I think they are just trying to shock people to get publicity, they ar free of course to say what they like but we don't have to repost it. Deny them the oxygen of publicity.

"It just DOES strike me as a cult...are you allowed to raise kids in a cult?"

Yes

"One like that, to boot?"

Yes

@Maniac:

I used to think that too, but I don't think these sort of people do it for the attention, I think they honestly do it out of dogma, or what they perceive as dogma...

They strike me as the sort who, if they were born in another part of the world into another culture and another religion, would be blowing themselves up right now.

@Santa:

I've heard about kids being taken away from cult-like situations before, though...I suppose you'd have to prove some sort of abuse...though I'd argue that what they're taught, these kids, constitutes abuse.

I'm sure no one will ever take them to trial on it, but I think that's part of the tragedy of it all--

You can get away with far, far too much under the banner of "freedom of religion" in this country, I GUARANTEE, if this group weren't called a "Church," someone would've had them under investigation and at least tried to bring such charges against them.

(It might be interesting if a former member/defector from the family ever does that, though, and sues for past abuses and the like...talk about a family court session...there's a REASON these people are notorious for raising their kids to be lawyers!)

;)

Obi, it's called "freedom of speech". We'll send you a pamphlet on it.

Oh wait, you're talking about removing children from homes because someone (the gov?) doesn't approve of the way they are being raised. Hmmmm. Can you say
Fascism or the Soviet Union? Or the Cultural Revolution?

I'm a liberal (ok, a progressive). I don't like the group. But I don't want the government in the business of breaking up families unless there is a clear danger to the children...

And I think we'd be just as scared of Liberals taking away Conservative's kids (who are being brainwashed) as we are scare of Conservatives taking away Liberal's kids (who are being brainwashed).

It's revealing that protesting the funeral of Sylvester Stalone's son has you riled up, rather than the funerals of scores of veterans who died serving their country and defending us while we sleep. You really are a Southern California boy, obiwanobiwan.

They aren't a "Church" they're a church (the capitalization isn't important, but the quotation marks). While they do despicable things by bothering people at funerals, their doctrine is actually completely consistent if you bother to look into it. It's a fundamentalist Baptist and Calvinist teachings taken to their logical, if extreme, conclusions.

As for taking the kids away, the government can't do that just because the parents really don't like gay people and other groups. It's a shitty way to raise your kids, but it isn't illegal and it isn't abusive.

You can get away with a lot under the banner of freedom of religion, as the absurd deference nominal reverential like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show, but that's kind of the point. Once the government can close down the Westboro Baptist Church for being shitty people, it can close down Mormon temples for opposing same-sex marriage, Catholic churches for refusing to pay for contraceptives and abortifacents, synagogues for giving money to Israeli settlement construction, etc etc.

The Westboro Baptist Church should be counter-protested and mocked and exposed as the wicked people they are, but they should never be silenced unless they start encouraging violence and cross the red lines there. 50 or so morons is not worth losing our freedom of religion over.

Bob Genghiskhan

@Indy:

"Obi, it's called "freedom of speech". We'll send you a pamphlet on it."

Of all the people on the forum, you're not exactly talking to someone who's unfamiliar with freedom of speech...

Given how much I utilize that right, I daresay some would prefer I exercise my right to remain silent sometimes instead. ;)

"Oh wait, you're talking about removing children from homes because someone (the gov?) doesn't approve of the way they are being raised. Hmmmm. Can you say
Fascism or the Soviet Union? Or the Cultural Revolution?"

Nooooo...that wasn't what I was saying at all.

Did you mise the word ABUSE in my sentences above?

See, you're not allowed to keep your children if you ABUSE them. (Little known fact, I know.)

And there have been cases where children have been taken away from parents because of the group lifestyle they lead.

So, yeah, if it were deemed that the environment was abusive or otherwise endangered the children, yes, the parents could lose the kids...that's the law, not fascism, the USSR, a Cultural Revolution, or any other buzz word you may try and drop in to attempt to sound poignant and make your response seem rapier sharp.

This isn't The O'Reilly Factor--name-dropping "fascism/USSR/Cultural Revolution," abhorrent as those things might be, aren't going to win you points...

