According to What or Who?

[POI]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

[1213]

...where your Opinion replaces not only what the evidence says...

What has evidence said that I have replaced?

, but what mainstream Christianity says (Faith, not works) or even what the Bible says.

What I have replaced that is said in the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

...where your Opinion replaces not only what the evidence says...

What has evidence said that I have replaced?

, but what mainstream Christianity says (Faith, not works) or even what the Bible says.

What I have replaced that is said in the Bible?

Everything I have pointed up that you didn't like.

Just for one thing the contradictions about the resurrection, and your attempts to wriggle out of the terminal contradictions about whether Mary Magdalene saw Jesus or not. In fact I remember you posted the whole passage but omitting the bits that showed this to be the case. You also wabbled about daylight before the sun, saying it wasn't daylight alternating with night (though Genesis says it was) and making up some claim without a shred of evidence that it was a cosmic radiation effect.
These are just two examples of your denial of the Bible...oh, yes, slavery as well... and is valuable evidence as compelling (to anyone with mind still open) of how Faithbased denial works, where even what's in the Bible is denied, claimed to mean something else, or dismissed as 'they wrote differently back then', in which case nothing written in the book matters anyway as we can learn nothing from it.

cue..though I don't think you would sink this low.... "It does not say those exact words".

[POI]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

I he doesn't tell you, maybe I will, off topic though evolutionary genetics is.

[benchwarmer]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

[TRANSPONDER]

It is genetic genocide, which is not unknown in nature. It is a 'survival of the species' instinct, and one I think explains this curious fascination of partners of the ethnically diverse kind. Religions have not been immune to the idea of 'marry their women and convert them, but never let them marry ours'. type of thought. Religions can be as tribal as any old time genocides were. Which is what that was.

[1213]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Perhaps there just was no good reason to kill them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Perhaps there just was no good reason to kill them.

Thanks for the laugh. Surely there was a good reason to kill them, if the whole tribe was to be wiped out because God said so (they were all wicked, potters, bakers and schoolkids, all wicked, all had to die). But There was an even gooder reason not to kill them.

[Mae von H]

Otseng has asserted the following: "God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc."

For debate: By what standard(s) does one measure these above said attributes of love, patience, being just, and being merciful? In other words, how do we know God actually possesses all these attributes?

First one would have to ask how a man knows other men have those attributes. Is the inquisitive man able to perceive these qualities in others? By what measure does he know this?

[Mae von H]

Ok, so, if you would not rape, why do you think someone else would? If you don't like to be accused of wanting to rape others, why it is ok for you to accuse other people for that, without any evidence and without knowing the people?

Please enlighten us... What exactly was the purpose of sparing only the female virgins?

Yes, I would like the answer to this as well

I've basically given up trying to continue this line of debate here. I feel that readers have been shown the relevant passages in the Bible and the kind of apologetics that are attempted to sweep the obviously bad stuff under the rug. Sometimes it's better to leave the clearly bad apologetic as the last word for all to see.

My recap:

The Bible clearly says that warriors are to spare the virgin females and keep them for themselves. Anyone not living under a rock realizes what this means. Anyone attempting to explain this away as not slavery and rape is welcome to tilt at the audience. I know the only ones that find these types of apologetics convincing are already convinced and simply hoping people on the fence will agree. Good luck!

You need to read the text again, It says that if a man sees a women he would LIKE to have as a wife with the stipulation that she is a legitimate wife then, not a slave, he’s allowed to do so.


How come none of you atheists ever consider that a virgin has no veneral disease for which they had no cure? You always make it sound like the men were perverts and never consider that virginity before marriage prevents veneral disease.