• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I reread that verse. I kind of liked it. Sarah was Abraham's sister, so no lie at all. Wonderful lessons in this Bible verse. And it all worked out fine, Abimelek had not even touched her, so Sarah was totally in the clear.

And Abimelek had to learn a lesson.
Then Abimelek King of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her. Obviously that was not nice of Abimelek to do "took her", he did not ask her permission. So "God" taught him a valuable lesson "respect women" + some extra bonus lessons.

Abimelek asked Abraham, “What was your reason for doing this?”

11 Abraham replied, “I said to myself, ‘There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander I said to her, ‘This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”’
So, now incest is ok and leaving out information (which, yes, is still a lie because you are not being honest and you are deliberately misleading and deceiving people) that others need to know because their ignorance due to deception gets them hurt is ok?
Christians want to tell me I need their god and Bible to be moral, it seems they might need something else if getting people hurt, something that was totally avoidable, is acceptable.
And we arent talking about Sarah. But since you brought her up, what of the slave girl Sarah ordered to get pregnant?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I am definitely not a Bible fan ... but I see no need to twist good Bible verse into bad ... I still can see the good in things, even if surrounded by bad. And I still let others know if they do good, even (especially) if they do also bad (giving constructive feedback is far better than twisting good into bad)

So, now incest is ok
You twist my words ... I did not say incest is okay ... this was about Abraham and what he said

So, now incest is ok and leaving out information
You again twist things ...if you are asked a question and there are 2 correct answers and you give 1 that is definitely okay

leaving out information (which, yes, is still a lie because you are not being honest and you are deliberately misleading and deceiving people)
I disagree ... we have the right to be silent (not the right to lie) ... so no duty to keep on babbling... again you twist the story, better reread it yourself

So ... leaving out information ... that others need to know because their ignorance due to deception gets them hurt is ok?
Still twisting the story (why you do that?) ... Abraham was going to be hurt by Abimelek, not the other way round

And we arent talking about Sarah. But since you brought her up, what of the slave girl Sarah ordered to get pregnant?
Stick to the question ... you are the one going off topic and twisting ... why you do that? Start a new thread on Sarah if you want that issue addressed
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I disagree ... we have the right to be silent
That can be what's called passive-aggressive. The consequences can be dire and devastating for other people. IIt can be withholding information that would lead to an arrest and prevented a crime. It could lead a guy inadvertently sleeping with a married woman and angering her husband's god, all without the intention of doing so.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
we have the right to be silent

That can be what's called passive-aggressive
It can be, but in my example it was not ... Abraham's choice to tell "she is my sister (being true)" lead to God being pleased with Abraham and even with Abimelek. And you did not see that one maybe, but Sarah was not even touched by Abimelek ... because Abraham did the right thing ... so God protected all three: a)Abraham was not killed by Abimelek + b)Abimelek did do the crimes (not rape Sarah and did not kill Abraham) + c)Sarah was not raped. Because of this outcome, I found it safe to say that this is a "good Bible story"

So by saying "Sarah is my sister" Abraham avoided at least 3 crimes to be committed that day. I call that a win-win situation, not in the least for Sarah

(Me mentioning God here, does not mean I believe in God (or not) doing all these things. Just hypothetical using the story details. For me the Bible is about learning lessons, it's not about "is the Bible right or wrong or needed to get Salvation" (I don't even know if that exists or not))
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Bottom line, parents send their kids to school under the assumption that the school will teach FACTS to the children, and an extreme minimum of anything more. Parents do not want schools deciding what worldview(s) their children get proselytized to them. That's where a line is drawn, and it honestly sounds like your shenanigans crossed it, from your descriptions. You, the educators and the administrators were all in the wrong according to a great many people while you were "WINNING!" Most likely including the law.

This point is completely baseless. Have you looked into any statistics surrounding the number of atheists in prisons? The study I looked at was conducted in 2015, and the number of self-reported atheists in prisons within the U.S. was around 0.1% (yes, that ONE TENTH of a percent), while the number of some form of Christian/Catholic (I used the numbers to sum up things like Pentecostal, Catholic, JW's, Mormons/LDS, etc.) was 56%. Now, for your statement about atheists claiming to "love Jesus" to the parole board to hold up, you would have to claim that a HUGE portion of the prisoners polled lied about the religion they hail as their own. Do you honestly believe they were all atheists hoping to impress the parole board by selecting some actual religion on an ANONYMOUS Pew Research polling card?