All it will do, if you mention a certain someone, is win you the Godwin Rule Award.

@Invictus:

"It's revealing that protesting the funeral of Sylvester Stalone's son has you riled up, rather than the funerals of scores of veterans who died serving their country and defending us while we sleep. You really are a Southern California boy, obiwanobiwan."

Ahem.

I started an entire thread on these people AT LEAST once before and railed against them for their despicable actions towards fallen veterans, Invictus.

I figured that the WBC is notorious enough I didn't have to drop that in as well, that it went without saying that they did that...or do I have to mention that they think gays and Jews are wicked as well? That goes without saying, yes?

(And actually, given how few movies I see and the fact I walk or take public transportation more than ride in a car and I don't drive, I'm really not a Southern California boy, at least not the stereotypical one in that regard...I've always thought I'd like it better and be more suited to life Back East, but that's neither here nor there.)

"They aren't a "Church" they're a church (the capitalization isn't important, but the quotation marks). While they do despicable things by bothering people at funerals, their doctrine is actually completely consistent if you bother to look into it. It's a fundamentalist Baptist and Calvinist teachings taken to their logical, if extreme, conclusions."

Again--I know.
I have discussed this before.
I mentioned this, actually, in the upcoming "Great Debate" for my position, I believe.
I didn't think I had to state it again.

What's more--if they had a religion that mandated the murder of people based on their race, that wouldn't be permissible just because they were "in line" with their chosen doctrine, so doctrinal beliefs doesn't waive their right to be called out on being abusive if, in fact, they are being abusive.

"As for taking the kids away, the government can't do that just because the parents really don't like gay people and other groups. It's a shitty way to raise your kids, but it isn't illegal and it isn't abusive."

Again, that was NOT my reason, again, I said the word "abuse" repeatedly, and THAT would be the justification, if there is any, mental or physical abuse which, if testimonials from previous members of the family are to be believed, isn't exactly out of the realm of possibility here.

"You can get away with a lot under the banner of freedom of religion, as the absurd deference nominal reverential like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show, but that's kind of the point. Once the government can close down the Westboro Baptist Church for being shitty people, it can close down Mormon temples for opposing same-sex marriage, Catholic churches for refusing to pay for contraceptives and abortifacents, synagogues for giving money to Israeli settlement construction, etc etc."

I asked about the possibility of their poor, innocent children being taken away IF it turned out they were being mentally or physically abused in a cult-like environment.

I DID NOT say to shut the WBC down (as much as every rational person on the planet would like to see it disappear.)

"The Westboro Baptist Church should be counter-protested and mocked and exposed as the wicked people they are, but they should never be silenced unless they start encouraging violence and cross the red lines there. 50 or so morons is not worth losing our freedom of religion over."

I agree, and I don't believe I was advocating for anything that would challenge our freedom to speech or religion as, again, I will say it again, ABUSE of a mental or physical nature is NOT "protected speech," as it were, and THAT is what I am suggesting here, that if they were found to have committed such actions that they might THEN have their kids taken away.

"And there have been cases where children have been taken away from parents because of the group lifestyle they lead."

In those cases, there was actionable evidence that the group leader was forcing them to have sexual encounters as young as 12 with at least some knowledge of the parents. I highly doubt that's happening in Westboro. I don't like them, but they really don't strike me as that sort.

Frankly, Invictus is right.

I don't care about Sage Stallone. Yes, his death was tragic and his father is an incredible actor (Sylvester Stallone is in my personal top five, along with Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Russel Crowe, and Mark Wahlberg) and Sage himself was actually pretty good in Rocky V. (A movie with mediocre acting by everyone except the Stallone team and a God-awful plot)

That being said, the real tragedy is that these people (I am using the word "people" very liberally here) are allowed to picket military funerals. No right is unlimited. I have made this case before. Just as we would not allow children, criminals, and mentally unstable people to have guns, freedom of speech/religion is not unlimited. "God hates fags" is damned near inciting violence, which is not constitutionally protected speech. In any case, I would argue that their protesting infringes on the family's right to privacy.

If all you're saying is that the children should be taken away if abuse is going on then you're not saying anything at all. That's so self-evident it's not even worth mentioning and would apply to any children in any family of any religion.

