5 Bible lessons they don't teach you in Sunday School

Right away I just want to say I've heard five out of six of these spoken on in church, so the title of this debate is a lie. I will, throughout this debate, be replacing the word 'Sunday School' with 'Study,' as it seems more appropriate.The Fig TreeI mean, he didn't kill a child did he? Did he kill anything sentient? Who created trees? Jesus did. (John 1:1) If he made them he can kill them just as well right? (Job 1:21)Let's get real here though. There's some very powerful theology behind this passage to the believer. Let's first look at some context. Jesus, the day before, went into Jerusalem as a praised king. (Mark 11:1-11) Jesus saw the tree had leaves the next day. (Mark 11:13) Jesus cursed the tree for having no fruit. (Mark 11:14) Then Jesus went to cleanse the temple. (Mark 11:15-18) The Disciples left the city the next day, and saw the tree withered. (Mark 11:19-20) Jesus then used this as a message about prayer for his followers. (Mark 11:21-25)There is a lot going on here. But the biggest thing to note is that the Bible uses many symbols to represent Israel. Vines and Trees, especially Fig-Trees, are typically used for this purpose. (Luke 13:6-9, Micah 4:3-4, Genesis 49:9-12, Psalm 80:8-11) Fig Trees generally provide fruit before they provide leaves, so if there were leaves on this tree one would expect fruit as well. In the same way, if Jesus saw 'leaves' in the nation of Israel, he would also expect to see their fruit. (Galatians 5:22-23) The timing of this story is not a coincident. Immediately after this story we see Jesus heading into the temple to curse the false worshippers and false teachers in God's temple. The Fig Tree represents Jesus' cursing and denouncement of Israel following their false worship. (Mark 11:1-11)This passage, therefore has two spiritual meanings behind it, making it a perfect topic for study.1.God made sex and geneitals didn't here? I mean...right? I've never been to a church that simply ignored circumcision, or any of the other verses listed here, so to say this isn't studied in 'sunday school,' is simply false.Genesis 17:10-12 - This was the sign of the covenant, a permenant mark of the people of God to remember the promise of Abraham. I don't see the issue.1 Samuel 18:24-26This passage requires two men doing things by an agreement. This has nothing to do with God.2 Samuel 12:11-14David raped someone, then had her husband killed so no one found out. This is the King of Israel, the king of all God's people. God says he will allow the evil of men to be repaid, and will give people over to their evil pursuits if they so desire. (Romans 1:28) I don't see the issue here.Deuteronomy 22:28-29That's a faulty translation. The original Hebrew text means 'and takes hold of her' or 'wields her.' It does not say, as my opponent has quoted, 'forces her to.' (1) The Hebrew word here is tapas. This can mean a variety of things. Different translations use different phrases such as: "taking her," "lay hold of her," "and takes her." Now to interpret scripture there is a field called hermeneutics. The essentials is that we intrepret scripture with scripture. Does tapas occur elsewhere in the Bible? Well yes, it does. It's used to refer to handling an insturment, (Genesis 4:21) to weirld a sword, (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). Please note the references from Genesis and Deuteronomy - two books written by Moses, who wrote this passage here. This word, as far as I can tell, is never used to indicate force, but rather a simple grabbing. We use this same type of language today. We say we "take" someone as our bride, or a young man takes someone to be his wife. This is not indicative of force. Let's also take a look at context which my opponent did not include. 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. In verse 25 it is very specific. It says that the man forces her to lie with him. A different word is used in the Hebrew too - chazaq - which means to force. This word is intentionally changed in verse 28, because it's not talking about rape.Let's also look at Exodus 22:16. This is the exact same law, being given years earlier. It reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.” It says here that he entices the virgin, and this is talking about the same law. So look at the verse again. There are plenty of different circumstances described, but this one is talking about a virgin having intentional and willful sex with another man. After she has stained her virginity like this, who else would marry her? The Bible says that the man mustthen marry the women he had consensual relations with. (1) - http://biblehub.com...2.The Bible supports women's rights, with female leaders, deacons etc. (Genesis 2:18, Judges 4, Romans 16:1) The simple fact of the matter, however, is that men and women are different. The woman is the supportive role of the family structure. This doesn't mean weaker, or less valuable, this simply means that she does not take authority. There are biological differences between the two, so we know they do have differences. Who would know what the woman is best at better than the creator? Isn't God the most qualified to tell us what women are skilled at?We live in a culture that says outspokenness and dominance equals importance, but this simply isn't true. That means that any introvert who cares not to speak is also less valuable than the extrovert who is perfectly comfortable talking often. This isn't true, they're simply different people.3.Me and my opponent had an entire debate on this matter, which I had won. (http://www.debate.org...) This topic is much too large to cover as a sub-point, but allow me to summarize.Every single person who has ever lived was once a child. Being a child is not a quality or a nature, but a point in development. Therefore, God cannot hate children as people, as such people do not exist. Does he hate the age of childhood? Why then did he create it? Why does he have children speaking and teaching such as Samuel and Solomon? Why does Jesus tell the little children to come to him, as recorded in at least three gospels?The fact that children are so often referenced as being 'taken' or harmed within the Bible indicates that God, or at least the authors, deems them valuable enough to reference. For more please see my notes in the debate listed above.4.This simply isn't true. Noah didn't actually do very many bad deeds, aside from being found drunk and nude. Adam's sins are the reason we're all sinful. King Saul was ousted from his throne because of his sin. David lost a large chunk of his nation, and his family, for his sin. God blessed what was good in people, but he also cursed those who did bad. The entire Old Testament is a story about God wrestling with the sinfulness of man. The entire book of Judges and Kings talk about this in great detail.5.'Looked back' entails more than a physical look in the original text. It implies she turned around in order to return to it.Numbers 16 is full of context that describes the wicked nature of the people being killed here.Elisha most likely was not bald. This is an insult of cultural significance. Not only were they insulting Elisha, but by being God's prophet and spokemen, they effectively insulted God as well. The original word for child or kid here actually implies ages from 16-20ish. These aren't toddlers who don't know what they're doing.I don't see the point of the Mark passage, my apologies.A QuestionIf God does not exist, how can you say any of the stuff above is wrong? Isn't my opinion on right and wrong just as valid as yours is without an objective standard? To say any of the things above are bad is to borrow from a Christian concept.Closing NotesI really wish my opponent had put this together himself. Unfortunately this is all just a copy and paste though.