Slashdot Mirror

The press is the fourth branch of government and it is doing a horrible job.

The press is just a marketing tool. Whether you're left, center, right, liberal, or conservative you just tune in to CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. to hear what you want to hear. Kinda like what was said here

Jesus said, “There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores.
“Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side.

“The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’

“But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’

“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’

“But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’

“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’

“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.’”

A few quick notes:

• As mentioned in this story, a common theme in the Bible is that seeing miraculous signs and wonders does not produce real, lasting faith. As much as people want to think seeing a giant hand wave from the sky and say "Hey, it's God!" would make them believers, biblically when God does that, it never results in lasting faith. (That said, I believe there is a lot of very solid historical evidence and proof about the trustworthiness of the Bible and Jesus Christ's resurrection, which is the crucial tie between "Is there a God?" and "Why the Christian God?". There are several books that document these, eg Case For Resurrection, etc.
• What's described in this passage is not the lasting eternal Heaven and Hell popular culture thinks about. What's described is just a temporary place. Christians believe when Jesus returns again, both Heaven and Earth will pass away and be recreated (without evil). It isn't a heaven of clouds and harps and people with wings. Jesus promises an eternal life on a new Earth with real physical bodies. It's described as a real physical city and presumably we do things we would normally do in a city- go to work, to the park, build spaceships, etc. (just kidding, I don't really know what we do in the city)
• Heaven (well, the recreated world) is going to be a "great place" because we're in perfect relationship with God. Faith passes away (1 Cor 13) and we're in God's presence.
• Christians do not believe they're going to Heaven because they're better people than those going to Hell. They believe everyone has earned their way into Hell. A single sin is a huge offense to God's perfection. However God has given humanity a way out of Hell by punishing his son, Jesus,

Indeed, we can see an example of this unconditional love in Mark 7:9, for instance.

Umm...but that's sort of common in Christianity. "Praise God the doctor saved him!" And then, sure, when you miss the throw to first in little league, you receive an entirely different exclamation to God.

It's common and that's not a good thing. Christians should take their cue from Job 1:20-22:

At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart.[a]
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised."

In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

>>No, you're also saying that that particular verse trumps all others.

Then you're making the same mistake that he did, which is to say that you didn't know that the Bible itself says what is the most important verse. Which is what I was paraphrasing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40&version=NIV

>>If all Christians really did just love god and treat others as they'd like to be treated themselves, we atheists wouldn't have much of a problem wih them, other than feeling sorry for adults who still literally believed in fairy tales.

Sure, I agree with you.

And if atheists simply stuck with the "we don't know why we came here" attitude, instead of the "...but we also know that it absolutely, positively couldn't have been made by a God of some sort" (as the "fairy tale" bit always goes) then I'd have less of a problem with them. (Not that I do very much, mind you. I'd say the majority of my friends are atheists.)

Talk about cafeteria Christianity - your citations states specifically that those are the first and greatest commandments and that all others rest on them, BUT not that they are the only ones:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-20&version=NKJV;

if you listen to the Mormons, they say that the developers talk to us all the time.

What the developers have to say is all there in the manual. Or at least it's supposed to be. Mormons think there are a bunch of other manuals, and Catholics add a few chapters, but other followers of Christ are under the impression that those manuals are uninspired and misleading.

- Women are their husband's property.

Yes, thats what it clearly says in 1 Corin 7:4. But I guess you must have stopped reading mid sentence:
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

For the rest of it, as ShakaUVM says, theres more going on in the OT than you seem to realize; but it is rather hard to understand that unless you actually read the OT sequentially.
Without getting too mired in detail, Israel did have a special role, so unrighteousness was treated rather harshly in the OT. Their purpose was to be a nation that reflected God, and stood out as being "righteous" and "holy" (set apart, sanctified, separate). Thus, the law was given, and it can be broken down for the most part into laws that reflect absolute moral truths (treatment of the poor; sexual immorality-- and this is NOT just talking about homosexuality, which should put a kibosh on the "hate speech" mentality; etc), and laws designed to "set Israel apart" (strict diet, etc); and laws which were designed to demonstrate Israel's holiness (if the laws had been fulfilled), and to demonstrate man's falliability (when Israel of course did not fulfill them). Christ came and fulfilled that second part, but the first set of laws dont "go away" because right and wrong have not changed (though parts of the law may have).