The thing is different people disagree as to what qualifies as abuse.
Back the article: Is this really allowed? Why the hell are people allowed to use religion as an excuse for anything?
AND WHERE THE HELL ARE THE RIGHTS FOR THE FAMILY?

@Bob exactly! Religion is used as an excuse for genocide and racial prejudice. And those things are against those very religions teachings.

^ Which pisses me off. Where in the Bible does it say that God hates fags? All it says is that God loves everyone, sinners included.

...Yeah...no.

God HIMSELF says he is "a jealous God" in Exodus, and hell, gives a list of tribe after tribe that he's ready to help the Israelites slaughter...

And then gets pissed Saul doesn't slaughter ENOUGH of the Amalekites.

So, yeah--"God loves everyone" my ass, to eschew the niceties and get right to it.

The Bible--or shall we say, at least, large swaths of certain parts of it--is hateful, bigoted, anti-female, and when God HIMSELF comes down and says "Don't piss me off, guys, 'cause I AM a jealous God, you know!" well...

I don't think you can make a textual argument the OT God, at least, is the way you seem to picture him.

(NT Jesus we'll leave be, that's another can of worms altogether, but certainly "God" as written can't very well be considered to "love everyone" when He Himself and his own book says...he doesn't. These WBC people are nasty, wicked, twisted fanatics, but I must maintain, they DO serve as a warning to what your mindset CAN BE--note I say "CAN BE" and not "WILL BE," lest *I* be accused of absolutism here--if you take the Bible as literally as it is written and in the most conservative, Calvinist sense. It's not their twisting God's words, as it were, so much as God's words are already twisted and is now being read by a clutch of twisted literalists--the worst of both worlds.)

To be fair to the text, obi, you're reading 17th century English with a 21st century understanding. Further, the problems you're raising from the OT are not sufficient to reject Christianity on a theological ground. There is a book I read in a former life that contrasted the treatment of women in ancient Judaism with the neighboring religions, and concluded that Judaism was a protector of women by comparison (this would be "reading the bible in context," as they so often claim atheists fail to do). I'll have to dig around in my library to find that book, but if you're interested I'll try finding the title.

As far as wiping out entire people groups, there are plenty of theological explanations in modern Judaism and Christianity. Simple google searches yield more than you'll ever care to read, trust me. One reason I don't argue whether god is good or not is that the theological explanations exist and at least one is usually known by my opponents.

Usually, the bible is also seen as a "progressive revelation" of who god is, and it is usually assumed that he still progressively reveals today, allowing women their modern "equal" roles in leadership positions of various denominations.

As a fellow in your corner, I would ask you be more fair to the text and don't pick fights where there's nothing to (successfully) pick. It only justified their opinions of those godless heathens, bless their hearts, we ought ta

*to pray for them.

"To be fair to the text, obi, you're reading 17th century English with a 21st century understanding."

Well, to begin with, from all the Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton, and whatever else from that wonderful century of literature (and then it all went downhill in the 1700s sans Swift and a few philosophers, but that's another story) I understand the importance of bearing the 17th century meaning in mind...

However, this is a text that ORIGINATES in ancient times, and from a primitive part of Judea (which is not to denigrate the people, if was, after all, at the dawn of human history, just about everyone and everything was primitive, but that being said, that doesn't mean I'm going to cut it slack for that reason when it claims to be a perfect book of a perfect God with a perfect moral compass and a perfect plan.)

So I don't believe I'm being ungenerous or unfair in my reading--it DOES say he's a jealous God, and that sort of meaning (if not the exact words) is kept in other versions as well, and for a reason--it's most likely what they meant. After all, there were many "other" gods around at that time...saying your god is a jealous and wrathful one makes him sound intimidating to an ancient culture, especially at a time when they would have bought the Out of Egypt story and the Flood story and all the rest of God's wrathful instances hook, line, and sinker...

Saying your God was wrathful and jealous made him seem intimidating and, thus, made him seem like one that you had "better" follow--or else.

"Further, the problems you're raising from the OT are not sufficient to reject Christianity on a theological ground."

I'm taking on the idea the Judeo-Christian God "loves everyone," which clearly he does not--I specifically even left the NT and Jesus out of it.

