Terry A. Hurlbut #fundie

Terry A. Hurlbut #fundie conservativenewsandviews.com

Where does morality lie?

Most stunningly, Obama now tries to lend moral weight to his law. He cites a large crew of politicians who knew no more about morality than he does. He asserts any modern person has “a right” to health care. Whether any doctor wants to give that care or not, whether anyone else wants to pay for it or not, he still says: everyone has “a right” to this service.

Rights don’t work that way. Rights come from God. They describe things no one may take away from you. What are they? Read the Ten Commandments, or at least those that bear on this problem:

No murder.
No adultery, and more broadly, no cheating.
No theft.
No lying to or about one another.
No coveting of that which belongs to someone else.

Thomas Jefferson recast the “inalienable rights” of human beings as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution rephrases that as “life, liberty and property.”

None of these documents say a word about a good or service to which any human being has a natural right. What right has one stranded at sea even to the food he eats?

Sadly, since Theodore Roosevelt became President, American politics has given itself more to kleptomania, covetousness, and now perjury, adultery (and even less natural twists on human relations), and in some contexts (like abortion on demand), murder. Obamacare teaches people to covet the services others have earned. It steals from some for the unearned, unpaid benefit of others. Like the devil bargaining with Faust, it forces insurance carriers to ignore adultery and fornication (of all kinds), though these present health hazards any honest doctor knows about. And above all, Obamacare passed after a campaign of lies.

Barack Obama lays a moral case for Obamacare? He does not know what he’s talking about.

66 comments

old comment by Elaugaufein

I assure you that if you define rights as something that can never be removed then you'll find that the Ten Commandments aren't rights. It is possible to remove your life (murder you), cheat on your significant other, steal , lie and covet. By your definition that things are only rights if they can't be removed none of those things are rights. There would be no need, beyond scientific curiosity, to list things that would meet your qualification of rights because it would be literally impossible to remove them.

Rights as the word is usually used are things that either should be granted to or should not be removed from people. A right to healthcare and a right to not be killed both fit under this framework.

old comment by Dan Onymous

You want God given morality? Fine:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works"

"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away”

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"

"when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed"

Now tell us again why caring for others isn't a God-given morality? Jesus specifically tells us to care for others and He was completely unambiguous in those commands.

Perhaps you need to read Luke 10:25-37 again and "go and do likewise".

Fundies want Bible-based laws in place but only such laws as discriminate against others. Who cares if Obama is Christian or not? Any Christian should surely be in favour of laws that help fulfil Jesus's commandments.

old comment by Sweetride

Those people that God has kill,or order to kill, were the wicked people. If you don't like the way on how he deal with them, well to bad because he the creator, and we're his creation. Why do you hate a God who is doing good, by destroying evil. Does that mean we should do the same thing. No my friend only God can do that(because he is sinless), unless he order you to do so(which he no longer does that). Well what about stoning disobedient children, they don't deserve to be stone to death. Yes do they because if they can't follow their parents rules, then they can't follow the law. Also if you read any further you can see the word drunk, so it's probably talking about drunk disobedient children. How can God murder someone, when murder is unjust killing. God never unjustly kill someone.

old comment by Sweetride

Question: "What does the Bible say about rape?"

Answer: The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:13-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentioned the punishment the Mosaic Law commanded for a man who raped a woman. The man was to be killed by stoning while the woman was considered innocent. Though the Mosaic Law was for the nation of Israel during the time of Moses, the principle is clear that rape was sinful in the eyes of God and led to the most extreme punishment possibledeath for the rapist.

There are some difficult passages in the Old Testament, however, in relation to this issue. Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

In the New Testament, rape is not mentioned directly, but within the Jewish culture of its writers, rape would have been considered as sexual immorality. As such, both Jesus and His followers (including the apostle Paul) spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce when a person actively committed sexual acts outside of the bond of marriage (Matthew 5:32). This would not, however, apply to the victim of rape, only the one who committed the act.

Further, the New Testament is clear that Christians are to obey the laws of their governing authorities (Romans 13). Not only is rape morally wrong; it is also wrong according to the laws of our governing authorities. As such, anyone who would commit this crime should expect dire consequences, including arrest and imprisonment.

To the victims of rape, much care and compassion must be offered. God’s Word often speaks about helping those in need and in vulnerable situations. Christians would do well to practice these teachings and model the love and compassion of Christ by assisting victims of rape in any way possible.

