• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Four Nations

GeneralT001 said:
What I said was:

"For the most part intentional sin will be no more, but unintentional sin will still be present"

We are all not gonna be just sitting around a campfire listening to a perpetual sermon from "God". We will still have a life to live, but the knowledge of God will be throughout the world. It will not be questioned anymore.

If I can sum it up in as few words as possible: The meaning to life is:

To build a close relationship with the one and only God. The way you do that is through study of HIS Word (The Tanach) and prayer.
All of us will face trials throughout our lives. These are to test us and improve our character - hopefully. We are never alone, God watches and listens. Life is very, very short. Do with it as you will - but very few will be able to claim "I did not know there was a God".
Click to expand...

so nothing will be different at all, other than that God will finally decide to actually show his face to us, which will all inspire us to never disobey him ever again. we will have free will but never actually use it. so the only reason we ever sinned in the first place was because he decided to hide from us for a few millenia for some reason.

got it.
 
GeneralT001 said:
Alas, you are mistaken. It is not believing that I or anyone can fathom Gods mind, it is simply following the Laws that HE has laid out for us so that we can live a good life with each other. Its not a difficult thing.
Click to expand...
How do you know "He" laid them out at all?

Oh right. "Faith"

Gullible
 
GeneralT001 said:
Because we have to get from point A to point B. Israel will need the USofA's help. We all may need the USofA's help before too long. Do you ever wonder what the world would be if the US did not exist but rather we had just Russia and China as the dominant world powers?

Not "in" 2030 but rather "by" 2030.
Click to expand...
The way things are going, we are more likely to need help from other countries to keep the US off our ass, not the other way round.
 
zeke said:
yes you've examined things so in depth that you've come to realize that a book of 5000 year old stories filtered through countless translations are not only the only accurate historical document but also a document that perfectly predicts the future.
Click to expand...
I do appreciate that skepticism and understand it. But, the Hebrew of The Torah, goes back a long way and it has not changed. The real problem is finding a good translation. Of course the best is too be able to read Hebrew. A good example was the "Rape" example you noted earlier when a proper translation of that word would have been "Seduced" - which of course implies mutual consent. Words are very important.
 
GeneralT001 said:
I do appreciate that skepticism and understand it. But, the Hebrew of The Torah, goes back a long way and it has not changed. The real problem is finding a good translation. Of course the best is too be able to read Hebrew. A good example was the "Rape" example you noted earlier when a proper translation of that word would have been "Seduced" - which of course implies mutual consent. Words are very important.
Click to expand...

I'm not skeptical.

Your story just doesn't add up. You keep making it up as you go along.
 
GeneralT001 said:
I do appreciate that skepticism and understand it. But, the Hebrew of The Torah, goes back a long way and it has not changed. The real problem is finding a good translation. Of course the best is too be able to read Hebrew. A good example was the "Rape" example you noted earlier when a proper translation of that word would have been "Seduced" - which of course implies mutual consent. Words are very important.
Click to expand...


Ehhhh....I'm 20+ years past taking the time to argue against christian apologetics, but even my rusty ass knowledge on the subject knows this is an incomplete interpretation of the Torah. There's two verses that deal with this:

1740261466169.png

and

1740261486272.png


The core issue is that the hebrew laws view girls as property, either of the father or the husband and that the crime of laying with her has nothing do with with whether she consented or not (as we can see with similar penalty being enacted for "seducing" or "seizing"...there is no concept of women's consent in the torah, like...at all. They're property.) but that her status and value as a virgin was done damage to, which is an economic crime against the father.
 
MindzEye said:
Ehhhh....I'm 20+ years past taking the time to argue against christian apologetics, but even my rusty ass knowledge on the subject knows this is an incomplete interpretation of the Torah. There's two verses that deal with this:

View attachment 24539

and

View attachment 24540


The core issue is that the hebrew laws view girls as property, either of the father or the husband and that the crime of laying with her has nothing do with with whether she consented or not (as we can see with similar penalty being enacted for "seducing" or "seizing"...there is no concept of women's consent in the torah, like...at all. They're property.) but that her status and value as a virgin was done damage to, which is an economic crime against the father.
Click to expand...
Its a good argument but one says "seduces" and one says "seizes". Why do I get the feeling that "seizes" could be a euphemism for "seduces" in the era that this is from? Personally, from my moral stand point rape should be a capital crime and death should swiftly follow. So I lean with seduction here. FWIW
 
Opinions seem to vary on this one:

The Torah; A Women's Commentary, Deuteronomy 22:28:1

FORCED SEX WITH AN UNBETROTHED WOMAN (22:28–29) This case concerns a woman who is not married or betrothed, so engaging in sex with her does not constitute adultery. The law assumes that the man initiated the act and that there was some degree of coercion, as reflected in the statement, “he seizes her and lies with her” (v. 28; compare v. 23). The man is obligated to marry the woman and to pay the betrothal gift for virgins; he may never divorce her. (Compare Exodus 22:15–16, which does not include the no-divorce stipulation and provides for the father’s refusal of the marriage.)
 
GeneralT001 said:
Why do I get the feeling that "seizes" could be a euphemism for "seduces" in the era that this is from?
Click to expand...

Because you want it to mean that. That's why you get that feeling, you want to get that feeling. It's not a euphemism, that's a widely accepted translation and explanation of that passage, directly from torah.com

If you want a better linguistic explanation, here you go:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfyyvsO3ojk

As for who he is, that's Dan McLellan,

1740265087606.png
 
MindzEye said:
Because you want it to mean that. That's why you get that feeling, you want to get that feeling. It's not a euphemism, that's a widely accepted translation and explanation of that passage, directly from torah.com

If you want a better linguistic explanation, here you go:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfyyvsO3ojk

As for who he is, that's Dan McLellan,

View attachment 24543
Click to expand...

LDS are Mormons re John Smith and The Angel Moroni. Cult. While he may be very bright I would rather get the info from the mouth of a Rabbi. A Rabbi who knows Hebrew intimately and has lived and breathed this his entire life.

But that aside, you and I are created in the image of God (meaning we have the ability to think and too feel). Would you or I believe God expects a rape victim to have to marry their rapist? Is this logical? It would most certainly be the victims choice and most likely a big resounding NO.
 
This is a fantastic example of why I stopped arguing against christian apologists online decades ago and instead focused my energy on people I had a better chance getting through to: Hockey fans and Republicans.

There is no evidence someone can provide that can overcome blind faith. Or put another way, you can not use logic and evidence to argue someone off of a position that they did not arrive at using logic and evidence.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
This is a fantastic example of why I stopped arguing against christian apologists online decades ago and instead focused my energy on people I had a better change getting through to: Hockey fans and Republicans.

There is no evidence someone can provide that can overcome blind faith. Or put another way, you can not use logic and evidence to argue someone off of a position that they did not arrive at using logic and evidence.
Click to expand...
Or...maybe...just maybe...you don't know enough about the whole subject? I won't sit here and espouse that there are no areas in either the OT or NT that are factually wrong...the NT is repleat with them. Btw...how did you ever come up with the idea that I am a Christian apologist?? Missed the mark on that one.

Blind faith I do not have in the written word. I will study anything that is amiss. There is very little of that in the OT but a lot in the NT. Again, a belief in God does not require any faith whatsoever.

Btw...this is post #2500....a perfect number to end this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top