So, this is not my taking on Christianity as a whole so much as it is me taking on that specific statement about God, that is, that he "loves everyone" which, again, is a preposterous statement no matter HOW you read the Bible, as he not only clearly doesn't, he SAYS he doesn't.

"There is a book I read in a former life that contrasted the treatment of women in ancient Judaism with the neighboring religions, and concluded that Judaism was a protector of women by comparison (this would be "reading the bible in context," as they so often claim atheists fail to do)."

Well, I'm not even going to begin to get into reading the Bible in or out of context, because I can give just as many instances of Judaic/Christian sects seemingly taking it of context as well.

In any case--

Comparison to neighboring barbarians doesn't make an act of barbarism by the Hebrew tribe any better...and yes, I'm keeping in mind this is the dawn of history and most cultures were anti-female, I've already said as much, but even so, that doesn't make Judaism a beacon of feminism (at least in that time, since then I'll happily concede that--thankfully--it's probably been the most feminist-friendly of the three Abrahamic religions in modern history) at that time.

What's more, if I wanted to truly invoke others...I'd take the Greeks and their ideas about women over those contemporary to the Hebrew people at that time, KEEPING IN MIND BOTH SECTS BY TODAY'S STANDARDS WERE HOPELESSLY MISOGYNIST.

But at least Plato DID argue in "The Republic" that, though he felt women were naturally inferior to men, that they should be allowed to participate equally to an extent, train with the men, hold jobs and make money, and serve in the military alongside them with the "Guardian" class...

Thus, he DID actually give women an in as far as power goes...he said he didn't expect many women would be up to it, but AT LEAST he was open to the idea and said they should be treated equally (or as equally as the Ancient Greeks could conceive) in a perfect Republic.

What's more, a look at Greek mythology contra Judeo-Christian mythology shows a stark contrast in the role of women--

There ARE great female heroes in Greek mythology, powerful Greek goddesses, and Greek comedies AND tragedies allowed for strong female characters and protagonists from the Oerestia to Antigone to Lysistrata to Athena, Diana, and all those great goddesses.

By contrast...women are placed on the same level as oxen in the Hebrew system of law in Exodus, and arguably the greatest female "hero" is...

The Virgin Mary, who's great achievement is...that she was a virgin and, of course, raised the manifestation of God (which of course takes the form of a male) and never said an ill word about being, erm, "immaculately" impregnated by God (Divine rape? What's that? And YES, I'm sorry, but the whole Virgin May impregnated story smacks of Divine rape being glorified, WORSE than Leda and the Swan/Zeus in Greek mythology because AT LEAST the Greeks acknowledged Zeus DID rape her, whereas I daresay most Christians would not even begin to hear of that in Mary's case.)

Sorry obiwabobiwan, I'm gonna have to mute you for that last paragraph. It make me so angry that I'll probably write something I'll regret.

"As far as wiping out entire people groups, there are plenty of theological explanations in modern Judaism and Christianity. Simple google searches yield more than you'll ever care to read, trust me."

I don't doubt that theological explanations "exist."
After all, how could they not?
If they didn't, the religion would tacitly be admitting it endorsed genocide.

So, of course there are "explanations"...

Much the same way that, if I really wanted to and had no soul or moral inklings, I could give an "explanation" as to why the disgusting actions of the KKK are "justified."

That's the dangerous thing about words and people who use them effectively--

Given the right (or wrong) dose of dogmatism, a lack of morals, and a good enough wordsmith, you can craft "explanations" for anything.

I'm reminded of a line from the film "Thank You For Smoking" (which is HILARIOUS, by the way, I can't recommend it highly enough to anyone who likes Aaron Eckhart or is in the mood for one of the smartest comedies in years) in which the pro-tobacco lobbyist Eckhart plays describes a scientist as being "so smart, he could disprove gravity!"

Again--the right words and the wrong convictions, and you, too, can justify rape, incest, genocide, murder, slavery, and the foul treatment of women, other ethnicities, and just about anyone you care to wrong!

"Usually, the bible is also seen as a "progressive revelation" of who god is, and it is usually assumed that he still progressively reveals today, allowing women their modern "equal" roles in leadership positions of various denominations."

To be blunt--I find that abhorrent.

No God that subjects women to torment, subjugation, rape, and has its ministers teach for upwards of 1500 years that women are the soul of temptation and wicked by nature and takes until 1920 to allow them to have the right to vote and STILL doesn't ensure them equal pay for equal work to this day deserves my respect, nor the respect of anyone else.

The same can be said of any of his "revelations"--

No God that requires the death of 6 million fellow Jews to allow Israel to be created (and subsequently birth it into an environment of perpetual war by displacing hundreds of thousands of other people and damning their innocent children to a lifetime of second-class citizenship and being people without a home) is worthy of my respect or the respect of anyone else.

No God that takes until 1863 in America to get through to its people that slavery is wrong, that takes until 1964 to start to fully drive home the message that blacks should be treated fully as equals, and takes until 1978 to drive that message home to the Mormons is a God I care to call divine, holy, majestic, and CERTAINLY does not warrant the description of being a God that "loves everyone.

By all means mute me if you wish, Invictus (though now you can't read this.)

I mean what I say--

The Greeks at least ACKNOWLEDGED Zeus raped Leda...

But when it comes to the Virgin Mary, it's "immaculate" to impregnate her without her previous consent and expect her to carry and raise this child.



Ask a rape victim today how "immaculate" that is.

IT IS NOT, and I cannot be more adamant about such an infuriating point.

I am by no means an expert on women, but I know enough to know that's a DESPICABLE message to give, to say NOTHING of Lot offering his two daughters up for rape, indeed, without even asking them first.

DESPICABLE--and I shall delve into the role of the dogmatic here--

If you believe otherwise and say that Lot was perfectly justified in offering his daughters up for rape like that, I must say I sincerely hope you do not have kids, because what more despicable action could a parent possibly take!

(Except be ready to kill their only son at God's first whim, but then, that's yet another story, isn't it?)

It's not rape.

Luke 1:26-38

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.37 For nothing is impossible with God."

38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

So, Gabriel appears to her before the event and says it's going to happen in the future. Note "will come". Then, in 38, Mary consents to that action.

Yeah, she consents AFTER they say it's going to happen anyway.

*Asking first* would've been a nice touch there...instead, to me at least, it comes across as:

"You are to be with God, conceive his kid, and name him Jesus."

"Well, I am his SERVANT..."

I'm sorry, it just doesn't come across well for me (and again, I'm not pretending that other cultures at this time didn't feature rape, but again, at least they treated it as such...this just feels as sickening to me as the "justification" for the slaughter of the Amalekites and their children...namely, a justification after the fact--which is in fact what it is, as the Gospels were written after the fact, and Luke--if I recall correctly--after Mark and, I believe, Mathew.)

I'd also point out that, again even if I were to concede Mary--and I still maintain my point about her--the Bible still features so much ill treatment of women that no right thinking person can think it or its architects (at least) were female-friendly.

Again--Lot's...well, all the women in Lot's wife (offering his two daughters up for rape, and then...damn, his poor wife, turned to salt, though I suppose I can call that a draw as Orpheus lost his beloved in the underworld via looking back as well, so that can just be chalked up to an ancient motif, I guess), treating women and daughters as on par with oxen, Eve's treatment and characterization...

I'll pose the question:

Name some strong, good female heroes of the Bible that did NOT get credit, as it were, for bearing/giving birth to children (to leave Sarah and Mary out of it...I mean, where is the Biblical equivalent of an Athena, or Hera, or Electra--perhaps she had a complex, but she was, ahem "complex," and took action), or a Diana...of an Antigone (one of the strongest female characters EVER, and she came from the Ancient Greeks, so it wasn't at all as if they weren't churning out female heroes...) or someone of that stature?

Ruth? Mary Magdalene?

But if I walk up to a girl and say, "Yo baby, I'm gonna have sex with you," and she says, "Okay," that's not rape. She doesn't consent after the fact, she consents after she's pitched the idea but before the pregnancy. It's a hard sell, but it's still a sell, and she still buys it. At no point does Gabriel give any consequences for it not happening. And Luke, I believe, is the only gospel that this comes through in.