This raises the question-- how does one tell the difference? Well, you have to read the passage, and its context, and you have to look at the reasons given. For example, does it say "Dont do x; it is an abomination", or does it simply give a "you shall not"? Is there later or earlier scripture that clarifies it? Is the law in question referencing a biblically established principle?

All those rubrics are how we determine whether something is an absolute moral value or a law that was "fulfilled" in Christ.

But we really need to get back to the good book as a source of moral authority.

Absolutely, but only if you are willing and able to examine what the passage is actually saying, rather than looking for the easiest way to make a strawman out of its words.

Oh come on, Jesus said everything both ways. I'll see your Matthew 22:37-40 and raise you a Matthew 5:17. Your passage says that the previous laws hang on those two principles, not that they're abolished by them - and my passage confirms that the previous laws are still in effect.

There's a reason why cafeteria Christianity is so popular - the Bible can be interpreted as contradicting itself on almost every subject, which means that you have to pick and choose what you want to believe - it's just not consistent if you don't.

In the original, the fact that the Hebrew deity doesn't *require* child sacrifice doesn't seem to give any particular good reason why child sacrifice is a bad thing.

That's because GP is mistaken. The story has nothing to do with child sacrifice being wrong. The event is a foreshadow of Christ's crucifixion. See Genesis 22.

All OT stuff, that has been superseded by the NT.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Jesus, The Sermon On The Mount.

Matthew 5:17-18

But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40

Nice try, but that passage just says that those two are the most important, not that the rest don't matter. From the same book you quote: Jesus makes it clear that unless you follow all the old laws you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Can I get you some stones, sir?

But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40

Nice try, but that passage just says that those two are the most important, not that the rest don't matter. From the same book you quote: Jesus makes it clear that unless you follow all the old laws you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Can I get you some stones, sir?

>>I've heard this interpretation before, but an awful lot of Christians still cite Leviticus whenever it suits, often while eating a bacon cheeseburger.

It's called cafeteria Christianity for a reason. =)

But if you want to get technical, the RCC divides Old Testament law into culturally-bound laws and moral laws, with the former not applying (like what clothes to wear) and some (like the Ten Commandments) still applying. But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40

Fortunately you don't need to believe in Jesus or God to love your neighbour as yourself.

You did know that the story of Abraham and Isaac was intended to explain why the Hebrew deity doesn't require child sacrifice, right?

Sure, unless you wanted God to help you slaughter a bunch of Ammonites.

My point is that it's easy to get caught up in the details and lose sight of what is most important in Christianity. It's not a mystery - Jesus himself provided the Cliff Notes for the Bible.

Maybe Jesus was all love and peace but he still threatened eternal torture for people who don't follow his moral code. Is that a basis for getting people to behave?

He also said a lot of stuff about giving away all your material possessions, that God will provide: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24).

Looking around me... I doubt many modern Christians are going to heaven.

Just saying...

One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.

Can we not just love others without bringing the magic pixie into it?

Have you read this?

How does it compare the the Ten Commandments?

The big mistake is to assume that The Bible has a monopoly on morality. It doesn't. It's actually a very poor moral guide if you bother to read the rest of it, not just the Sermon On The Mount.

eg. It advocates the death penalty for just about everything. It says slavery is cool - it even tells you the correct way to sell your own children into slavery, ie. The bill of sale for your sons should have a time limit but not your daughters (who are usually sold as wife-slaves).

One of these things is that the two most important commandments are to love God, and to love others as yourself.

Can we not just love others without bringing the magic pixie into it?

Have you read this?

How does it compare the the Ten Commandments?

The big mistake is to assume that The Bible has a monopoly on morality. It doesn't. It's actually a very poor moral guide if you bother to read the rest of it, not just the Sermon On The Mount.

eg. It advocates the death penalty for just about everything. It says slavery is cool - it even tells you the correct way to sell your own children into slavery, ie. The bill of sale for your sons should have a time limit but not your daughters (who are usually sold as wife-slaves).

It's not the "fundies" who are the problem.
It's anyone who believes that his personal religion is "right" and that others are "wrong".

No, the problem is that people aren't taught the difference between facts and personal opinion. Equal airtime is given to both.

There are very good reasons to believe one side is more correct than the other.

2 plus 2 is 4, whether you like it or not. Cellphones do not cause cancer, whether you like it or not.