To those who have committed rape, we must remember two things. First, people are responsible for the sins they commit. Second, however, no one is beyond the grace of God. Even in the lives of those who have committed the vilest of sins, God can extend forgiveness to any who will repent and turn from their evil ways (1 John 1:9). This does not remove the need for punishment according to the law, but it can offer hope, even to those whose sins have made them outcasts in the eyes of other.

old comment by Sweetride

Question: "Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"

Answer: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below:

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."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He 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 thishe 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!).

Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

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.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.

Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.

Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).

old comment by Sweetride

Just in case you guys don't read about the truth in hell. Doesn't the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 teach an eternal hell of torment?

No, Indeed! It is simply a parable used to emphasize a point. Many facts make it clear that this is a parable. A few are as follows:
Abraham's bosom is not heaven (Hebrews 11:8-10, 16)
People in hell can't talk to those in heaven (Isaiah 65: 17)
The dead are in their graves (Job 17:13; John 5:28, 29). The rich man was in bodily form with eyes, a tongue, etc., yet we know that the body does not go to hell at death. It is very obvious that the body remains in the grave, as the Bible says. If you'd like to know more about what happens after you die visit The Truth About Death website.
Men are rewarded at Christ's second coming, not at death (Revelation 22:11, 12)
The lost are punished in hell at the end of the world, not when they die (Matthew 13:40-42). The point of the story is found in verse 31 of Luke 16. Parables cannot be taken literally. If we took parables literally, then we must believe that trees talk! (See this parable in Judges 9:8-15).
By representing the beggar as being in heaven and the rich man as lost, Jesus taught His hearers that, contrary to the prevailing view, wealth was not necessarily an indicator of divine favor, just as poverty was not a sign of God's judgement upon a person.

Jesus was also seeking to educate the Jews that salvation would not be theirs by birthright. The rich man in torments calls out to "father Abraham," just as the Jews of Jesus' day were mistakenly pointing to heritage as proof of their assurance of salvation.

Furthermore, Jesus was seeking to lead His hearers to understand that only faithfulness to God's Word would prepare them to enter into eternal life. He told them, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

To use the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to promote the false doctrine of an eternally burning hell is to misuse God's Word and to misrepresent His character. - See more at: http://www.helltruth.com/q-a/the-rich-man-and-lazarus#sthash.1INTXAVK.dpuf

old comment by Sweetride

Matthew 25:41 speaks of "everlasting fire" for the wicked. Does it go out?

Yes, according to the Bible, it does. We must let the Bible explain itself. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with everlasting, or eternal, fire (Jude 7), and that fire turned them "into ashes" as a warning to "those that after should live ungodly," 2 Peter 2:6. These cities are not burning today. The fire went out after everything was burned out. Likewise, everlasting fire will go out after it has turned the wicked to ashes (Malachi 4:3). The effects of the fire are everlasting, but not the burning itself.

Doesn't Matthew 25:46 say the wicked will receive "everlasting punishment"?
Notice the word is punishment, not punishing. Punishing would be continuous, while punishment is one act. The punishment of the wicked is death, and this death is everlasting.

- See more at: http://www.helltruth.com/q-a/everlasting-fire#sthash.dggDGk2q.dpuf

old comment by Sweetride

But the Bible speaks of the wicked being tormented "forever," doesn't it?

The term "for ever," as used in the Bible, means simply a period of time, limited or unlimited. It is used 56 times in the Bible in connection with things that have already ended. It is like the word "tall," which means something different in describing men, trees, or mountains. In Jonah 2:6, "for ever" means "three days and nights." (See also Jonah 1:17.)

In Deuteronomy 23:3, this means "10 generations." In the case of man, this means "as long as he lives" or "until death." (See 1 Samuel 1:22, 28; Exodus 21:6; Psalm 48:14.) So the wicked will burn in the fire as long as they live, or until death. This fiery punishment for sin will vary according to the degree of sins for each individual, but after the punishment, the fire will go out.

The teaching of eternal torment has done more to drive people to atheism and insanity than any other invention of the devil. It is slander upon the loving character of a tender, gracious heavenly Father and has done untold harm to the Christian cause.

