Coreeece

It may have played out something like this: Alyssa: Eh Bob, we gotta get some reaction to this RFRA for the newscast tonight - this could be the big one! (after hours of no success) Bob: How about that old pizza joint in Walkerton with all those christian nick-knacks... Alyssa: Goooood one Bob - this is soooo exciting! - hehe (at the pizza joint) Alyssa: Hi, Alyssa from channel 57...we were hoping you'd like to comment on the FRFA that was signed into law? Crystal (pizza owner): What's that? Alyssa:The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Crystal: Oh, Oh....ya, sure... Alyssa: Ok...Bob you rolling? Bob: You know it... Alyssa: So is there anyone you would refuse service to, like say...gay people? Crystal: Um...no, we serve gay people here. Alyssa: Damn...stop rolling Bob... Ok, Crystal...you're christian right? Crystal: Ya... Alyssa: Ok, and the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Sooooo, is there perhaps any type of..... say, homosexual function that you might not cater to? Crystal: Oh...oh...ya... Alyssa: Hold on a second crystal......Hey Bob, you rolling - she's gonna fucking say it.... Ok Crystal...go on... Crystal: Ok, if like gay people wanted pizzas for for a wedding, we'd have to say no... Alyssa: Ok, great! Thanks....have a nice day! Hey bob, get some shots of that fuddy-duddy at the table explaining his view on homosexuality... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...and when that business model fails, he can open a gun shop in Texas and refuse service to conservatives for good measure. As it's been illustrated many times already, this isn't about people refusing to serve a particular group. I refused media production services to a particular Church in Detroit when I saw how they conned their members. I wasn't comfortable being a part of that. I would understand why an atheist web developer might not want to create a website promoting Christianity - and they shouldn't be forced to. I would understand why a pro-choice print shop owner wouldn't want to make bumper stickers that say "guns don't kill people, abortion clinics do" Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, in pizza boxes with bible quotes on them...problem solved. The gays get their pizza wedding and the Christian's can go home without a guilty conscience... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

What were they, by the way? As it turns out, the laws only would've protected the female captive from brutality. Your graphic illustration earlier in the thread demonstrated how marriage could be used as a loophole for spousal rape. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/ ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate. I prefer to look within the papers. Sometime people will hopefully value the message more than the messenger. I generally don't get involved in this topic and I have much respect/appreciation for your posts on the subject. - keep them coming! I just found this quote rather peculiar from the OP link: Is that what this is all about? If the paper has something legitimate to say, you'd think they want to open it up the the largest audience possible. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Not possible. The world would be a better place without any guns. Both have the same level of possibility of succes. None. Then angry people will just find something else to kill people with. And people would invent new religions ...and their parents would say - "we killed off the religious - I forbid it!" ...and the kids would say - "I was born this way!" They would be bullied at school and some would commit suicide... The closet theists will finally make a stand and conservative teachers would drive anti-bullying campaigns. They would have theist-pride parades and dominate the fashion industry... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Funny you should bring that up...I just had a nightmare recently where we were discussing this same exact thing. It's a little blurry, but it went something like this: BLURRY FIGURE 1: The Bible commands the rape of women. ME: That's Absurd! BLURRY FIGURE 2: Appeal to Stone - Explain at once! ME: Ok, here are several examples where it says rape is unacceptable. BLURRY FIGURE 2: Oh c'mon man, don't be an idiot - every culture rapes it's women. ME: Ok, but here are more examples of why it's unacceptable - there were even laws against soldiers raping captive women. BLURRY FIGURE 2: Oh c'mon man, don't be an idiot. Anybody letting a soldier within 5 feet of a woman is giving license to rape her - that's what soldiers do - THEY RAPE PEOPLE! BLURRY FIGURE 1: YA, THEY RAPE PEOPLE! ME: Ok, but here are even more examples - they weren't even allowed to treat the captives brutally. Some were even assimilated into the culture and given in marriage. BLURRY FIGURE 2: AHA! SPOUSAL RAPE! I GOT YOU! ME: OK, I'm just trying to show you examples of where the bible shows that rape was considered unacceptable even 3400 years ago. BLURRY FIGURE 1: You defend rape! You should be an Islamic apologist... Then I was jarred up in a cold sweat gasping for breath! Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

And the religious won't ever answer properly. I know, it's just fun tying you guys in knots. If you question it, and you do think it's negative, why are you defending it? Why not just agree that whether or not the story is exactly as Bill presented, it's still pretty freakin' evil? Interesting choice of words from an atheist. It seems the concept of evil would be more of an argument for God rather than against Him. I've found it to be rather foolheaded to put God in the Dock. Wouldn't God Himself set the standard of his own actions rather than our modern palatability of justice? He didn't approve of the first batch of humans, so he wiped 'em all out - women and children included. The wage of sin is death, and we choose to sin - He chooses when we die. We have subjected ourselves to death and the evil that causes it through our own persistent rebellion. We have not lived up to our potential as human beings and despise his authority. I'm reminded of Revelation 3:17 "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked." God not only allows evil - He controls evil and even causes it according to His own good purpose. Isaiah 45:7 "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things." God does not need my defense Jakee...we were simply discussing what the words say they say. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You can ask why until you're blue in the face. I still have a lot of questions of my own... Maybe there is answer to why, but I doubt we'll find it by dwelling on the negativity and pounding it down each others throats. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