Anybody basing their lives around the Bible hasn't really read it.

Anybody basing their lives around the 'moral code' of the Bible (if not the actual self-damning stories) hasn't really compared it against man-made moral codes like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Side by side with The Ten Commandments it makes the Ten Commandments look stupid.

What are the Ten Commandments anyway? The only place the Bible says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28 and that doesn't say anything about 'not killing' or 'honoring your father and mother', it's more about jihads, animal sacrifice and how to cook goats properly. I don't see many Christians doing those things...

>>That's clearly an over-interpretation. What's being said in that passage is those are the most important commandments. You are conveniently ignoring other parts of the New Testament which directly contradict you: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-19&version=NIV

It's a simplification, not an over-interpretation. Jesus himself said those two commandments are the most important (as you say) and that *everything else in the Bible is based on those two principles*. You're forgetting the second part, there.

The verse you quote states exactly that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, which (if you read the rest of the Gospels and his Expounding of the Laws) shows that he is there to re-orient the law away from a Legalistic viewpoint to one based on love.

It's not really that complicated to understand Christianity, though it's certainly hard to carry out in practice.

That's clearly an over-interpretation. What's being said in that passage is those are the most important commandments. You are conveniently ignoring other parts of the New Testament which directly contradict you: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-19&version=NIV

>>I've heard this interpretation before, but an awful lot of Christians still cite Leviticus whenever it suits, often while eating a bacon cheeseburger.

It's called cafeteria Christianity for a reason. =)

But if you want to get technical, the RCC divides Old Testament law into culturally-bound laws and moral laws, with the former not applying (like what clothes to wear) and some (like the Ten Commandments) still applying. But Jesus made it very clear that there's only two commandments for a Christian that really matter:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A37-40

For example I believe if one adheres to the old testament prohibitions against eating certain types of seafood then one will avoid most of the unsafe species in that part of the world.

Sure, but if you look at all the religious prohibitions in the Old Testament, you'll see that, statistically, they probably only got those ones right by accident.

I mean, have you seen the list of prohibited foods in the OT? It's not just pork and shellfish - you're also not allowed to eat rabbits (and according to God, rabbits chew cud), anything that "lives in water and doesn't have fins and scales", a ton of different kinds of birds, a ton of different insects, weasels, rats, chameleons, monitor lizards...

I mean, everyone knows about the shellfish and pigs and thinks "oh that's just because you can get sick off of them", but if you look at the whole list it almost looks like they got that right by accident while some Rabbi was going off on an OCD* "don't eat that, don't eat that" rant.

It's only sensible if you pull out the sensible parts, and ignore the rest of it. And even the sensible parts aren't that sensible - non-Jews have been eating pigs and shellfish for generations, and it's not like it's been noticeably detrimental (even before modern, more sanitary farming practices).

*In fact, there's some pretty interesting theories about OCD and religion floating around out there.

The greek gives no hints that this is the case. Still, if early writings showed people at the time unambiguously knew Noah was literary, you might have a point. However, that is not the case.

Especially as one of those reference is in Luke, and Luke listed Noah *in his genealogy of Jesus*. (Luke 3:36).

In 1st Peter, Jesus is referenced as going to preach to the spirits of people who died in the time of Noah.

I could go on with other reference (remember the "faith" chapter(Hebrews 11), and 2nd Peter references Noah again), but I think the point has been made.

Clearly, it was not unanimous understood in the time period that Noah was a literary figure. As such, If Jesus wanted to communicate clearly he would have referenced it "as in the story of Noah" or similar.

The greek gives no hints that this is the case. Still, if early writings showed people at the time unambiguously knew Noah was literary, you might have a point. However, that is not the case.

Especially as one of those reference is in Luke, and Luke listed Noah *in his genealogy of Jesus*. (Luke 3:36).

In 1st Peter, Jesus is referenced as going to preach to the spirits of people who died in the time of Noah.

I could go on with other reference (remember the "faith" chapter(Hebrews 11), and 2nd Peter references Noah again), but I think the point has been made.

Clearly, it was not unanimous understood in the time period that Noah was a literary figure. As such, If Jesus wanted to communicate clearly he would have referenced it "as in the story of Noah" or similar.

There is a difference between approval and allowing. When you are booting up a Civilization/Culture from scratch you will have to go through some pretty ugly bits.