Death, Not Eternal Torment
The Bible tells us that "the wages of sin is" not eternal life in hellfire, but "death" (Romans 6:23), the same penalty God assured Adam and Eve would be theirs if they ate the forbidden fruit.

Ezekiel states clearly that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4), and a plethora of other Bible verses and passages endorse this position. The prophet Malachi wrote that sinners would burn up as "stubble" and would become "ashes under the soles" of the feet of the redeemed (Malachi 4:1, 3). Even the final fate of Satan is explicitly pronounced in Ezekiel 28:18, where the Bible says that the enemy of souls will be reduced to ashes upon the "earth."

Compare that with Psalm 37:10 ("For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be"), Psalm 68:2 ("as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God"), and other similar verses. Soon you get a clear picture that the purpose of the fires of hell is to eradicate sin and to expunge the universe of its awful presence.

Interestingly, it was the devil who was first to suggest that sinners would not die (Genesis 3: 4). A hell where sinners never perish would prove the devil right and would make God, who told Eve she would "surely die" as a result of transgression (Genesis 2:17), a liar.

- See more at: http://www.helltruth.com/q-a/forever-and-ever#sthash.Eec2T4Q5.dpuf

old comment by Sweetride

Why does the Bible say that the wicked will be destroyed with unquenchable fire?

Unquenchable fire is fire that cannot be put out, but which goes out when it has turned everything to ashes. Jeremiah 17:27 says Jerusalem was to be destroyed with unquenchable fire, and in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 the Bible says this fire burned the city "to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" and left it desolate. Yet we know this fire went out, because Jerusalem is not burning today.

To quench means to extinguish or put out. No one will be able to put out the fire of hell. That is the strange fire of God. No one will be able to escape from it by extinguishing it. Isaiah says of that fire, "Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor a fire to sit before it" (Isaiah 47:14). After it has accomplished its work of destruction, that fire will go out. No one can deliver themselves from its flame by putting it out, but finally not a coal will be left. So say the Scriptures.
- See more at: http://www.helltruth.com/q-a/unquenchable-fire#sthash.clUJhRIo.dpuf

old comment by Tempus

These people don't even pretend to follow the teachings of Jesus any more. Do they actually read the bible or do they confine their reading to just a few verses from Leviticus?

@Mikgof: In the minds of conservatives like Terry Hurlbut, there's nothing in the Bible that supports or justifies government taking even a small portion of citizens' earnings and giving it to the poor for food, housing or medical care. In their view, the one and only organization that was ever commissioned to aid and assist the poor, unlucky and unfortunate was the church, and no one else is to assume that role. You've done exactly what you were supposed to do if you tithe to the church, and are absolved of any need for further charity. Even if the monies the church has collected are going to be used for building renovation. Even if the money is being funneled straight into the pastor's pocket. Even if not one cent is actually being used to feed, clothe, house, or provide basic medical care for the poor. None of these things are relevant--you gave, and that's what's important. That's ALL that's important.

Even if no one outside of your church benefits from your act of donation at all, that's perfectly acceptable. Desirable, even. You weren't asked to give a damn about those other people, just your fellow brothers and sisters in the church--if those other assholes actually wanted you to care, they'd become members of your church. Otherwise, their welfare is all up to God--if He wants to provide for them, he will, and if He wants them to starve, freeze to death on the sidewalk while homeless or perish of an illness that could have been prevented or treated easily if they'd only had access to actual medical care, well, that's entirely up to Him, too. It was never your job to give a damn.

old comment by SHODAN

@Stupidride

"No one in bible that God has kill or order to be kill was innocent"

Firstly, learn how to use the English language properly if you want to be taken seriously. That should read 'No one in the Bible that God has killed or ordered to be killed was innocent."

Secondly, lying is a sin Sweetride. 2 Samuel 14:12-18. God kills an innocent child for no reason other than to punish the child's father. Until you can explain that one away you don't have a proverbial leg to stand on.

"No human being has a right to judge the God of the bible"

Au contraire, I have never killed anyone, let alone an innocent child. And most of humanity can say the same. We have every right to judge God. Why? Because we are better than him.

"Repent from your sins for the kingdom of heaven is near"

People have been saying that for literally the last 2000 years. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

"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."

Did you honestly just argue this? You actually did. You are beneath contempt. 50 shekels roughly translates to about $420. I've seen bigger fines for fucking vandalism. Rape is one of the most heinous crime imaginable and you think that a joke of a fine and not being allowed to marry your victim is an acceptable punishment? You disgust me.

