Dear Earl

you must be new here :) 'discussing' is not 'imposing'.. your comment was about the abysmal standard of a Muslim who reacts to any criticism by saying "Aah..you got that from some hate site"..in other words, pretty lame.

Here in OLO, we 'discuss' robustly various ideas including the Christian faith, atheism, humanism and secularism. Discussing..is not 'imposing'.

ROBERT.. did you read that link I gave about the captives?

You are acting just a bit like a spoiled child there. You gave us 3 examples.. where it appears.. you have prejudged the outcome solely on the basis of the article.
I told you clearly, I can condemn Phelps unequivocally, because there is sufficient information. Would YOU like to be tried and convicted on the basis of an article written ABOUT you, as opposed to things you have said yourself? I hardly think so.

Runner gave us some added information about the 'signing over' of benefits, and it fills in some blanks.

One think you seem not to recognize is this:

-Programs have rules.
-Those rules are explained to the participants.
-IF... the participant decides they don't like the rules before the program is complete.. don't you think its possible that they might have a huge media whinge? Specially IF the media is looking for such stories?

We can absolutely condemn 'sin' and evil...but it must be shown to be so by dispassionate people based on firm and balanced evidence. Not an inflammatory news article from a commercial tabloid seeing to increase its 'Ad revenue' by creating controversy.

I'm guessing it was HillSong which gave you your 'bad church experience' in the past because you always seem to be hunting them down. Relax mate.. if anything really bad happens.. it WILL come out in time.

Boazy, I read the start of the article and decidied that I had better things to do with my life.

It's not the type of work that will have impact on most bible believers, they believe the bits thats suit.

If you want a better understanding of what I mean have a look at the differences in views between Philo and Gibo in regard to the overwhelming infestation of demons Gibo has in his neighborhood.

People believe what they want to believe regardless of scholarly interpretations of the texts.

At a guess you'd take a middle position on that debate, your life is probably not overrun with demons but I suspect that you think they exist and do play a role.

Personally I'm thinking of starting up a line of "Demon Bombs" (think cockroach bombs), you'd buy a pack of 3 (or maybe two packs to be certain) and set them off in your prayer closet as you leave in the morning. When you got home you'd have to air the place out and sweep up all the dead demons. Could be a good money spinner in some circles. Maybe for a fee I could have them endorsed by some pastor who once drove past a bible college and who does not like wussy churches.

Some christains have been able to be slave owners (and the verse you refered to seem to allow for that) whilst others have found the practice abhorent. Some have found excuses to bomb innocent's others have given their lives to protect innocents. Some regard women as weaker vessels while others have partnerships based on equality.

It's not really about your holy books but about what you want to do with them.

Whilst the christains on this thread seem to have been willing to see the wrong the Westboro churches actions few have been willing to speak out against the villification of gays on threads on this site. Some lead the charge - whilst claiming love they act in a manner which appears to have it's roots in the same place as Westboro.

R0bert

Leigh, there's nothing gentlemanly about launching unfounded accusations, then refraining from doing so when you don't have any proof.

You then accuse me of lying in relation to painting you as wishing genocide upon a certain demographic.

Wrong again. You did wish genocide upon a demographic, and I never said anything about race.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6698#100362

"Generation Y should have been smothered at birth."

Pretty damn conclusive.

Leigh, where you climb on here to launch vitriol, often with no backing at all, I have a basis for my criticism, and not all of my posts are laden with hate as yours are.

What's more amusing, is you have the hide to call me 'opinionated.' Aside from the fact that we're on an 'opinion' website and by logic, anyone who takes the time to post here is opinionated, you are clearly more opinionated than the vast majority of posters.

Here you say that you don't want logical debate, you just want to come on and launch your opinion, then basically be immune to criticism.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6632#99643

My contentions that:

a) I've never recommended anyone be banned, I'd rather let them display their own ignorance.
b) You have indeed wished genocide on demographics.
and
c) I back my views where you just launch hate and insults.

All stand, while the reasoning behind your constant sniping lies in tatters.

I await with resignation your next spray of uninformed vitriol.

Dear Robert

CAPTIVE SLAVES-INTERCOURSE.

that article was probably the most honest and comprehensive analysis of one of the most difficult issues in the whole old testament that I've come across!

I recommended it(and still do) because of that. You are the one constantly and incessently claiming that the 'difficult' part of the Bible are never addressed by Christians etc.. well that commentary seems to have been written not by Christians but by Jews and it encompasses a spectrum of opinions, ranging from 'yes' to 'no' and how these positions relate to the various rabbinical schools.

The conclusion is quite good I thought. (at least read that, and if you disagree, then go back and read more)

You simply cannot make these 'anti Christian' claims and then not be willing to explore the issue to the tune of what? 2 pages of type?

Of particular interest to me, was that one school felt a man can have intercourse with a captive girl once, (though not on the battle field) and then, she had to go through the grieving rituals after which he could have her again. The other school (which I support) held that a the captor could marry the girl after the full month of grieving.
It is worth pointing out, that if the girl did not make him happy, (and how hard would that be ? ) she was FREE.. So, I cannot imagine a man forcing himself on a slave, if he knew that if he annoyed her she gained her freedom.

This is one of the most difficult parts of ancient life for me to relate to. The girls (male adult) family is dead. What prospects does she have? She is a different race...should she convert? remain pagan?
If she remains pagan can the man marry her? (no) So there is much to be learned from all this.

Robert,

"Whilst the christains on this thread seem to have been willing to see the wrong the Westboro churches actions few have been willing to speak out against the villification ..."

Is that meant to be taken in isolation or are you comparing silence on villification of that group in a robust debate with silence on slaughtering Christians in East Timor, Indonesia or Sudan and silence on suicide bombers killing Jews in Israel?

If you mean it in isooation then be honest with yourself and admit that when gays get villified in these threads Christians are usually too busy defending themselves from a lot worse often from the keyboards of gay activists often simultaneously goaded with disrespectful comments (think eg. demon bombs although I'm sure that particular comment is an original from this thread). Don't be so judgemental about Christians not demonstrating ideal love in that situation when you haven't walked in those moccasins.

If it is an ambitious attempt to resuscitate the original theory then I reiterate the issue of proportionality. I also, note that we continually see non-villifying atheists stand by when there is much worse vilification directed at Christians. Any atheist who wants to pursue that needs to consider the old saying about glass houses.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ”
—Stephen F. Roberts