What happens to your one-dimensional perspective if it's pointed out that God wasn't angry about the sexual immorality, he wasn't angry about the supposed plot to destroy the Israelites, he was angry because the Israelites showed respect to the Midianite's Gods while they were guests in the Midianite's homes, and that's why he wanted them all dead? How's that vengeance? It was all of that...vengeance, wrath and jealousy - all attributes of God. So God ordered his followers to kill an entire civilisation because they didn't believe in him. So this is better than the koran... how? I don't know about the Koran. Does it still command it's followers to kill off modern day civilizations, unlike scripture? Does the Koran still hold people under the law rather than grace like the bible? Does the Koran have Christ? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

What happens to your one-dimensional perspective if it's pointed out that God wasn't angry about the sexual immorality, he wasn't angry about the supposed plot to destroy the Israelites, he was angry because the Israelites showed respect to the Midianite's Gods while they were guests in the Midianite's homes, and that's why he wanted them all dead? How's that vengeance? It was all of that...vengeance, wrath and jealousy - all attributes of God. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It doesn't...I was first attracted to the character of Christ, and tho I fall so short, I try to model my life after His example. The more I understand, the more I see how essential self sacrifice becomes. The idea of giving up your life for the benefit of someone else is so admirable. It's like the only true meaningful way of life for me. (and I'm not necessarily talking about a physical death) But the more I grasp at what that actually means, the more I question the strength of my faith... So why were they allowed to live after one sacrifice and the women not? They weren't, 24,000 of them died. I think the sacrifice you were referring to was the one that ended that plague. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

he knows exactly what's going to happen when you tell a bunch of soldiers drunk on battle to take a large number of female slaves. That's probably why he made specific laws with regard to how female captives were to be treated. They were to be assimilated into the culture - most likely as domestic servants. They could be given in marriage and were not to be treated brutally. If a man desired one, he was to marry her and she would no longer be considered a servant. He couldn't treat her brutally and needed to give her time to mourn the loss of her family. Now this was written in 1405 so I'm not sure whether it was verbally communicated to the soldiers 2 years earlier or not. However, Moses did command his soldiers to purify themselves - so any sexual activity would have violated this command. Now again, these captives were considered the "little ones" - mostly children under the age of 12 - many, if not most were probably younger than that - between the ages of 5-9. I'm not aware of any 5 year olds getting married. - That's just ridiculous. In some cultures, it's not acceptable to rape female slaves, nor is it commanded. In fact, there are laws against it - The Israelites where an example of this type of culture. Because that's what the book said he did. No, I gave you plenty of examples of why that's not true. I don't know how else to expand your one-dimensional perspective. The idea was that the loss of God's favor would allow Israel to be overcome. It was a war provoked by Midianites and they lost. Again, one of God's attributes is vengeance. Many people don't like that, but I can't see anyone more qualified to Judge. He controls the power of life and death. The men of course...and it was clearly unacceptable. Just as sexual immorality with the Midianite's daughters would've been considered unacceptable. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

