Ask me toughest questions on Bible

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
UnKnown's picture
By "alle" you mean.....?

By "alle" you mean.....?

SBMontero's picture
@MJM: No, I'm sorry, I haven

@MJM: No, I'm sorry, I haven't the slightest interest in what a Bible school can imbue anyone about the bible. but if you want I can tell you what I think about a person who wastes his time in a biblical, or quranic, or religious school of any kind.

Sky Pilot's picture
SBMontero,

SBMontero,

Theological schools teach people how to manipulate the sheep so that the practitioner can run a successful franchise.

MCDennis's picture
Cool. Thanks. Why do you

Cool. Thanks. Why do you think god wants virgins to be forced to marry their rapist? Dueteronomy 22: 28-29

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Along the same lines, has the 50 shekels thing increased based on inflation? Is it negotiable?? In other words, is this rape price thing fixed??

And more importantly, why do you believe this is right or just? Do you think it is ethical?? Do you think this is the inspired word of an all-knowing god??? Do you think instead that it reflects the social norms of a bunch of bronze age peasants who thought of women as chattel, and of female children as property for which compensation is owed in connection with damage to that property ????

moh.j0336's picture
Thanks for those questions. I

Thanks for those questions. I will reply as soon as possible. I will ask your first question of forced marriage.

MCDennis's picture
So I asked 8 questions, and

I asked 5 questions, and the first one is Not is the most important. Why on earth would you choose to answer only one??

Jared Alesi's picture
Because the fewer questions

Because the fewer questions he answers, the less of an ass he makes himself. It's a loaded question to ask someone if they basically spit in the face of human rights, so of course he's going to only answer the one that's the least self-damning. If he was honest about the rest, he'd be ostracized for being less than human. Unfortunately, retreating doesn't help against the charge of a lion. Rather, it just pisses it off.

MCDennis's picture
I am still waiting for an

I am still waiting for an answer. when are you going to respond??

UnKnown's picture
"Why do you think god wants

"Why do you think god wants virgins to be forced to marry their rapist?" - The rapist should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!). But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

CyberLN's picture
Do you think that attitude

Do you think that attitude about women, rape, and marriage is reasonable, correct, and honorable?

UnKnown's picture
"Do you think that attitude

"Do you think that attitude about women, rape, and marriage is reasonable, correct, and honorable?" - Yes. Let's assume that a rape has taken place. Two options, either marriage or not. If the victim, or father doesn't want it to happen, then it doesn't. If it does, then the rapist has no say in the matter. That is consent of the victims. To be married, at least back then, was a good thing, because the man provided. In either case, 50 shekels should be paid.

CyberLN's picture
Since you seem to think that

Since you seem to think that marriage to a rapist is actually a reasonable course, then I'm very, very glad I'm not your daughter.

What, by the way, happens in your world when a son is raped?

UnKnown's picture
1. "(Y)ou seem to think that

1. "(Y)ou seem to think that marriage to a rapist is actually a reasonable course" - I seem it to be a reasonable course for back then. Back then, it was good for a woman to find a husband, because it was the husband who supported the family. Again, consent is the main idea. If the victim, and the victim's father, wants the marriage to occur, then it occurs. If they don't, then it doesn't. Either way, 40 shekels are to be paid.
2. "What, by the way, happens in your world when a son is raped?" - This wasn't a major problem in the context, otherwise it would be mentioned, but alas, it is not. I am to assume that debt must be paid, but I do not think that marriage is an option. I could be wrong however.

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - I seem it to be a

UnKnown - I seem it to be a reasonable course for back then.

And there you have it folks: morality is a function of time!

UnKnown's picture
When I say reasonable, I do

When I say reasonable, I do not mean moral. In both cases, marrying the rapist, according to the law is moral, but is only reasonable, or understandable, back then, as the situation for the wife would be largely better if she had a male person in her life. It wouldn't be reasonable now as a woman can make a life by herself. Reasonable back then, but morale in both cases, if consent is given.

Nyarlathotep's picture
LOL, look at what religion

LOL, look at what religion has done to your brain: you told us it is moral for a father to force a daughter to marry her rapist.

You are better than this, sadly your religion is not.

UnKnown's picture
Yes ultimately it is the

Yes ultimately it is the father's decision, but the father is meant to look after his daughter. If the daughter doesn't want to, then it doesn't happen (assuming the reasons are good).

jamiebgood1's picture
Unknown

Unknown
How can you pick and choose what is applicable to today and not then.
Also you're reasoning in this sentence is that it is the fathers decision, but its the girls decision?
It seems your doing an interpretive dance with these scriptures. Im not following your logic.

UnKnown's picture
I am saying, according to

I am saying, according to this law, it is both moral, but it seems weird to happen today due to the fact that a woman can make her own way in the world with little help from a married man. But back then, it was best to have a husband/father/brother/other to provide legal protection. Legal in both circumstances, but only weird if it happened to day. On the topic of picking and choosing the Old Law has passed away (Old Testament), and the New Law has come (New Testament).

Nyarlathotep's picture
UnKnown - On the topic of

UnKnown - On the topic of picking and choosing the Old Law has passed away (Old Testament), and the New Law has come (New Testament).

And you return to the notion that morality is a function of time!

