The God question-part one

r u really that dumb? or just ignorant........

Scientists , mathemiticians want to disprove God / religion......There basis is the big bang..........

Something cannot be created from nothing........we know that.....even a reasonable person knows that.....Therefore, from the scientific/mathematical view point, they will NEVER EVER EVER EVER be able to disprove it........never........

Think now.......by now u should be thinking the big bang surely could never have happened, based of atoms, gases etc etc colliding..........

Therefore there could only be one alternative......u tell me what that could be,,..

Now who created God.........we are only designed to think about creation in this physical world.........the statement about something cannot be created from nothing only applies in this physical world.......

When we discuss God, we are talking about the spiritual world......the laws about something from nothing DO NOT necessarily apply for the spritual world.........I do not know who created God........but where the statement about creation from nothing applies to this physical world, it doesnt necessarily apply to God as a God is in a spiritual world............

Our brain arent designed to know about this in the spiritual sense, only in the physical sense, and no matter how much u look at it, it is impossible the world came from a big bang

Do u understand now?

This might help.read and learn......Social security, retirement pension and health insurance are all concepts that came up along with industrialization. Before that, the only safeguard against starvation in old age or while being too sick to work was to have a family that could and would care for you.

In pre industrialized societies, having a daughter means raising a child that will eventually leave your household to live with the family of her husband (at least in a patriarchy - in a matriarchy it's the other way round) and will therefore not contribute to your old age pension. In such societies, it is only reasonable to ask for compensation.

The bible leaves no doubt that women were/are to be treated as property. As such they either belong to their parents or their husbands and enjoy virtually no rights nor freedom, especially not when it comes to their own sexuality. In other words: Considering wifes to be property has the side effect of making it socially acceptable for their respective owner to decide upon when they must or must not have sex, without asking for consent.

The "biblical society" was a patriarchy and men were most concerned about illegitimate children. You cannot blame them for this though. Given the agricultural state of the middle east, the idea of feeding children that were not your own must have been a nightmare.

Without pregnancy test or contraceptives being available at that time, the only way of making sure that you are not marrying an already pregnant woman was to insist on her being a virgin. A woman that had lost her virginity was therefore pretty much off the marriage market.

So, with these premises in mind, what does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 actually mean in it's historical context?

When a man had raped an unmarried/young woman in old Israel, he had literally turned her into "damaged goods". She would not have been able to find a "respectable" husband afterwards and therefore she would also not have been able to start a family of her own. The implication of this being that the crime deprived her of any chances to gain what was then considered to be social security, health insurance or old-age pension.

As much as any feminist today must shiver with the mere thought of a woman being sold to her rapist, this is not what it was seen as in those days, at all. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes a law suit where the cause of action is not so much the violation itself but the consequences it bears on the victim's future. Namely, the financial loss she could be expected to suffer by not being able to start a family for her own support. The court rule is an attempt to make the violator pay damage repair by forcing him into a marriage and (most importantly) denying him the right to divorce, which he normally would have had (Deut. 24:1-2). In other words: what we see as adding insult to injury today was actually putting the woman in a very strong legal position back then. She became financially secured in a way she could not have archived by a regular marriage.

Now, one could of course point out the insanity of forcing a woman to live with an abusive husband. This, however, is only insane by modern day standards. In biblical times, women generally did not pick their husbands themselves. The idea of a love marriage is a relatively new concept in western societies and has only been around since the romantic era. Before that, marriage was typically arranged by the family and about support, political influence or financial benefit.
In ancient Palestine, a woman's consent was not a requirement to anything. The rule of thumb simply was: you married whom your family picked and you had sex when your husband decided to have it. Women were not emancipated and thinking of domestic violence as a crime did not cross anybody's mind (including the women's - compare it to the situation in poor Arabic countries, where women, subject to the same treatment, do not rebel either). Whether or not it was ok to force a woman into having sex pretty much was only a question of whether or not you were married to her.

So, what's the conclusion here? The laws in the bible were created by a bronze age society for a bronze age society which, given the circumstances and available resources, had to set their priorities differently than we do today. The kind of harm, we can nowadays easily compensate with modern medicine or insurance systems, was often a matter of life and death back then.
Biblical law is in no way suitable for us to build our morality on any longer. We cannot use it as a guide, let alone as a guide that should be followed literally. At best it can teach us what society looked like in ancient times, but quoting Deut. 22:28 -29 as an example for cruelty against women, when it was, in fact, meant to and even accomplished the exact opposite, is a gross misrepresentation. Quote mining is a tactic, commonly employed by theists and one should not embarrass oneself by stepping down to that level.

call me tim-

thank you for the answer.

I am going to take some time to reflect upon it.

Everyone deep down knows heavan is a better place, but it is human nature for man wanting to stay with loved ones for as long as possible.....

My best friends wife (i was the best man at his wedding) passed away from breast cancer, RIP may God bless her soul).She was only 30 with 2 kids.......

He would pray for her daily but she passed away.....But once she passed away, he was relieved that she was in a better place.....

It is only human nature we want to spend as much time as possible down here with loved ones.......

Take the opposite.........Again looking at action and known consequences

Why does man still kill if they know they are most likely gonna end up in prison. They still do it

Why does man steal if they know they are likely gonna end up in prison...

Why do u gamble if u most likely know u are gonna lose....

People pray so they want to spend as much time as possible down here with there loved ones, even though they know a better place awaits

rape, etc etc etc,..........

My point is, it is human nature to do something even though deep down u know the consequnces........Whether the consequences are good or bad.......we still do it

With regards to prayers being answered........they do.......BUT, u need to pray EVERYDAY, NOT JUST WHEN U NEED something..........Imagine having a friend that only speaks once a year and when he does speak to u he only wants something.......What would u say to him?

Again, faith in the bible............

I agree, i have heard of many people being at peace in the hour of death.......

There was that really famous guy that dies a few years ago.Forgot his name..on his death bed, he said just love each other.....

The number one rule in the bible.......

?