"From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Tr...

"From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth" Tuesday, Sept. 23,

There are 93 comments on the Elm Grove story from Jun 6, 2013, titled "From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth" Tuesday, Sept. 23,. In it, Elm Grove reports that:

Author Kitty Foth-Regner is the featured speaker at the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee's September meeting.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Elm Grove.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#62 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a Muslim? Judah was not a prophet.
The burning of a whore was part of the Law. Judah would have obeyed the law by having her burnt. He changed his mind not because he found she was with child from him, but because he admitted that she was the righteous one, when he refused his son to marry her.
Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
Not conceiving through whoredom , the penalty was inappropriate.
The fact that you justiofy the story by saying that "The burning of a whore was part of the Law," shows how cruel your bible is. That being said, Judah did not threaten to kill her because she was a pro, but because he thought that his daughter in law was a pro. It shows the hypocritical nature of the bible. A john has the right to order the death of the pro he fked.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells the story like it is – no superhumans that only does good. David (He was an ancestor of Jesus) commits adultery and sends Betsheba’s husband to his death. Similar stories expose Jacob (with his mother) cheating Esau out of his birthright. In the new Testament Thomas doubting that Jesus has risen, the disciples running away when Jesus is taken into custody, Peter denying Jesus. No heroes. Just fallible people like you and me.
The bible is a book of myths, not more valid than Peter Pan.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#63 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>

Your views also reflect a misunderstanding of the ideal marriage relationship – where the husband cannot be described as a tyrant if he adheres to the rest of Scripture, and the position of the husband is that of servant leader, contrary to the whole tone of the question.
The bible says that the role of the woman is to serve the husband.It claims that Eve was invented to please Adam.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
You make the assumption (as indicated before) that the relationship is negative as a result of the “fact” that a woman have less “rights” than men. We are arguing this over and over, without any evidence from you that the position of submission resulted in woman being negatively “dominated” by a loving and sacrificial husband.
Any form of domination is negative, esp when it has control of us on a day to day basis.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are married and care for your wife, you will take responsibility for her, love and protect her and take care of her. A wife may at times be better educated than the husband to deal with financial matters. Is he to put the burden on her to take responsibility for financial issues? Hardly, unless he is a little whimp. He will consult with her, but take the final responsibility on himself.
So according to your sexist rant, wives' responsibility should be limited to the domestic area, like cooking and cleaning. A male chef who marries a female lawyer or accountant should have more authority over that area, even if his wife is more capable and experience. It was that type of attitude that caused a lot of trouble for my family, as my mom is much wiser than my dad.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Contracts, property rights. If the husband as the caretaker is given certain jurisdiction, it may be a good thing. If you are responsible for the financial wellbeing of another, it seems only fair that you should have control over matters that can negatively impact on your ability to do so. This also does not imply that the man does not discuss issues with his wife.
Women who are smart with money, like Martha Stewart, Oprah or Suze Orman don;t need men to tell them what to do with it. If you and your sexist God would understand that.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Concubines. This was an interesting matter to do a little research on. It appears that rather than mere “slaves” the position of concubine held a number of benefits – such as the care by the “husband”, and a fairly standard practice at the time. However, this practice is nowhere condoned. To the contrary, one husband to one wife is the ideal.
God chose to regulate it by demanding that each wife must be treated equally. "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money"
It can also be argued that concubines were “tolerated” in a similar way that divorce was “tolerated”.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
So there seem to be no direct suggestion that having concubines were regarded as committing a sin, yet the Bible makes it fairly clear that the ideal is one man and one wife:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
I don't care what the bible thought was ideal,the point remains that God allowed men to have a multitude of wives and concubines while limiting women to one husband.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#64 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Our ethical standards today are higher, "morals" and ethics are all subjective, and should improve over time. They were wrong for stoning children, there is no justification for stoning children, subjugating women, and owning other humans as property.
You can justify it, that makes you a supporter of such horrible things.
Define higher and what do you use as yardstick please?
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#65 Jun 20, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> The fact that you justiofy the story by saying that "The burning of a whore was part of the Law," shows how cruel your bible is. That being said, Judah did not threaten to kill her because she was a pro, but because he thought that his daughter in law was a pro. It shows the hypocritical nature of the bible. A john has the right to order the death of the pro he fked.
<quoted text>
The bible is a book of myths, not more valid than Peter Pan.
I do not have to justify it. I was merely stating a fact. We have a very superficial idea of sin and how God abhors sin. Apart from that, all were aware of the punishment for sinning.

Similarly, we are also warned that eternal damnation awaits those that does not repent from their sin and turn to God. The choice is ours. We are encouraged to accept the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

We don't have to be good enough. The penalty for sin has been paid.

You may know that we are not under the law but under grace. The purpose of the law is to show us our wickedness and realise that we are doomed, but for the grace of God that saves a "wretch like me". I "do not have money", yet God offers me a new life based on no merit of my own, but purely on the fact that Jesus sacrificed his life so we might live.

Be sure my friend, there is a day of reckoning.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#66 Jun 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>I do not have to justify it. I was merely stating a fact. We have a very superficial idea of sin and how God abhors sin. Apart from that, all were aware of the punishment for sinning.
Similarly, we are also warned that eternal damnation awaits those that does not repent from their sin and turn to God. The choice is ours. We are encouraged to accept the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
We don't have to be good enough. The penalty for sin has been paid.
You may know that we are not under the law but under grace. The purpose of the law is to show us our wickedness and realise that we are doomed, but for the grace of God that saves a "wretch like me". I "do not have money", yet God offers me a new life based on no merit of my own, but purely on the fact that Jesus sacrificed his life so we might live.
Be sure my friend, there is a day of reckoning.
Atheists do not fear the imaginations of mentally I'll religious Pepe who can't stop lying about god.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#67 Jun 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Define higher and what do you use as yardstick please?
More developed and fair ethics. Since you support stoning children, by default, all atheists have a higher standard, and many pagans as well.

You see, even pagans admit that their previous members made mistakes, and they don't try to excuse those mistakes. But you christians just make lame excuses to justify vile acts, and if you can justify it 2000 years ago, you can justify it the same way today, meaning, anyone who justifies such acts at any point in history are below the modern standards of ethical behavior.

I am 50% German, half of my blood belongs to a group of people who did a very horrible thing. I know it's horrible, because it harmed other people who did not deserve it in ways that are inhumane. I admit that it was a monstrous thing for them to do, there is no "it was a different time" excuse that could possibly justify the horrible deeds they did, there is no excuse for it. Just as there is no excuse to horribly attack a child, none. What makes me better than you is that you justify your horrible past.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#68 Jun 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>I do not have to justify it. I was merely stating a fact. We have a very superficial idea of sin and how God abhors sin. Apart from that, all were aware of the punishment for sinning.
Similarly, we are also warned that eternal damnation awaits those that does not repent from their sin and turn to God. The choice is ours. We are encouraged to accept the salvation that is in Christ Jesus.
Isa 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
We don't have to be good enough. The penalty for sin has been paid.
You may know that we are not under the law but under grace. The purpose of the law is to show us our wickedness and realise that we are doomed, but for the grace of God that saves a "wretch like me". I "do not have money", yet God offers me a new life based on no merit of my own, but purely on the fact that Jesus sacrificed his life so we might live.
Be sure my friend, there is a day of reckoning.
Again, until you provide evidence that your god is real, anything you claim it said is meaningless.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#69 Jun 20, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> The bible says that the role of the woman is to serve the husband.It claims that Eve was invented to please Adam.
You are wrong. Eve was created equal to Adam, both in the image of God. To serve is somewhat different to the position she had – that as a help. She was not “invented to “please” Adam.
Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good, the man being alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
If you consider helper to be a position of inferiority, you may look at some of the other verses in which this word was used. It becomes evident that the position is rather one that acts as support, strength.
Exo 18:4 and one's name was Eliezer (for the God of my father was my Help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh).
Psa 115:9 O Israel, trust in Jehovah; He is their help and their shield.
You sure you are not a Muslim?
Any form of domination is negative, esp when it has control of us on a day to day basis.
Maybe you could explain what you mean by dominate. If it is to disregard the wishes of his wife and expect her to bow to every whim, or similar domineering behavious, it is obviously not the role expected of a Christian husband, as I have repeatedly shown. I am sorry you refuse to accept this despite evidence to qualify the role.
So according to your sexist rant, wives' responsibility should be limited to the domestic area, like cooking and cleaning. A male chef who marries a female lawyer or accountant should have more authority over that area, even if his wife is more capable and experience. It was that type of attitude that caused a lot of trouble for my family, as my mom is much wiser than my dad.