Part 1: No

Part 2: Yes
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Part 1: No

Part 2: Yes
What a crappy reply. Seriously, way to go champ. Really kept it clear and concise on that one. What is "Part 1" and what is "Part 2?" The entire paragraphs? Do you honestly think "No" is an adequate response to the first paragraph, or "Yes" an appropriate reply to the second? I have no idea what "question" or statement you're answering to within either paragraph and neither "Yes" nor "No" seem to adequately respond to the summation of content of either.

If you don't care, fine. With the amount and variety of experience I've had with theists, your incoherence and apathetic treatment of question-laden material is not exactly "shocking."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So you broke the law with the aid of others. Nice to know. Tell me, how can you lead kids to be law abiding citizens by breaking the law?

Do illegal drugs often or just sometimes (that is, breaking the law) because your response is like that of a hardcore drug addict.

Repeating, I was invited to numerous schools to speak on sexual purity, and exercised religion and prayer while doing so! HAH!

It bothers you SO much that you don't want a license plate to say "In God We Trust" because that is adding religion to state, yet the omission of same is proselytizing your religious beliefs--in courts of law, you know, where "legal" stuff happens. Stop persecuting Christians with your hate crimes. Illegal!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Then as an American citizen, if that's what you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

.

I'm a proud American with free speech and other rights, who HAS READ THE CONSTITUTION TO SEE THAT THE WORD "Church" ISN'T IN IT.

You should be ashamed of yourself, American!
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Do illegal drugs often or just sometimes (that is, breaking the law) because your response is like that of a hardcore drug addict.
This is completely nonsensical. Seriously though - can you even answer to the inanity of this reply? How does this quote:
So you broke the law with the aid of others. Nice to know. Tell me, how can you lead kids to be law abiding citizens by breaking the law?
resemble some stereotypical statement of a "hardcore drug addict?" Are you even able to answer? 10-1 odds I don't get an answer from you. What a waste of time your words are most of the time.

Repeating, I was invited to numerous schools to speak on sexual purity, and exercised religion and prayer while doing so! HAH!
And the fact that you were invited means what? That you weren't breaking the law? So, if some unscrupulous-type invited you along on a bank heist, you'd be completely innocent of any crime when you helped bag the money from the vault, right?

It bothers you SO much that you don't want a license plate to say "In God We Trust" because that is adding religion to state, yet the omission of same is proselytizing your religious beliefs--in courts of law, you know, where "legal" stuff happens. Stop persecuting Christians with your hate crimes. Illegal!
The bit in red above is so ridiculous it makes my head spin. Omission of religious words/paraphernalia/etc. anywhere is the DEFAULT STATE of that place/thing. Think about it. Take religious words off of money and what is it? Is it suddenly "atheist money"?? Nope... still just money. Take the church off of a plot of land and what is it? Does it somehow become an atheist plot of land?? Nope... just a plot of land. Omissions of specific religious baggage from anything is doing nothing more than opening it up for consumption by anyone and everyone - rather than catering to a select minority of the world at large.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Do illegal drugs often or just sometimes (that is, breaking the law) because your response is like that of a hardcore drug addict.

Repeating, I was invited to numerous schools to speak on sexual purity, and exercised religion and prayer while doing so! HAH!

It bothers you SO much that you don't want a license plate to say "In God We Trust" because that is adding religion to state, yet the omission of same is proselytizing your religious beliefs--in courts of law, you know, where "legal" stuff happens. Stop persecuting Christians with your hate crimes. Illegal!