It's interesting here because I'm not a Christian, I'm a pagan. And you keep saying, "Hey, at least those pagans acknowledge this shit" but really...you're looking for what you want to find and picking that out, not giving the material any time to analyze it without a foregone conclusion. You're as bad as people who base their votes on a passage or two from Leviticus.

As for justification after the fact...LOL. Seriously dude? Everything took a long time to make its way into print then. You can't honestly have a book about Jesus before any of the important things in his life happen, most of which happened after he was 30. Your phrasing makes everything that was ever written in history ever "justification after the fact."

Calling it rape with no sex act makes about as much sense as indicting someone for murder who neve killed anyone. The child was born expressly without sex. She was a virgin. Obiwan it was artificial insemination, if that makes you feel better. Lol.

WHY ARE YOU GUYS ARGUING ABOUT THE BIBLE ON A GAME WEBSITE!??!!

sorry just struck me that the pagan was arguing the Christian point and the atheist was arguing in favor of paganism. I figured I'd have to come in on the atheist side.

obiwan, if you think that the Lot and his Daughters story is held up in Genesis as something to emulate, then you really are missing the point.

Also, what about Deborah?

@SD:

Well, I still think it's approaching something rather nasty and not very female-friendly, but I'll concede that your "If I walk up to a girl" analogy fits and it wouldn't be rape...it's not exactly a good thing, and I'd still find God to be rather a prick if he said "Yo baby, I'm gonna have sex with you" (obviously with more, erm, divine language, lol) but I can see that view of it.

And of course Zeus basically had the whole "Yo baby" thing going for him...which again, wasn't viewed very nicely (at least part of the time) but still...

I think we can at least agree there's a fair amount of misogyny there either way you slice it?

I'll confess I don't know Ruth (haven't gotten to her yet) but as far as Mary M. goes...

Wasn't her "big thing," as it were, having her sins cleansed by Jesus?

Granted she was there with the Disciples, but still, that hardly equates to the take-action sort of feminism I'm talking about with the Greek goddesses and heroines...

REALLY out of place and time here, but amongst the Disciples/followers, she almost seems like the "token chick" of her day before that was even a thing...that seems to me, from what I know, to be her most recognizable feature:

Woman...follower of Jesus... cleansed of her sins/demons by Jesus...possibly being a prostitute (though from what I understand that's in dispute) and...?

Not exactly heroine material, and what sort of hero is that when your great accomplishment is that a man cleansed you of your sin?

I'm not picking and choosing here, SD--I am, in all honesty, going off all I know, which isn't as much as everyone else here, I'm sure, but I am reading through it, and after all, I do believe what I do claim I can back up textually.

So far, our two great female heroes of the NT:

A mother giving a virgin birth to Jesus, and a woman having Jesus cleanse her sins, and then being present for his Crucifixion.

I understand that it's Jesus' story/he's the main character...but hell, at least Paul and John the Baptist and other such characters...DO THINGS.

The women so far are almost the ancient equivalent of Lois Lane or Princess Peach...in fact, they're worse than Lois, I'd submit, because at Lois Lane DOES do something and report and she's an active character, she just keeps getting captured all the time...

"As for justification after the fact...LOL. Seriously dude? Everything took a long time to make its way into print then. You can't honestly have a book about Jesus before any of the important things in his life happen, most of which happened after he was 30. Your phrasing makes everything that was ever written in history ever "justification after the fact."

I believe I directed that mainly not at the Jesus story, but the one above it, ie, the genocides in the Bible, the Amalekites in particular...

I mean, for so much of the Bible, God is rather vague in his language, so much so that we have people to this day...well, doing what we're doing right now, debating about his actions and what he exactly meant or did and how and why and so on.

BUT, when it comes to which tribes he's going to help the Israelites kill...SUDDENLY he's pretty exact and doesn't waste time naming names.

;)

And he comes off in those parts as a character/device written by people who were explaining how they had just slaughtered an entire ethnicity and yet were doing so via orders from a "perfect, loving God."

Just saying.

As a final note on "after the fact"--

If we do take your "yes, everything was written after the fact back then" thing as truth...well...