Women who are smart with money, like Martha Stewart, Oprah or Suze Orman don;t need men to tell them what to do with it. If you and your sexist God would understand that.
I am really sorry to hear about the trouble apparently caused by your dad, who is not as “wise” as your mom (You did not specify in what area however). I do not have the details and cannot express an opinion other than to suggest that there are normally two sides to a story and I am sure that your dad did the best he could and possibly what he thought was in the best interest of your mom and you. The way men act in execution of their role as head of the family is the problem and not the fact that they are the appointed “pointsman”.

We are discussing what Scripture says about the issue and not caricatures people have created. If your suggestion is taken to its logical consequences, it spells disaster for both as who is to decide who is best at what? A battle ensues at some point,no question. If it is done according to Scripture, the husband takes final responsibility, and does so by even sacrificing himself for the best interest of his wife. Of course the husband will at times make a mistake – we all do. Nobody is above that. It goes without saying that the same will apply if a woman makes decisions on even her “strong points”. Ask Oprah on the school disaster in her South African school
I don't care what the bible thought was ideal,the point remains that God allowed men to have a multitude of wives and concubines while limiting women to one husband.
You are wrong. Men had concubines. Woman did not have multiple husbands. This was the case, and a fairly common practice at the time. It is neither prescribed nor condoned as acceptable in the Bible. You may have missed my previous post in this regard.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#70 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More developed and fair ethics.
Please explain
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#71 Jun 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you support stoning children,
Please supply proof of this claim.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72 Jun 20, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Please supply proof of this claim.
Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Proverbs 30:17
The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.

Exodus 21:17
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:15
“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

You support this child abuse.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#74 Jun 21, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>

You sure you are not a Muslim?
Hell no. I am a atheist.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you could explain what you mean by dominate. If it is to disregard the wishes of his wife and expect her to bow to every whim, or similar domineering behavious, it is obviously not the role expected of a Christian husband, as I have repeatedly shown. I am sorry you refuse to accept this despite evidence to qualify the role.
dom·i·nate
/&#712;däm&#601;&# 716;n&#257;t/
Verb
Have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.
Be the most important or conspicuous person or thing in.
Synonyms
command - prevail - rule - govern - predominate - control
Where does it say in the bible that a husband has no right to expect his wife not ton bow to his whim?
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>

I am really sorry to hear about the trouble apparently caused by your dad, who is not as “wise” as your mom (You did not specify in what area however). I do not have the details and cannot express an opinion other than to suggest that there are normally two sides to a story and I am sure that your dad did the best he could and possibly what he thought was in the best interest of your mom and you. The way men act in execution of their role as head of the family is the problem and not the fact that they are the appointed “pointsman”.