As for all your blathering about hellfire and whether or not it's eternal. Prove that Hell exists first. Then maybe I'll pay attention that load of hot air you've been spouting.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Weetried

"Why does the Bible say that the wicked will be destroyed with unquenchable fire?"

The fact you placed a question mark on the end of that, coupled with this:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.htmt

Mistranslations of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna

The last one is about the mistranslation word hell"

Is extremely telling. Also contradicting yourself - and thus destroying your own argument - much? Not exactly seeing the words 'Professor of Theology' before your name, boy. Proof that we Atheists know infinitely more about your own 'beliefs' than you fundies do:

http://www.godsplanforall.com/mistranslationstomeanhell

'the concept of eternal punishment in hell’ is an unbiblical pagan doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the Latin Vulgate (circa 400 AD).

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell’ is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol, and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

Mistranslations of the Hebrew word owlam, and the Greek words aion and aionios, to mean forever or everlasting when relating to God’s judgement of unbelievers and fallen angels.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

'She'ol (/'?i?o?l/ SHEE-ohl or /'?i??l/ SHEE-?l; Hebrew ??????? ?ôl), in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from the Hebrew God'

Your 'God' is the Jewish one, is he not; what the OT is based on, and all that jazz...!

Like I say: that question mark on the end of your assertion. Methinks a little chink of doubt in your 'Faith' armour, little not-Professor of Theology Weetryhard. >:D

Thus you being the retarded fundie Tryhard you are. Knowing, despite your being in that river in Egypt - re. your delusions - about the fact that the world is no longer bending to your will (otherwise, your country would be the Eternal Talibangelist Theocracy of Godsville by now). Must suck, always being proved wrong, Weetryhard. Being the educationally superior Atheists, we in FSTDT wouldn't know about that, however.

@MK

"In any case Sweetride, you judge the god of the bible as well, even if you don't think so."

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=95809

(OP: Words carved into the wall of a WWII concentration camp by one of the Jewish prisoners; emphasis added):

'If there is a god, he will have to beg for my forgiveness.'.

So much for that 'Covenant' by God & his 'Chosen People'; just ask the survivor of Auschwitz I once met & talked with, who saw his entire family murdered before his eyes by the SS. His Jewish faith died along with his family that day.

@MK

"And as well, Sweetride, quoting a bunch of bible verses won't avail you. The bible isn't true just because you believe it is."

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=2266

(OP): "Just because a person believes something does not make it True."

'Teach the Controversy' via the Cre(a)ti(o)nist fundies, post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover; the notion that 'if scientific fact is taught in US schools, why can't other Creation stories?'

Which means - by the likes of Answers in Genesis's logic - the Mayan 'Popol Vuh', the Aboriginal 'Dreamtime' and the 'OT-III Incident Document', the basis of $cientology, have as much credibility as Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible (thus the Jewish 'G_d' = yours, Weetryhard), therefore L. Ron Hubbard is God, and you fundies don't have the right to deny that fact, and 'Teach the Controversy' has blown up in their own faces. To say nothing of what you fundies claim, and MK destroys your own argument thusly.

Because to quote your new God, L. Ron Hubbard:

'What's True, is true for you.'

After all: when your very own J-boy was asked by Pontius Pilate 'What is Truth?', he couldn't answer.

And if he can't give a precise, exact dictionary definition of that word, then so much for the 'Omniscience' of your so-called 'God', Weetryhard. Jesus = God, amirite? Thus what one knows, the other components of the 'Trinity' (Jesus, 'Holy Spook') do; a 'Hive Mind' a la the Borg.

If your 'God' doesn't know what that word means, then he's not 'Omnipotent', therefore he's not God, ergo he doesn't exist.

...unless you'd care to prove we Atheists wrong. But only with hard, solid, empirical secular peer reviewed evidence, and to our satisfaction. NOW.

Every second you can't, you yourself only serve to prove the non-existence of your 'God'. But then, if he was all he was cracked up to be...:

image

...then what's stopping him from doing a Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty": to everyone in the world simultaneously? You tell me.

Prove the existence of the 'Soul' first (thus everything follows from that); again, using hard, solid, scientific, empirical secular peer reviewed evidence, and to the satisfaction of we Atheists now. No 'Faith' or subjective 'Truth' allowed. Go ahead.