What? You sound a bit insane. You broke the law. Like it or not proselytizing at public schools is both illegal and immoral. If a private school was foolish enough to do so that was their moral failure. But at least it was not a legal one.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
we have the right to be silent (not the right to lie) ... so no duty to keep on babbling

That can be what's called passive-aggressive
Passive-aggressive is what the aggressor does
Passive-aggressive does not apply to the victim
Passive-protective might be a better wording
Abraham and Sarah were the victims in this example
Ergo ... they can't be blamed here at all

Example to clarify and make it abundantly clear:
Many times they blame the girl even, for being raped, because she did not scream
This sickens me when people blame the victim

IF someone tries to kill me ... and I kill him ... I would not call that "Active-aggressive" ... I call it "pro active protective" AND saving him committing a major sin:)
When Bible says "Love thy enemy" this does not mean "let him kill you" ... Bible says also "Love thy neighbor AS (well as) thyself"
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Passive-aggressive is what the aggressor does
In this case, its with holding important information, to the extent that the decision to deliberately not accurately inform other people (a lie) causes harm to those lied to.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Pharoah - entire house hold cursed, pleading "why did you not tell me she is your wife?"
Abimelech - threatened with death for unknowingly taking a married woman, pleads "why have you done this to us? What have we done to offend you?"
Clearly the lie is causing problems for people, yet it's "ok" because its not a lie they are siblings.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Passive-aggressive is what the aggressor does
Passive-aggressive does not apply to the victim
Passive-protective might be a better wording

In this case, its with holding important information, to the extent that the decision to deliberately not accurately inform other people (a lie) causes harm to those lied to.
Wrong !!!

upload_2019-6-14_2-46-59.png


This is from the Bible, more clear than this you can not get it:
1: Abimelek asked Abraham "why did you say she is your sister"
2: Abraham replied "if I would have said she is my wife, you would have killed me"
3: Abimelek's reply proved that Abraham did the right thing as Abimelek did not disagree with what Abraham said

So Abimelek admitted that Abraham was right, by giving him silver and blessing both Sarah and Abraham (see link below)

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 20:1-16 - New International Version
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So Abimelek admitted that Abraham was right, by giving him silver and blessing both Sarah and Abraham (see link below)
You havent read the whole story, nd as I pointed out Abimelek is not the only victim of Abrahams lies. He was right and Sarah is his sister, but even god said shes his wife. God cursed people and threatened others with death over it, because Abraham lied.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Some remedial ethics:
When Does The Omission Of Truth Become A Lie?
A lie is not in the words or the lack of words, it's in the intention of the deceiver;
https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/6477/lie-of-omission/
Lying by omission is when a person leaves out important information or fails to correct a pre-existing misconception in order to hide the truth from others.

“I didn’t lie; I just didn’t tell you.”

Ahhh, that old chestnut. Now where have I heard that before?

Some people view omissions as more than just white lies, but as outright lying, because by omitting information, you’re no longer being transparent.
Lie - Wikipedia
Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not mention that a fault was reported during the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.[8]
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
because Abraham lied.
Is there evidence of this? At best it's circumstantial.

Had Abraham been honest, the same afflictions could have occured, with one difference. Abraham would be dead.

I'm not sure why Abraham is being judged poorly for being deceptive in order to save his own life?

If this same story occured outside of the Old Testament, in modern times, would you be this harsh?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You havent read the whole story, nd as I pointed out Abimelek is not the only victim of Abrahams lies. He was right and Sarah is his sister, but even god said shes his wife. God cursed people and threatened others with death over it, because Abraham lied.
Okay, below is the whole story.
You keep repeating I did not read it ... I read it all.
You are free to interpret it the way you want, as am I
I prefer my interpretation, so I stick to mine and you to yours
So let's agree to disagree on this one

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 20 - New International Version
upload_2019-6-14_8-51-7.png
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Okay, below is the whole story.
You keep repeating I did not read it ... I read it all.
You are free to interpret it the way you want, as am I
I prefer my interpretation, so I stick to mine and you to yours
So let's agree to disagree on this one

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 20 - New International Version
View attachment 29975
Once/yet again, you didnt read it all, obviously and clearly, becuse Abimelek isn't the only one Abraham did that too. And god still nevertheless threatened Abimelek over something he had no knowledge of because of Abrahams lie. It was much the same for this other victim I mentioned. Apologetics focus on that one chapter as if its the entire story, but it's not, and it's harder to defend when you have to explain why Abraham didn't learn after the first time.
 
Top