My father was an alcoholic who was unwise in everything he did. That is why I cannot stand when you Christians preach your sexism and tell women to submit to their husbands. Had my mother submitted as the bible said, we'd be in a worse shape.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text> are discussing what Scripture says about the issue and not caricatures people have created. If your suggestion is taken to its logical consequences, it spells disaster for both as who is to decide who is best at what? A battle ensues at some point,no question. If it is done according to Scripture, the husband takes final responsibility, and does so by even sacrificing himself for the best interest of his wife. Of course the husband will at times make a mistake – we all do. Nobody is above that. It goes without saying that the same will apply if a woman makes decisions on even her “strong points”. Ask Oprah on the school disaster in her South African school
So according to you stance, a successful female ceo who gets married o a carpenter should step down and hand over her Ceo office to her husband who has no experience in business, just to appease his vanity of being"head of the family."
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong. Men had concubines. Woman did not have multiple husbands. This was the case, and a fairly common practice at the time. It is neither prescribed nor condoned as acceptable in the Bible. You may have missed my previous post in this regard.
I did not say that females were allowed to have multiple husbands. In fact, I said the very same thing you said. Pay attention! The fact that the bible allows men to have many wives, but wives, one husband, shows how sexist your God is.
Andre

Bloemfontein, South Africa

#75 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.......
The claim was "Since you support stoning children". In other words, you must provide proof that I support stoning children.
Andre

Bloemfontein, South Africa

#76 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More developed and fair ethics. Since you support stoning children, by default, all atheists have a higher standard, and many pagans as well.
You see, even pagans admit that their previous members made mistakes, and they don't try to excuse those mistakes. But you christians just make lame excuses to justify vile acts, and if you can justify it 2000 years ago, you can justify it the same way today, meaning, anyone who justifies such acts at any point in history are below the modern standards of ethical behavior.
I am 50% German, half of my blood belongs to a group of people who did a very horrible thing. I know it's horrible, because it harmed other people who did not deserve it in ways that are inhumane. I admit that it was a monstrous thing for them to do, there is no "it was a different time" excuse that could possibly justify the horrible deeds they did, there is no excuse for it. Just as there is no excuse to horribly attack a child, none. What makes me better than you is that you justify your horrible past.
Please carefully evaluate your logic: Every person decides what is right - which can later then be accepted as having been wrong. Your argument is not logical. At most it can be said that at present it is regarded as wrong. You cannot judge the past. If you did, you cannot assume what you regard as right is indeed right as it may indeed be found wrong lateron.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#77 Jun 24, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>The claim was "Since you support stoning children". In other words, you must provide proof that I support stoning children.
The bible supports stoning children and you support the bible, so by extension, you support stoning children
"Children who refuse to obey their parents must be executed.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.-- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.-- Exodus 21:17
Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles.
The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.-- Proverbs 30:17
Like Abraham, parents should be willing to kill their children for God.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.-- Genesis 22:2,10
God killed all the firstborn children in an entire country.
The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.-- Exodus 12:29-30
Sometimes God kills children for misbehaving.
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.-- 2 Kings 2:23-24
Someday God will force parents eat their own children.
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.-- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.-- Deuteronomy 28:53
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend.-- Jeremiah 19:9

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#78 Jun 24, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Please carefully evaluate your logic: Every person decides what is right - which can later then be accepted as having been wrong. Your argument is not logical. At most it can be said that at present it is regarded as wrong. You cannot judge the past. If you did, you cannot assume what you regard as right is indeed right as it may indeed be found wrong lateron.
If you can justify it 2000 years ago, you can justify it at any time in the present as well.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#79 Jun 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can justify it 2000 years ago, you can justify it at any time in the present as well.
Exactly. I cannot stand that argument that people use to justify that kind of behavior. If their god is divine, all powerful, wise, and all knowing; shouldn't he have come up with a code of ethics that would be relevant from then to now?
Andre

