor
Romans 1 talks about situations like that where after they repeatedly deny God, He turns them over to their sin. There is no set number but since God knows every situation perfectly some people get more chances than others.
Ed is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 02:33 AM   #289
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Well actually he doesn't deserve ANY chances but God is gracious and gives him two.
No, God gives him NO chances, according to every translation of the Bible.
Quote:
He was probably was a skeptic about a god he couldn't see and rationalized the plagues as "natural events". Sound familiar?
No, God had "hardened his heart".
Quote:
Romans 1 talks about situations like that where after they repeatedly deny God, He turns them over to their sin. There is no set number but since God knows every situation perfectly some people get more chances than others.
Pharaoh got none, and all the other Egyptians (who were not in any way responsible for Pharaoh's conduct or decisions) got none either.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:44 AM   #290
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: in freedom
Posts: 41
Default out of egypt I call my son

The civilization of ancient egypt was run by the progeny of nephilim,
and Pharoah obtained his power by enslaving the sons of men. Pharoah
was one of nine fallen angels who had taken on the flesh to rule with
absolute power over mankind. (zohar). He routinely put people to death
for little things, never mind for murder or other atrocities. He was an
absolute ruler who ruled men with impunity. Pharoah considered himself
divine, he was protected by high priests and even shown the way through
the bardo state, to come back and be.....Pharoah, yes they figured it all
out and enslaved the sons of men. (sodomy)

God came to the rescue of the slaves of goshen. That much is clear, but
they still had to empower themselves with freedom. They did not resort
to murder, only Moses did that, and that was to kill and egyptian.

The plagues came, and each plague represented a 'freedom' that had been
taken from the sons of men, by the fallen angels who took on the flesh.

Each plague that came upon Egypt was because they had categorically
denied any freedoms to the sons of men. Each plague corresponds to
a commandment. Each commandement was given so that men would
be judged by the law, and not by men who rule by absolute power.

Pharoah considered himself god. Remember that the Pharoah could commune in all three realities, and did so. The first reality was completely ruled by
Pharoah, because he could traverse the other two. We see this clearly
with Edgar Cayce, who left his body and entered the other two realities,
he remembered how to do this, because he was a High priest of Egypt,
Roo Ta.

The masses were enslaved in the first reality. It is the reason that the
pyramids were built, to keep the mass consciousness of the people set
in stone. Set in Carbon consciousness, in the physical body.

Pharoah had no reason to fear the god of the habiru, or wanderers. He
had gathered up the wanderers (sons of men) and they were all under
his control.

God said, that he would destroy the Ammonite (practioner of the
secret (sod) of the (dam) blood, from off the face of the earth.

So moses led the children of Abraham out of Egypt, he killed Pharoah,
and his first born, by giving birth to Gershon, (a stranger in a strange
land). He cut off the bloodline that these nephilim were using to
incarnate and reincarnate through. (Egyptian book of the dead).

Pharoah was not unlike the Dalai Lama, who has been incarnating along
with other panchen lamas for the past 1300 years, creating an absolute
theocracy wherein the people become enslaved by him and can only
be saved by following him.

The dalai lama originally left china because those high priests protected
the power block and the bloodline of the chinese Emperor. For the same
reason that the high priests of egypt protected the pharoah.

The dalai lama felt he was invincible. And just like the Pharoah of
Egypt, the dalai lama who ruled with absolute tyranny, (punishment
to the masses meant gouging eyes out and amputations, along with
imprisonment and death.) saw the red tide come also.....

It's obvious that people do not understand what sodomy truly is and
how it has affected life on earth.....

hp
highpreistess is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.