You know what you'll be admitting when you CAN'T.

image

A rainbow doesn't physically exist, yet it can be seen. Therefore the concept of the so-called 'Spiritual'/'Supernatural' is destroyed.

Again: must suck for you fundies, always being proved wrong. We Atheists wouldn't know about that, however. We have the evidence. Facts. Reality. We win.

old comment by Sweetride

It just make me sick that you guys can't even brother to find out why God kill not murder people. You guys just assume that he does it to be a horrible person. No read the bible he does to get rid of the wicked people, that include the children,so they won't grow up, and become like their parents. It does mean that children go to hell.(Does this mean that we have to kill every single child before they reach that age,no it does not my friend. If God hasn't told you so(which he no longer does), then don't do it, and only God can do that since that he is sinless and can not murder). If you still disagree then too bad, because your not the creator.

old comment by Sweetride

The pharoah is at fault for causing God to take away all the first born. He should have giving up after like nine chances, and the pharoah heart was already harden, or was going to be harden any way.

hardening of the heart". The following is an indepth explanation borrowed, in part, from The Christian Think Tank:

The bottom line is that God KNEW that Pharoah's heart was hardened, and so He allowed a struggle to happen: During the first 5 plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart without any help from God (Exodus 7:13,14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7). Then God does it (9:12); then Pharaoh and his officials do it together (9:34-35), then God does the rest.

The point of the hardening is given the following passages to show that God CAN perform these miracles/judgments:

Exodus 10: 1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them.

Exodus 11: 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Exodus 14: 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."

The miracles/signs/judgments themselves had an end-goal: so that the Egyptians would know that YHWH was God (and therefore come into a positive relationship with him - Exodus 14:4, 17); and so that the Israelites would know that YHWH had delivered them from their oppression with power, and was therefore a God they could depend on for their needs (Exodus 10.1), and so that the whole world would hear about God - 9:16. In other words, the end goal seems to be to wake everybody up concerning the true and living God.

From Lamentations 3 we know that God "sends hardness of heart" as a punishment: 59 You have seen, O LORD, the wrong done to me. Uphold my cause! 60 You have seen the depth of their vengeance, all their plots against me. 61 O LORD, you have heard their insults, all their plots against me- 62 what my enemies whisper and mutter against me all day long. 63 Look at them! Sitting or standing, they mock me in their songs. 64 Pay them back what they deserve, O LORD, for what their hands have done. 65 Put a veil over their hearts, and may your curse be on them! 66 Pursue them in anger and destroy them from under the heavens of the LORD.

What this means is that the judgments of God were not because of the later hardenings, but that the later hardenings were judgments themselves. (This motif also shows up in Joshua, where the kings who were being evicted from the land for atrocious crimes were "hardened" so they would fight Israel. (Jos 11:19.)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@WeeTryhard

All those Samaritan unborn, in Hosea 13:16.

Your 'God of unconditional Love' is a worse-than murderer; via what he ordered* others to do - certainly to those more-than innocent who hadn't done anything period, never mind anything to your 'God' (least of all anyone else) at that point in time to warrant their terminations - the entire 'Pro-Life' cause of you fundies today being destroyed, certainly it's right to exist, being the least of your problems.

No. Just Hosea 13:16 proves your 'God' is a MURDERER.

Then there's the little matter of Abraham & Isaac. Your 'God' LIED.

That 'Holy Spook' component of the 'Trinity' fooling about with the betrothed of Joseph, Mary: Your 'God' committed ADULTERY.

The fact said 'Holy Spook' diddled Mary: an underage girl, certainly as per modern secular laws, thus Statutory Rape (I refer you to the 'Born Again' & thus 'Godly' & 'Righteous' Tony Alamo. The only way he's leaving prison is in a box). Your 'God committed the worse-than sin of PAEDOPHILIA.

If the above sounds worse-than silly, it's because your 'God' is inferior to we Atheists. Oh, I'm afraid we Atheists CAN judge your 'God'. Because, as I haven't got a criminal record for so much as spitting on the pavement - least of all murdering** someone - and considering how your arbiter of morality & standards-setter, as proved above, can't keep to his own rules, therefore we are superior to him. I refer you to the words carved into the wall of that WWII concentration camp, by a Jewish prisoner; the 'Covenant', and all that jazz...!