Bloemfontein, South Africa

#80 Jun 26, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Hell no. I am a atheist.
Juts asking as some of the comments you made sounds like of Muslim origin. Judah a prophet etc.
dom·i·nate
/&#712;däm&#601;&# 716;n&#257;t/
Verb
Have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.
Be the most important or conspicuous person or thing in.
Synonyms
command - prevail - rule - govern - predominate - control
Where does it say in the bible that a husband has no right to expect his wife not ton bow to his whim?
In all honesty, you can read anything into the words “submission” and “rule over”. But as I have repeatedly shown, you cannot divorce the normal Christian life form marriage as the same rules apply and men are in any case to honour their wives and look after them. Husbands, as repeatedly shown, is to love their wives and care for them.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
“Bow down” The specific words? I do not know that this is specifically specified like that. If you however read the Bible and not individual texts that seem to support your view, you will come to realise that the woman is in no way inferior to the husband but it is plainly a matter of authority – and moreover caring and protecting authority.
My father was an alcoholic who was unwise in everything he did. That is why I cannot stand when you Christians preach your sexism and tell women to submit to their husbands. Had my mother submitted as the bible said, we'd be in a worse shape.
Any “Christian” that “preaches” sexism (where the man is superior to the wife) does not teach what the Bible clearly teaches, and has his own agenda.
It is very difficult to comment on your specific case as there are a great number of factors that could be at play. It must have been quite difficult for you in any case.
You undoubtedly still love your dad but wished that alcoholism did not become his master and possibly caused much harm. If I may suggest something (and I am sorry if it is inappropriate for me to comment), the best thing for you will be to really in your heart forgive your dad – if you have not done so already. It will be a big burden off your shoulders. And if you have wronged him, ask for forgiveness. This is the direct opposite of what will normally be done, but that is what will “set you free” of a lot of burden.
So according to you stance, a successful female ceo who gets married o a carpenter should step down and hand over her Ceo office to her husband who has no experience in business, just to appease his vanity of being"head of the family."
No, it is not to be done. It is in her role as wife that a godly woman will accept her husband as the head of the family. Nothing to do with their job roles. Even if they work in the same company, they have different roles to fulfil there. If it is vanity, the husband is an excuse for a husband. You may know the expression “woman,thy name is vanity” Maybe you meant “ego”. Yes, men often have ego’s. But a real man that is humble and secure in himself will not entertain the pettiness of an ego.
I did not say that females were allowed to have multiple husbands. In fact, I said the very same thing you said. Pay attention! The fact that the bible allows men to have many wives, but wives, one husband, shows how sexist your God is.
Sorry if I missed a point. Having multiple life partners were not approved for either men or woman. The following extract will give you some indication:
Let's notice what is recorded in Deut.17:14-20. what he should DO and NOT do
Notice verse 17 and the PLAIN instruction: "Neither shall he multiply WIVES (more than one) to
himself...."
and also
"It is a true saying that if a man wants to be a pastor he has a
good ambition. For a pastor must be a good man whose life cannot
be spoken against. He must have only ONE wife" (1 Tim. 3:1-2,
Living Bible
Andre

Bloemfontein, South Africa

#81 Jun 26, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> The bible supports stoning children and you support the bible, so by extension, you support stoning children
Firstly, the sin for which people were stoned, remains sin. Secondly, Jesus has clearly indicated that we are no longer called to judge others (condemn them). This is very clear from his comment to those bringing the woman caught in adultery "Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
This is the essence - nobody is without sin and we do the same sin that we accuse others of.
But even under the Law in the Old Testament, there were safeguards that ensured that punishment was not lightly meted out:
Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
So, unfortunately your conclusion is somewhat off the mark. Sorry to say, but you seem somewhat gullible, accepting arguments for fact which has no leg to stand on and is not based on solid information.
Andre

Bloemfontein, South Africa

#82 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can justify it 2000 years ago, you can justify it at any time in the present as well.
You destroy your own argument.
Your argument: You subjectively decide what is right and wrong,with no standard other than your own assessment.
Yet you arrogantly allow yourself to judge others on your (subjective) standard.
If you cannot see that your argument self-destructs, I cannot help you.

By your own argument, you cannot even claim that what you believe today to be right, is indeed right as it can be regarded as totally immoral in a few years from now.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min scientia potentia... 11,149
News Speaking for God 24 min Jaimie 547
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 43 min Patrick 9,556
News Revered Artist Was an Atheist Who Rejected God.... 43 min woodtick57 36
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min Patrick 254,881
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 50 min Patrick 4,249
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Brian_G 29,391
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 23 hr Uncle Sam 327
More from around the web