1. For one thing, what becomes of Moses dictating the first books directly, and

2. Even setting Moses aside, I'd submit that feeds into my point a few threads back about how the Bible is a partial compilation of stories, as you say, written after the fact, so those stories left out/in the Apocrypha and outside the canon...well, if it's all "after the fact," how are we to tell what is the "real word of god" from something...well...merely "written after the fact?"

@Crazy Anglican:

(I feel like I'm almost jumping the gun here with our debate ongoing...) :)

I guess that does raise an interesting question as to...well...what DO you call it if a being impregnates you with no sex involved?

Immaculate Insemination indeed. xD

(On a closing note:

What IS IT about the Judeo-Christian theology that seems so concerned with sex? I mean...it seems so vital that Mary be a virgin...and that, if true, Mary Magdalene be a prostitute so Jesus can cleanse her of her sins...and then you have all the fun things regarding foreskins and conception and all that...

Judeo-Christian theology seems very uptight about sex...does no one else find this odd? After all, again, look across the ancient world, and you see quite a few cultures having quite a bit of fun--for lack of a better phrase--with sex, and being far looser with it, and indeed, not caring o much about someone's orientation at that...we have the famous case of the Sacred Band of Thebes and select Spartan regiments that were openly homosexual...the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians, all these storied ancient cultures were perfectly fine with sexuality, and seemed to celebrate it--with the Judeo-Christian religions, sex and sexuality and orientation almost become something that it seems everyone is ashamed of and apologetic for...

Why? I'd be tempted to chalk it up to another case of Judeo-Christian dogma being prohibitive against females and homosexuals and the like--we see more openness sexually in Rome, Greece, and Egypt, and we find powerful women and even cases of homosexuality there, whereas if we turn to the Bible, again, not nearly so much.)

@dipplayer:

Well, they say that Lot is the most virtuous person in that city...

Aaaaand then he offers up his daughters like that.

How AM I supposed to take that, when you call someone prepared to sacrifice his daughters like that "virtuous?"

Even if he's in the midst of wicked people...

Calling him virtuous for being the least wicked and doing that is like pointing to a serial killer, then pictures of Pol Pot, Saddam, Stalin, and Jim Jones and saying "Well, he was a good guy...better than these guys, at least..."

And I haven't gotten to Judges, but I'll concede that if her Wikipedia page is accurate, Deborah seems to be at least an active heroine...granted it's for judging and for being a warrior and leading forces to battle, the page says, and given the track record I have so far for the Hebrews fighting other people in the Bible, I'm a bit concerned that I'll read that far and find that it's another Saul/Amalekite situation, but at the very least I can concede that she seems an active player, so well done if I am indeed proved wrong.

:)

Mary Magdalene definitely does a lot more than sit around getting her sins cleansed. She's considered to be the most active disciple outside of the twelve...and even more active than some of them.

One of the planks of the Bible is that anyone can be forgiven. Peter and the thief on the cross beside Jesus, King David did some horrible things, Lot, etc. All of the Biblical heroes are flawed and had sin, man is born with sin after all. So just because Lot is a just man and Lot did X does not mean that X is not a wicked act.

There's also women who raped men in the Bible, and some scholars feel that Ham (one of Noah's sons) raped his father. Although it seems more likely that he just had sex with his mother while his dad was all drunk. Most of these actions are not glorified even though they're done by people who are otherwise glorified. Everyone has their sin, and what better way to portray it than having some sins be totally over the top?

@Obi - You need to read to just before Jesus' Cricifixion and three days later. Mary M. washes and annoints Jesus and purifies *his* body in preparation for his sacrifice to come. And she is the one who discovers the emtpy tomb. She is the one tells the Apostles of her discovery. And she is the first to see Jesus, mistaking him for a gardener until he reveals himself to her.

As far as other female followers, there were many just as there were many men. Jesus had hundreds of disciples, a "throng" or a "rabble" in the eyes of the Jewish Pharisees. Some of them were most assuredly women as well.

"You need to read to just before Jesus' Cricifixion and three days later. Mary M. washes and annoints Jesus and purifies *his* body in preparation for his sacrifice to come. And she is the one who discovers the emtpy tomb. She is the one tells the Apostles of her discovery. And she is the first to see Jesus, mistaking him for a gardener until he reveals himself to her."

But that's what I mean, Draug...it's all her servicing Jesus somehow (prostitute pun not intended.)