UnKnown's picture
Stuff that isn't prohibited

Stuff that isn't prohibited in the New Testament (E.g. like not eating pork, not wearing clothes of two different fabric) are not moral laws. Instead, they are commands aimed at ancient Israel as examples of cultural and spiritual separation from the unbelieving world. Lying, stealing, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., are issues of morality that deal with all people, everywhere.

jamiebgood1's picture
Unknown

Unknown
Ok. So your saying now a days the father has no say over their daughters choice of marriage? That was just old testament law?

UnKnown's picture
What I'm saying is that they

What I'm saying is that they must reach a conclusion, deciding what is the best outcome.

MCDennis's picture
Gotcha. So the all loving

Gotcha. So the all loving god decreed the punishment for rape is 50 sheckels. We mere mortals in America in 2017 think rapists should go to prison, not pay a fine.

UnKnown's picture
The act of being married and

The act of being married and supporting his wife was also a life-long burden, as is prison. As you're not allowed to escape prison, neither are you allowed to escape this particular marriage.

MCDennis's picture
Most of us in this forum don

Most of us in this forum don't care about the errors in the bible. The reason you're getting responses is to help you recognize that there is no reason to believe that the bible is the word of an all knowing and all powerful god.

To me, the problem here is that we could literally do this all day long. When we do,christians just explain away the mistakes and other nonsense in the bible. But just for fun and since you want bible references, here are a few:

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
Question: Which is correct? Remember please that I don't need an answer.

GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken, and are taken, aboard the Ark.
Question: Which is it, two or seven? Or both? Or neither

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.
Question: Which is it. Again, this is a rhetorical question. I don't really care which assertion is true.

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
Comment: Again, I don't care. But you'd think that an all knowing all powerful god writing a book would get it right

GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."
Question: Was getting drunk just and righteous, or was getting so drunk he had sex with his daughters the righteous action

GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
Question: I cannot understand how a god who was ''there'' forgot the name and the number of the sons of Eliphz

EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from God.
Question: So why did the god need the jews to mark their homes with a big XX marks the spot?

EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
Question: Why does the god of love order mass slaughter? Again, I honestly don't care what answer you provide. This is to illustrate some of the many many problems with your special book.

UnKnown's picture
1. "GE 6:4 There were

1. "GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
Question: Which is correct?" - This points to the fact that the Flood wasn't a global thing. When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth.3 However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."4 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11) And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13). Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
2. "GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken, and are taken, aboard the Ark.
Question: Which is it, two or seven? Or both? Or neither" - Seven pairs of clean animals. One pair of unclean animals. Seven pairs of clean animals are to brought to they can be eaten.
3. "GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
Comment: Again, I don't care. But you'd think that an all knowing all powerful god writing a book would get it right" - The explanation to this “problem” is that the events recorded in Genesis 10-11 were not written chronologically. Genesis 10 is more of an overview, while Genesis 11 speaks of one event within Genesis 10. Some of the things recorded in chapter 10 occurred before the tower of Babel, while others occurred sometime later. The simple fact is, Bible writers did not always record information in a strictly chronological sequence (and they never claimed to do such). Genesis 2:5-25 does not pick up where chapter 1 left off; rather it provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Several of the events in Genesis 38 involving Judah and Tamar occurred while the things recorded in chapter 39 and following took place. Similar to a teacher who is telling her class a story and inserts information into it about something the main character did in the past or will do in the future, Moses “jumps” ahead of himself at times by inserting parenthetical material like that found in Genesis 10.
4. "GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."
Question: Was getting drunk just and righteous, or was getting so drunk he had sex with his daughters the righteous action" - He was righteous because of his faith in God. In Genesis 15:6, we find that Abraham believed God and this was counted to him as righteousness. That is to say, Abraham was justified by faith and, as we see in Genesis 12-17, the Abrahamic covenant is a testimony to justification by faith. Paul seems to say as much in Romans 4 and Galatians 3.
5. "GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
Question: I cannot understand how a god who was ''there'' forgot the name and the number of the sons of Eliphz" - Where there are 5 sons, there are 4. One might be written when he had 5 sons, the written when he had 6.
6. "EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from God.
Question: So why did the god need the jews to mark their homes with a big XX marks the spot?" - So they would show their faith.
7. "X 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.
Question: Why does the god of love order mass slaughter? Again, I honestly don't care what answer you provide. This is to illustrate some of the many many problems with your special book." - God prohibits us killing the innocent because they are innocent of us killing them. However they are not innocent of God killing them. If we kill an innocent of our own accord, it is wrong. But if we kill someone because God tells us to, it is just.

jamiebgood1's picture
Unknown

Unknown
"If we kill an innocent of our own accord, it is wrong. But if we kill someone because God tells us to, it is just."
Wow. Do you realize you justified murder?
By your statement this boys murder was justified if God told them to do it.

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2015/10/16/son-beaten-to-death-bec...

UnKnown's picture
1. "Do you realize you

1. "Do you realize you justified murder?" - If it is justified, then it is not murder.
2. "By your statement this boys murder was justified if God told them to do it." - Yes it is.

jamiebgood1's picture
Wow. Please don't listen to

Wow. Please don't listen to god if he tells you to do the same thing.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.