You're clearly one of those ignorant who mock without even having read the Bible properly.

Otherwise you would realize that despite the passages in the Bible dealing with slavery, there isn't very much punishment proscribed for slaves that run away (go look for it - the "State" doesn't care). In fact:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+23%3A15-16&version=NIV

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

You could choose to interpret that as foreign slaves only. But if you run to another town/country who is going to be able to figure the difference in those days? Not like they had passports or photo ID. In case you're wondering they were barely into the Iron Age at that time, so good luck with doing the ball and chain slavery stuff ;).

Yes the master could give the slave a huge beating if the master ever caught up with the slave, but even then if he screws up and say the slave loses a tooth, the slave gets to go free, or the master gets punished for killing the slave (I see possible interpretations of the law that indicate death could be a punishment).

There were usually a few main reasons you were a slave:
a) you couldn't support yourself (despite supposedly being able to glean: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/G/GLEANING/ )
b) you lost a war - that usually sucked in those days.
c) you were a child whose parents were both slaves.

What do you propose people do in a time without birth control? Give prisoners, slaves, children of slaves full privileges? Who is going to feed them or give them land? There was no "Green Revolution" back then. Already in these relative times of plenty you still have people in the US grumbling about "evil socialism" and socialized healthcare taking their money.

Many of the laws deal with the world when stuff fails. In those days a lot of wars was genocide whether you liked it or not. If you didn't wipe the enemy out, if they ever got the chance, they would come back and wipe you out. There was no stuff like the "Geneva Convention". In fact it was not unheard of for victors to "salt the earth" so that even those who escape would have a harder time growing crops in that area.

Even today you have something similar with some naive people saying in effect that because the workers in China are being exploited, they should lose their jobs. Who is going to feed those workers then?

If you or someone else can propose a practical alternative that would have worked better back in those days, go ahead and post it. I or others might have a good time laughing at the results.

There have been many peoples/cultures with long histories. And from what I see the Jews certainly have a high number of Nobel laureates per capita. Same goes for top mathematicians, musicians, actors, bankers.

Like it or not, the "bunch of lies/bullshit" sure seems to have made a difference for the Jews. Even if by now many of them no longer believe it.

Show me a superior ""bunch of lies/bullshit" or "Truth" or "Truthiness" that would have worked better.

Confucianism? It has its merits, but by objective measures it's still inferior don't you think?

"Modern Science"? Where's the syllabus for domesticating humans?

So go ahead think about it harder.

As I said and say again: when you are booting up a Civilization/Culture from scratch you will have to go through some pretty ugly bits.

I call bull.

For Christianity specifically, Jesus references a literal Noah. This isn't "in the story of Noah", this is the supposed words of Jesus talking about a literal event.

Paul's theology depends on Adam. The story of the fall is referenced just as literally as Jesus's death.

Even if you had a good way of splitting the Bible up into story and fact(which no Bible scholar has ever put forth outside of archeology, which says it's almost all story or very over exagerated historical fiction), these passages say you can't discount a literal Noah and Adam without discounting Paul and the Gospels. Without Paul and the gospels, there's pretty much nothing left in Christianity.

In this case, the fundamentalists know what is at stake. They are right in trying to defend the indefensible, because without it Christianity loses all meaning.

For more reading, I recommend Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die for a Bishops point of view, or The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails for people who came out non-Christian at the end. They both say the same thing about the evidence.

I was a Christian for 25 years. I am no longer, largely because looking into this issue led me deep into biblical criticism, in which well supported scholarship and archeology say a VERY different thing about the Bible than what you've heard.

See also The Bible Unearthed, Who Wrote the Bible and Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity

Or just click around wikipedia for a while if you don't trust my choice of books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

I call bull.

For Christianity specifically, Jesus references a literal Noah. This isn't "in the story of Noah", this is the supposed words of Jesus talking about a literal event.

Paul's theology depends on Adam. The story of the fall is referenced just as literally as Jesus's death.

Even if you had a good way of splitting the Bible up into story and fact(which no Bible scholar has ever put forth outside of archeology, which says it's almost all story or very over exagerated historical fiction), these passages say you can't discount a literal Noah and Adam without discounting Paul and the Gospels. Without Paul and the gospels, there's pretty much nothing left in Christianity.

In this case, the fundamentalists know what is at stake. They are right in trying to defend the indefensible, because without it Christianity loses all meaning.