The words say "keep alive for yourselves all the young girls" You could say whatever you want with regard to what happens afterward. You can say they were raped, beaten, loved, assimilated into the culture, eventually given in marriage, etc. For whatever reason, you chose to say rape and impose it onto the text as if that's what it actually said. Again, if the sexual acts with the mothers of these children were unacceptable, why would you think that it would be acceptable to rape their daughters and that Moses would even go as far to command it? I was wondering why it was taking so long to bring it up again. At least you got it right this time. Why do you think they did it? A. For fun B. For revenge C. Doesn't matter D. It's just common place in the culture of War E. It was perceived as necessary for the continued survival of Israel F. To eliminate the threat of future rebellion of the assimilated boys G. To eliminate the threat of the boys avenging their parents in the future H. Evil Bastards I. No Reason J. Other Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Only if you assume a bronze age tribe wouldn't rape their slaves and prisoners. And there really arent any words for just how obtuse that assumption is. Nonsense...you can assume that some soldiers might rape a woman and still say that Moses wouldn't have commanded it. Do you have anything to back up your claim that the rape of child servants was as prevalent as you make it out to be? Why would you assume he would command the rape of the children right after dealing with a plague caused by the sexual immorality with their mothers? That's if you rape a person. Slaves aren't people, perish the thought! You really need to take your own advice and put things in the context of the time period you're talking about, rather than keep displaying your ignorance of their social order. The sexual acts with the children's mothers weren't acceptable, so why would it be acceptable to rape their daughters regardless of social order? And you are accepting that a God who is the font of all goodness commanded his followers to be no better than the barbarians that surrounded them, but it's ok because that's how everyone acted back then. Well, I wouldn't say they were as bad...it wasn't like the Israelite women were the ones whoring themselves out in a plot to wipe out an entire civilization. One of the attributes of God is vengeance...not too many people like that, but I can't think of anyone more qualified to exact judgement. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wander as orphans in the wilderness Yeah, killing their mothers, raping them and then keeping them as slaves is so much more civilised than killing their mothers, raping them and leaving them behind. Your explanation of the bible does sound so much better than Bill's. Statements like that make me think that you haven't been paying attention and may still be having trouble with your analogies... Moses did not commanded his army to rape children. Rape was punishable by death. However, If the victim was not betrothed, the rapist was to pay the father 50 shekels of silver, marry her, and never divorce her... Now people may not like that...they may reject everything in scripture because of that one statement. They may reject their faith. They may reject God. They may even attempt to suppress their own undeniable desire to believe...but at least they are rejecting what the "words say they say" rather than what Bill's embellishment says they say... It may seem trivial to you, but I thinks it's important to give a concerted effort to understand in it's totality what it is we are accepting or rejecting and how it may relate to us. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, how's that new religion working for you? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Wow, seems like a miracle of God that such a typical family history has survived all the way to what it has become today... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Not much...rather than assimilating captive children into a viable culture, they just leave them to wonder as orphans in the wilderness - that is of course until the Christians come along and take care of them... Nah, I think pulling one pathetic lot out of Africa was influence enough... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well there's your problem. It's not that Bill's account doesn't jive with what the words say, it's that it doesn't jive with your modern assumption about what the words meant. And your modern assumption doesn't jive with what the words say. Sorry bro. The text specifically makes a distinction between the "women" who were to be killed and the "young girls" or "female children" who were to be taken. My "assumption" is based on the rest of the story along with the totality of scripture that suggests these young female children were to be assimilated into the culture - probably as servants - which wasn't an uncommon practice back then when it came to captives of war. The assumption of rape is merely imposed on the text. Again, if sexual immorality with the women in the story was the cause of a plague that killed 24,000 people, why would anyone still persistently assume that Moses would then command his army to rape their daughters? Were some of these children raped? I don't know - the text doesn't say that - but given human nature I'm sure it was a possibility, but it wouldn't be OK and it certainly wasn't commanded by Moses. So that made it ok, did it? If you fucked a hooker, got chlamydia and then murdered her for giving it to you would you be a) fully justified or b) an evil bastard? The purpose of posting that was to draw insight from the text to show why Moses wouldn't command his army to rape the daughters of those women, not to justify the nature of war as a good thing. The culture of war is still pretty nasty. It hasn't even been 100 years since we incinerated over 100,000 men, women, and children in the matter of minutes. Do you consider Truman and his soldiers to be evil bastards? I find it entertaining that you would equate women that were directly involved in a plot to eradicate the Israelites to a hooker that gave me VD. Far be it from me to expect you to consider the nature of war and survival 3400 years ago in a desert where everyone around is trying to wipe you out. I suppose it's much easier to just write them off as a bunch of pillaging rapist rebels from Africa. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

My issue was that what you say doesn't jive with what the words say... I highly doubt that Moses would command his Army to rape these virgins who were more than likely under the age of 12. My understanding of the culture at that time was that once a female reaches physical sexual maturity, she wastes little time finding a husband and starting a family. The women that were killed in the story were the same women that were counseled by Balaam to whore around with Israel and entice them into lewd sexual rituals. The implication was that because of God's favor on Israel, Balaam couldn't curse the israelites and allow their enemies to eradicate them - So he figured that perhaps whoring these women out would perhaps rescind that favor - and it did - nearly 12000 Israelites were killed in a plague because of it, and now these same women were inside the Israelite camp. My point is that if the plague was caused by sexual immorality with these women, why would you just assume that Moses then commanded his army to rape their children? Edit - it was 24,000 who died in the plague, not 12000. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I don't expect everybody to believe. I'm offended by the misrepresentations. There is plenty of blood and guts in the Bible to talk about without the need for embellishments and out right lies... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You probably will not read it and if you do you will find many reasons why it is still not okay. That is your choice but a little research goes a long way. As for instances such as this in the Qu'ran.... I examine it the same way that I do the Bible except it contains open ended statements and commands to murder. A friend of mine wrote this up. I know where to find it quickly because throwing out Numbers 31 is a common occurrence by many..... http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html Ya, I read it last night - tell your friend thanks! Suffice it to say that Bill's commentary was a gross misrepresentation of the story... ...but to be fair, I think many people here are just trying to make the point that the same gross misrepresentations are happening with the Quran. Now I haven't studied the Quran extensively to know what I'm talking about, so I keep my mouth shut - I wish some here would do the same with regard to the Bible instead of creating more conflict with absent minded commentary. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

We were talking about Christ, not televangelists... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Sounds like a coercive measure to me ... No more coercive than refusing to accept the help of a lifeguard as you're drowning.... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour