What good does religion offer the world today?

This is the last I will address any Trump supporter. You are an ignorant fool if you think this man is good for our country. In a time of delicate diplomatic negotiations, his arrogant outbursts could doom us. If you think America is so powerful we can survive if everyone hates us, you are a fool. Crack open a history book and learn about Rome and get a clue.
Thinking by hating Muslims more then their extremists hate us will keep us safe, you are a fool.
If you think excluding mast minorities of our country is beneficial to our future, you are a fool.
If you think the majority of Americans will stand behind a man that has no issues with racial extremism, and reluctant to disavow them, you are a fool.
Dont confuse the toothless, ignorant, racist primary supporters of Trump with a general election.
That even these crazy right wing groups see this as their "coming out" is a big warning sign.

[quote)
Tbh? I dont think Obama is a Christian, in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is, noone can be elected in this country without being a Christian.
[/quote]

First of all, I don't know what 'tbh' stands for. Secondly, how would one prove themselves to be a Christian "in the strictest sense of the word"? Do you have a special instructional booklet, or a test that quantifies how christian or how secular others might be? Perhaps you've forgotten that the President swears to protect our laws, our citizens and our country. He or she is the President of the United States, not just the people who identify as 'Christian'. There have been so much demonstrable ignorance concerning the birth place and religion of President Obama, please understand it make my fillings ache when someone states that "I don't think Obama is a Christian" followed by some qualifier that's supposed to make the view somehow acceptable. But that's how I view things. I don't want my elected officials to be my spiritual leaders, and I don't want religious leaders to tell me how to vote. It rankles my sense of decency.

First of all, I don't know what 'tbh' stands for. Secondly, how would one prove themselves to be a Christian "in the strictest sense of the word"? Do you have a special instructional booklet, or a test that quantifies how christian or how secular others might be? Perhaps you've forgotten that the President swears to protect our laws, our citizens and our country. He or she is the President of the United States, not just the people who identify as 'Christian'. T There have been so much demonstrable ignorance concerning the birth place and religion of President Obama, please understand it make my fillings ache when someone states that "I don't think Obama is a Christian" followed by some qualifier that's supposed to make the view somehow acceptable. But that's how I view things. I don't want my elected officials to be my spiritual leaders, and I don't want religious leaders to tell me how to vote. It rankles my sense of decency.

[/quote]

Great points! Tbh, means to be honest. And what I meant by Obama being a "strict Christian" is, as from what I understand, only an interest once he took an interest in politics. Some claim he has no historic ties to any church until his political ambitions took hold. How accurate that is, I dont know. Obamas religion meant nothing to me. I would personally be thrilled if a passionate atheist took office. The capability of being non biased is a stance I can support.
Do you notice the Dems do not use their religion as a foundation for their beliefs? Idk what religion Clinton or Sanders is? And I dont care. But I do care what religion the GOP is, because their religion leans as extremist as their politics.

To Be Honest

yah...quotes are badly run now in the posts.

Uggh! And I wonder why any woman follows the religions of the "Books" at all

Republicans don't want Obamacare for Americans.

This is what happens when you privatize social services.

Pretty horrendous story (Numbers 31) but don't pretend that God approved. Turn the page to 32 and see that God was mightily pissed, told them that generation wouldn't get the promised land and sentenced them to 40 years wandering in the desert.

I'm just say'n..

So, the god was mightily pissed because of the raping? Who was the god angry with? More importantly, if the god can part the Red Sea, and make the sun stand still in the sky, why in hell didn't it intervene in this crime against innocent girls?

Just out of curiosity, how was it determined which young women had been with a man? I'll bet the soldiers were falling all over themselves to be assigned to that committee.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Bitch, bitch, bitch.. Weren't you just complaining about that awful God interfering all the time? Some people are never happy.

Just say'n.

Well, didn't the god take away those young girls free will when it came to not having pelvic exams followed by rape?

Lead, You have to establish what the conditions were for the "taking" of a woman in these wars and what it would entail. If you do a bit of research and read the supporting chapters around the verse, it is explained. Most would become slaves or workers in the household of those who took them, should a man wish to initiate a sexual relationship with her, he would have to marry her. There were strict guidelines as to what he would then have to do in Numbers 32.
Following marriage, she was an Israelite, even if he was to legally divorce her, she would not be reduced to a slaves role.
If you look at the standard treatment of women by any other nation as spoils of war, I'd say that the humanitarian aspect of the law was quite advanced for its age. Women were not slaughtered, nor were they raped as may have been common amongst . Rather they were assigned a degree of dignity. The portion that were to be kept for God were to serve at the temple, and were not to marry; a similar case would be that of Jepthah's daughter.
Rape, Fornication, Adultery, Human Sacrifice, these were things that were punishable by death according to the mosaic law, there is no provision for them under the instructions for the spoils of war. I can however see how the headline approach to the bible makes for some great Memes tho.

Smiley

You really don't understand what rape is, do you?

Well no, they were not slaughtered if they passed the pelvic exam and were certified virgins. But if they failed the exam, then they were killed, along with the unborn child if they were pregnant.

You sound like a lawyer trying to get a rapist off the hook by using comparison as a tool.

Sure, unless you change the definition of rape to not include being forced to have sex with the killer of your family and friends.

". . . and after that you should have relations with her, and you must take possession of her as your bride, and she must become your wife."

When you take your Bible glasses off, you will no longer hold the belief that sex with the man responsible for murdering your family and friends is not rape.

There's confession.

I think these self-justified views towards war and the spoils of war are indecent and very unhuman.
Do you actually think that a teacher like Lord Jesus would agree with you?

I thought much of what you said was the case, but if God himself wasn't in favor, I can't see me backing the Israelites on that one.

Believe me when I say that I understand your perspective, I believe I should clarify mine. I have no doubt that the conditions of marriage were often abused greatly. But keep in mind that the Mosaic law was not intended to create a perfect utopian society, it was a regulation of Gods people within the culture in which they themselves had formed, a band aid for a people within a corrupt and warring world, to protect the lineage and ready the people for the covenant to come.
In the ancient world, the general marriage arrangement took little to no consideration for the way a woman felt about it, even moreso in the case of war captives, they were assimilated into Israel, in those days by the standard of the land, the mosaic law gave a degree of protection against rape, as sexual relations had a permanent commitment attached to it, he would have to care for and look after this woman for the rest of his life.
A man had to wait 30 days after taking charge of a female war captive to take her as his bride, he had a 6 month "binding period" or until the arrangement was consummated in which she would live in his home and he could observe her ways and decide if he wished to make a more permanent decision, during this time if he did not wish to forge a life contract through consummation with this woman he could send her away, but on her terms and she could no longer be considered as a slave.

These men were not commanded, nor permitted to rape these women. That is not to say that it did not happen, as not all Israelites were good men, the culture itself was at times abhorrent, that a man could slaughter another, or that a man could treat a daughter as a bargaining chip for a piece of land is abhorrent. I do not excuse the culture, or the indiscretions of those that abused those in their care, but I will defend the mosaic law as a productive tool at the time.

What I will make clear however is that the mosaic law along with the culture of the time have no place in todays society or indeed in the new covenant, there are many things that would be completely unacceptable by Christian standards that were legislated but not removed in the mosaic law, but it served a purpose in the time in which it was given. If however a man understood the principles behind the laws and why they were given, then rape would not have been a question, these are the things that Jesus expanded on and replaced the law with through his ministry. A Christian man is commanded to treat his wife as he would his own body and guidance was provided for Christian men to follow with an attachment of accountability for the wellbeing of his spouse and visa versa

It is important to note that regardless of what goes on behind closed doors, each man will be judged according to his deeds, the way he treats his wife included.