Someone like Antigone did her own things for herself, or for her father, or for love...but it was never "Antigone is doing this for someone else." It was her own action, not just her helping the guys to be heroic.

I don't know if that's eloquently stated enough, or makes sense...I dunno... *shrugs*

"As far as other female followers, there were many just as there were many men. Jesus had hundreds of disciples, a "throng" or a "rabble" in the eyes of the Jewish Pharisees. Some of them were most assuredly women as well."

Yet, except for the two Marys, its mostly the men being named.

I don't know if I'm reading too much into that or not, but it just seems like the men play all the leading roles in the Bible while the women--where they are named--get supporting roles (again, excepting the ones I haven't read to yet, so for all I know Deborah might be an Antigone analogue and kick butt, as it were, but what are you going to do, I don't pretend to know more than I do or have read more than I have) and/or are there to help them men/make the men look good.

Maybe I'm being overly-feminist--I think very highly of women just in general, I have to say, on average the women I meet are 10x smarter, classier, and far better and more interesting and attentive talkers than the men I meet, and for me, words and talk are everything, in case that wasn't overly clear, lol--but women just seem to get such a raw end of the deal in the Bible...

Hey.
Wait.
Wasn't this about the WBC, at one point?
:p

Those who would be first shall be last in the Kingdom of Heaven and the meek shall inherit the earth. She was doing what every Christian is supposed to do. Not every Christian woman bit every Christian, period. That ostensibly through whole point. It isn't just women who are supposed to srrve in the kingdom.

Obi - words do not equal intellect. Plenty of studies show that women talk upwards of 50% more in a day then men. But you confuse quantity with quality.

"Immaculate Insemination indeed."

Yeah, Immaculate conception..... insemination just being a different word for it.

Whatever you call it..... it is certainly not rape.


ANy other questions you have for me will have to wait for the next round ;-)

Finished your second rebuttal yet?

I'll take that as a "no", lol.

Deborah is a judge, a prophet and leader in among the tribes. In the Nicene Creed the Christian Churches affirm the God "Spoke through the prophets" thus we think that God can speak through a woman just as a man. Deborah assures the Israelites of victory against the Caananites, their oppressors at the time. Deborah also predicts that the final victory will be brought about by a woman. It is as Jael tricks the Caananite commander by offering him a bowl of milk and then stabbing him with a tent peg as he turns to drink it.

Obi, I thought you were an intellectual, not a pseudo-intellectual. It doesn't take much more than a shred of brainpower (or a whit, if you're feeling British and 17th Century) to avoid logical fallacies, which by now you *should* be familiar with. Example 1: Your comment about the Westboro Baptists being fundamentalism taken to its logical extreme is a fallacy called "false eqivalency," possibly used because you feel the need to smash religions whenever you can--which I recommend you examine your deep and true reasons for, asap, btw. :-) Then you do the same thing again for saying the Virgin Mary was raped. Excuse me for being blunt, but since I think you probably already know about logical fallacies, the fact that you use them appears to be evidence of an underlying emotional motivation or compulsion in your posts on this topic. Regarding women, read Luke and learn about Elizabeth and Anna, Mary, Mary, and Martha. You of course know that the role of women was more the face turned inward to the family in those days, rather than the men's role as the face turned outward, for the simple reason that it's more dangerous on the outside, and men were (and are) more expendable in terms of the survival of the family unit and the species as a whole. How many women are killed in the Bible compared to men? I'm pretty disappointed in that comment. The final point is about God not being loving. Sure, he punishes several people groups in the stories of the Bible, but if you don't believe the historicity of the book, then that's a red herring--another logical fallacy. If you do believe the stories, however, then you have to look for a deeper meaning--Aslans "deep magic"--echoed in the Magical Realism literary movement of recent Latin American decades--that brings hope from despair, turns death into life, and uses the very fact of sin and death, guilt and punishment to teach forgiveness/cleansing of sin, eternal life, pardon and finally even a close relationship to the God of the universe. You should know this. How is it that you are a highly educated, presumably educated person and you don't know these things?

I think you do know them, which makes your comments highly suspect.

Another day, Mujus...really not in the mood to talk religion/atheism today.

No problem.