*- 'I was only obeying orders'. Sound familiar? Thank you for admitting that your 'God' = Hitler. [/Nuremberg Trials]

**-

image

God: 2,038,344

Satan (and only on God's authorisation): 10

Anon-e-moose: 0

Therefore thanks for the great advertisement for Satanism, fundies.

Hey look, inferior subhuman fundies, We have every right to judge God, so shut up about it, and just deal with it, because We judge him fairly. One of the Six Million (the carver of that message on that concentration camp wall) gave him more than infinite chances to rightfully destroy the Nazis...:

image

...but I guess your 'God' was with Hitler. Murderers of a feather destroy together, after all.

old comment by Sweetride

Anon-e-moose
The Holy Spirit is seen as a female in the original texts . Ruah is feminine in Hebrew, so she can't get Mary pregnant.

It is quite clear from these verses that ek is used here in the sense of meaning by the means of "Judas begat Phares and Zara by the means of Thamar," etc. Males beget by the means of females. So, when we come to the 18th, and the 20th verses, and see that Mary was with child of (ek - by the means of) the Holy Ghost, the implication is that the Holy Ghost was the intermedial creative agency (in a Motherly sense, not a fatherly one) for Mary's conception. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared [margin fitted] me." Hebrews 10:5. It is the work of mothers to prepare bodies. This can be even more clearly understood by looking at the conversation between Mary and the angel Gabriel at the time of her conception, as recorded in Luke 1:34, 35.

"And the angel said unto her... behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son.... Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:30, 31, 34, 35.

"The words which we have italicized are the keys to this text. The first, "come upon thee," means, "to supervene : i.e., arrive, occur, (fig.) influence" (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, 1904), "upon thee." This term is never used in the Biblical sense of a man's knowing a woman, but only in the sense of approaching unto. The angel was telling Mary that the Holy Ghost would approach unto her, and that the power of the Highest would overshadow her".

"Note that the angel does not say that the Person of the Holy Ghost would overshadow her, but rather that the power of the Highest would overshadow her. There is quite a difference between the two thoughts. If it were taken the first way, that the Person of the Holy Ghost somehow, literally, came upon her as a husband would, then that would make the Holy Ghost (a divine Person) the Father of Jesus. And, since many Christians believe the Holy Spirit (Ghost) is an influence only (rather than a Person who exerts an influence), they see the work here of the Holy Ghost as being that of the Father anyway, so why not think of His Spirit as masculine. The only problem with this thinking is that to come to these conclusions it is necessary to ignore the meaning the Greek word which is translated "overshadowed" (episkiazo), leave out part of the text, and to remove it from its historical context".

"The Greek word episkiazo (overshadowed) is defined in Strong's as, "to cast a shade upon, i.e., (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively to invest with preternatural [beyond, super natural] influence." Strong's, 1982. This word appears 4 other times in the New Testament. Three times it is used to describe the overshadowing of a "cloud" (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:34). The other place it appears is in Acts 5:15:"

"The meaning of the word is quite clear in portraying the idea that the Holy Spirit "cast a shade" (invested with preternatural influence worked a miracle) upon Mary and her seed".

old comment by Sweetride

Anon-e-moose
Virgin birth = no sexes. And as for Mary age, I have gave up on that one. A female can't get another female pregnant. Mary got pregnant in more of a asexual way. Just read copy and paste the links or read what I have posted.

"There is no Scriptural reasoning for believing that the angel Gabriel was speaking to Mary in a language other than that which she was used to, that being Hebrew or Aramaic. In both of these languages the word for Spirit (i.e., Ghost) is feminine. In Genesis 1:2, where it reads, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," both the noun, Spirit (ruah), and the verb, moved (merachaphot), are feminine in the Hebrew. This is common knowledge, especially among the Jews. Therefore, when the angel Gabriel told Mary (in her native tongue) that she would be approached by the Holy Spirit (Ghost), she must have understood that she would be graced by the Presence of a divine, feminine Being who would, by the miraculous power of the Highest, cause her to be with child. There was no thought in her mind that the Holy Spirit was masculine, for that thought was not portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in their languages, nor in their extra-Biblical writings where the Holy Spirit was also clearly portrayed as feminine. The femininity of the Holy Spirit was well-established in the thinking of the Jews in Mary's day, so she must have understood the words of Gabriel to be prophesying of the coming of a great event which was to be performed by the Holy Spirit; a virgin conceiving by a miracle of God, without anyone, human or divine, literally knowing her.

