Travis The Dragon
AFTERGLOW!!!
Ah for sure. Better to always censor than make a mistake on the chat.Used to posting on Teams chat at work
Ah for sure. Better to always censor than make a mistake on the chat.Used to posting on Teams chat at work
I don't think it's necessary to the interpretation that she's actually knocked up when her husband gets "suspicious" - it just means that if the curse "gets her" she won't be able to have children in future. Which was seen as a sort of catastrophe in that society, and a source of shame to the woman concerned.Numbers 5:11-31. Here’s the NIV translation.
Basically from what I understand, if a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant, her husband is to take her in front of the priest, and the priest will curse her and give her a drink that forces her to miscarry. AKA the child is aborted.
I never trust people who say that - it makes me wonder what's in there that they don't want me to know about ...Both is blatantly apparent if you do historical research and mostly, if you read the Bible in the original languages they were written in which, ironically, Biblical literalists explicitly tell you not to do.
I have a book recommendation for you: "The Badly Behaved Bible" by Nick Page. I think at the very least you'll find it an entertaining readI always thought that the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were either written directly by Moses, or more likely, were based on earlier Moses' writings.
It's actually the Lord who causes her to miscarry: "may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry"Numbers 5:11-31. Here’s the NIV translation.
Basically from what I understand, if a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant, her husband is to take her in front of the priest, and the priest will curse her and give her a drink that forces her to miscarry. AKA the child is aborted.
So God aborts.It's actually the Lord who causes her to miscarry: "may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry"
And killed a lot of people back in the Bible days. I guess this explains it?: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testamentSo God aborts.
What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof) and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not). Seems like yet another inconsistency from the big man, murder is bad unless I do it or order it. An inconsistency so twisted that it makes you wonder if it isn’t just all made up.And killed a lot of people back in the Bible days. I guess this explains it?: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervi...-kill-women-and-children-in-the-old-testament
Anyone who says "it must be true/right because it's in the Bible" just isn't engaging their brain. There's all sorts of stuff in the Bible that's just plain wrong (almost all of Judges, for a start) and I honestly think we're supposed to spot that.What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof) and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not). Seems like yet another inconsistency from the big man, murder is bad unless I do it or order it. An inconsistency so twisted that it makes you wonder if it isn’t just all made up.
It assumes God exists, and so does the arguement that it's not ok for God to kill, for obvious reasons...What does it explain? It asks why it’s okay for God to kill people and then answers that by saying, “Cuz he’s God.” Wow, big brain right there. It assumes that God exists (of which there is no proof)
The way I think about this: It's not "morally wrong" that if, idk, someone is blown up, then they die. That's just reality. And if our morals don't apply to reality, they shouldn't apply to the force that is above reality. What "right" means is a different thing.and that everything he does is right (which is wrong IMO, regardless of whether a Christian God exists or not).
Why would anyone be, or want to be, a bloody god if they can't kill with impunity in the first place. Comes with the job, duh.it's not ok for God to kill
Well, I don’t think that’s morally wrong for someone to be blown up and killed. That’s the natural result of being blown up. But I believe that it is morally wrong for a person to intentionally blow someone else up and kill them. Now, God may be above reality, but he is also allegedly the reason we have morals. Therefore, assuming that God isn’t above his own morals, if he blows someone up and kills them, then he is morally in the wrong. Since God can never be morally wrong since he’s God, then he would never blow someone up. Therefore God takes a somewhat hands-off approach to running the universe and that seems kind of weak to me. However, if he IS above his own morals, and will blow up a person just because, then he is not deserving of being God, he’s a sadistic monster.The way I think about this: It's not "morally wrong" that if, idk, someone is blown up, then they die. That's just reality. And if our morals don't apply to reality, they shouldn't apply to the force that is above reality. What "right" means is a different thing.
1) You can learn about religions in spite of being an atheist.If your an atheist who doesn't believe in God, why even get involved in religion at all? Why don't you just ignore it altogether and completely forget about it?
If you’re an atheist living in the USA, how would you expect that to work out?I'm not saying the USA should ignore religion, just atheists.
You should learn things to decide what you believe, not believe things to decide what you learn.And why would you want to learn about something you don't even believe in? Seems pointless to me.
How could it impact someone in a great deal especially if they don't even believe in it in the first place?especially about something that can indirectly impact you a great deal, like religious belief in the USA.
You can't avoid it, but you can ignore it.It's a bit difficult to avoid the influence of religion in society, believer or atheist.
Because people use religion to justify the horrendous treatment of people in the US.How could it impact someone in a great deal especially if they don't even believe in it in the first place?
Because people who do believe it regularly try to subvert the first amendment’s guarantee of separation of church and state by trying to pass laws that support their religious beliefs, usually altering the language just enough to have it not be explicitly religious, though its intent is clear.How could it impact someone in a great deal especially if they don't even believe in it in the first place?