For more reading, I recommend Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die for a Bishops point of view, or The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails for people who came out non-Christian at the end. They both say the same thing about the evidence.

I was a Christian for 25 years. I am no longer, largely because looking into this issue led me deep into biblical criticism, in which well supported scholarship and archeology say a VERY different thing about the Bible than what you've heard.

See also The Bible Unearthed, Who Wrote the Bible and Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity

Or just click around wikipedia for a while if you don't trust my choice of books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

I thought He setup the laws of physics so that He didn't have to constantly work, because even He can get tired.

If God doesn't mind, why should you?

Paul wrote in Romans 13 (NIV; NKJV; NWT) that people should "be subject to the governing authorities". This follows from Jesus's command to "pay Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21).

If God doesn't mind, why should you?

Paul wrote in Romans 13 (NIV; NKJV; NWT) that people should "be subject to the governing authorities". This follows from Jesus's command to "pay Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21).

Not true. Denying the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Matthew 12:31

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it

According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)

Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."

Seriously, trying to use Genesis 2:25 to say that humans shouldn't be ashamed to be naked is like saying that lions and lambs should lay down to sleep together. According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.

[Citation Needed]

I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply ." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"

He also likes Instantly murdering people because they touched His toy that got jostled by oxen and looked like it might fall (1 Chronicles 13:9, 13:10). Let's keep playing, I've got plenty more.

Could we please pass a bill so that all sorts of prisoners maintain Facebook redemption pages, tweet Gospel verses every day and recite the books of the Bible on YouTube?

I am confident that the thoughtful, kind, compassionate and caring comments of several thousand (if not million) followers would be much more beneficial to them than the lame standard rehabilitation activities.

Uh... As if forcing a Atheist like me to participate in anyone's religious campaign is not the very essence of cruel and unusual . I get your gist, but the method needs to be refined, there's that whole freedom of religion thing that gets in your way -- even if (esp. if) one takes such freedom to renounce all religions.

If you want me to respect your right to practice a religion, you'll have to respect other's rights to not do so.

Additionally -- I would simply quote the ugly parts of your scripture:

Numbers 31:7

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.

Deuteronomy 20:10

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 22:28

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Who's being punished?
::sigh:: I could do this for years.

To an atheist like myself: It's important to study all the worlds religions so I can relate to the way other people think -- and strike them to their core if needed.

Could we please pass a bill so that all sorts of prisoners maintain Facebook redemption pages, tweet Gospel verses every day and recite the books of the Bible on YouTube?

I am confident that the thoughtful, kind, compassionate and caring comments of several thousand (if not million) followers would be much more beneficial to them than the lame standard rehabilitation activities.

Uh... As if forcing a Atheist like me to participate in anyone's religious campaign is not the very essence of cruel and unusual . I get your gist, but the method needs to be refined, there's that whole freedom of religion thing that gets in your way -- even if (esp. if) one takes such freedom to renounce all religions.

If you want me to respect your right to practice a religion, you'll have to respect other's rights to not do so.

Additionally -- I would simply quote the ugly parts of your scripture:

Numbers 31:7

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.

Deuteronomy 20:10

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 22:28

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Who's being punished?
::sigh:: I could do this for years.

To an atheist like myself: It's important to study all the worlds religions so I can relate to the way other people think -- and strike them to their core if needed.

Could we please pass a bill so that all sorts of prisoners maintain Facebook redemption pages, tweet Gospel verses every day and recite the books of the Bible on YouTube?

I am confident that the thoughtful, kind, compassionate and caring comments of several thousand (if not million) followers would be much more beneficial to them than the lame standard rehabilitation activities.

Uh... As if forcing a Atheist like me to participate in anyone's religious campaign is not the very essence of cruel and unusual . I get your gist, but the method needs to be refined, there's that whole freedom of religion thing that gets in your way -- even if (esp. if) one takes such freedom to renounce all religions.

If you want me to respect your right to practice a religion, you'll have to respect other's rights to not do so.

Additionally -- I would simply quote the ugly parts of your scripture:

Numbers 31:7

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.

Deuteronomy 20:10

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 22:28

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Who's being punished?
::sigh:: I could do this for years.

To an atheist like myself: It's important to study all the worlds religions so I can relate to the way other people think -- and strike them to their core if needed.