The angel said that it was the power of the Highest that was to cause her to conceive. Gabriel said to her, "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus." Luke 1:31.

Please make careful note of the fact that there is not a word from the angel that there was to be something outside of her that was to be placed within her. There was no divine seed or egg implanted in her at the conception. Jesus did not become a sperm or an egg which was put into Mary's womb. It was upon her own body, her own seed that a miracle took place the miraculous conception of the humanity of Jesus.

This text could not be any clearer in portraying the fact that Mary herself conceived, of her own seed a son, and that this conception took place in her womb. Though Christ was to be made of "the seed of Abraham" (Hebrews 2:16) according to the flesh, His existence as the first begotten (first born the feminine is indicated in the Greek, Hebrews 1:6, 12:23) is not to be reckoned only from the birth of His humanity by Mary, for He was the Only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) when He created all things (Colossians 1:15-19). His begotten (inherited Hebrews 1:4, Psalms 2:7) Son relationship with His Father existed before He created anything, while His new relationship as the Son of man who is also the Son of God, began at Mary's conception by "the power of the Highest." It cannot be said that He is the "first born of every creature" (Colossians 1:15), if He was not first born that is, He was born before He created anything that gives birth. When He came into this world He gave up His divine form and glory to take upon Himself humanity, and thereby combined the two natures (see Philippians 2:6,7, and Hebrews 2:9-18).

old comment by Sweetride

The simplest evidence that can be presented to show that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament cannot, by themselves, be used authoritatively to establish or prove the gender of the Holy Spirit is John 14:16, and 17. Here we read that Jesus "will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (Greek Paracletos masculine), that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit (Greek Pneuma neuter) of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him (it the Greek here is in the neuter, corresponding to the neuter word for Spirit, Pneuma, and not the masculine word Comforter, Paracletos): but ye know him (it, same as above); for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." In other places where the words Pneuma (Spirit), and Paracletos (Comforter), are used together the masculine pronoun He is used, corresponding to the gender of the subject, the Comforter. See the Greek text of John 16:7-15.

old comment by

@Moose

Also Mary was physical and mentally mature enough to handle it. She could been a little over 13. No one know how old Mary was, we can only guess. Some say she was 12/13, while other say she was 14/15. And remember they become adults(mentally) ealier. I guess that the God or the Gods were looking at full physical mature as well as mentally mature rather then age(Most girls finish puberty around high school age, which is 13/14-17/18). Remember Mary became an adult by the equivalent of high school age. This doesn't mean that I'm a pedo or support one, but that Mary probably did have the body of an adult(4th or 5th stage if puberty, look it up). I'm sure that God or the Gods did something to made sure that they don't get someone under 13/14 pregnant, such as telling her parents not to marry her off until she 15 years or older.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P9sYIRXZZ2MC&pg=PA862&dq=15+was+the+age+of+marriage+in+ancient+israel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhrJnTw-zLAhWIOiYKHVSUBEwQ6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=15%20was%20the%20age%20of%20marriage%20in%20ancient%20israel&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=goq0VWw9rGIC&pg=PA554&dq=15+was+the+typical+age+to+get+married+in+ancient+Israel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic_dTM5-PKAhUEZCYKHXSFDf44ChDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=15%20was%20the%20typical%20age%20to%20get%20married%20in%20ancient%20Israel&f=false

old comment by Swede

Life is an important part of the Human Rights that we have agreed upon (almost) universally. Without right to healthcare, there is no real right to life. Most other western countries have realized that it's cheaper for everyone with a single payer system, financed by taxes. Mixing in insurance companies just makes it more expensive for everyone, while lining the pockets of the insurance "moguls".

Rights don't come from God, he only provides obligations. Rights are things that humans have fought and died for.

People have always had abortions, the main thing that changed with reproductive rights for women is that abortions were made safe.

Most of the western world is probably LESS thieving, covetous, adulterous and murderous now than before Roosevelt's days. We just hear more about the crimes done now, but they were more common back then.

Terry A. Hurlbut #fundie conservativenewsandviews.com

66 comments

Confused?