Christians cant eat lobster, wear polyester, wear gold, eat rabbit, have tattoos, get divrced, have

Originally posted by Malcher

Marrying a rapist is not part of Christianity and i dont think that is part of the Bible. Maybe you can elaborate on where you got this from. When did this occur?

“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 the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).

Deuteronomy (old testament) does not use the term rape either

According to some modern translations the term rape is indeed used. Perhaps this is incorrect, have you taken a look at the original language or maybe even the Latin translations? I have done this with the words now translated to homosexual and am in the process of writing my own thread.

It does state that he is obliged to financially support her and the child or something to that effect.

Doesn't change that it was rape and that rape is horribly immoral. Doesn't change she was forced into marriage.

The rapist I believe is only stoned to death if the victim was engaged/married. Not sure. I would bet conflicting information.

reply to post by seeker1963

E
I completley agree to the point that i feel that because of such misinformation, the people remain blind.

reply to post by MamaJ


I’m glad to hear that. Science is important. And I feel it doesn’t prove or disprove God at all. I have physics friends who are devout believers in Jesus. The structure of the universe only reaffirms their faith. I think it reaffirms non-belief for atheists too and that’s okay. As long as it doesn’t interfere with proper conduction of scientific inquiries then it’s all good.

I’ve had that experience before with missionaries because I ask a lot of questions too. It is good to be humble, to know that there is something greater than ourselves, to know that we do not know everything. I love your passion and tenacity, MamaJ. And I’m glad you made it a point to connect with me after our misunderstanding. It says a lot about your character.

I don’t believe there is a hell or heaven for that matter. It just seems too cruel, especially for a loving God. I don’t like the concept of sin either. We’re human, we are flawed. Sometimes we make good choices, sometimes we make bad ones. But we are not sinners, we are simply human. I have many friends of different faith and non-faith: Hindi, Buddhist, Christian, Atheist, Wiccan, etc. I don’t like it when they are put down or told they're going to hell for their beliefs.

Church of Christ, that’s the Latter Day Saints, Mormon, correct? I’ve studied the Mormon religion. One of my friends is a Mormon; we were scifi buddies back when we were in college. We used to obtain movies where all of the bad words were dubbed so he could comfortably participate in our scifi parties.

I think a sixth sense is possible. We use a small percentage of our minds. And our mind is an incredible place. Life itself is incredible. I totally understand seeing God in our universe. Our universe is an amazing place. All of the circumstances that had to come together to bring about our existence is mind boggling. Whatever that knowledge reaffirms to the person learning it, who can deny that life itself is nothing short of miraculous? I don’t like it when some says science is a lie. Science, physics, is why we are on the computer and on the internet discussing this stuff in the first place.

I’ve had some weird stuff happen to me too. These experiences could be classified as paranormal. I will tell a few of the stories on my own posts in a different forum at some point in the near future. I would love to hear about your experiences too.

I’ve had a lot of death around me too. I think that is why I contemplated the meaning of life, the purpose of life so much at a young age. Wanting to understand the mysteries of life is what brought me to science. I am grateful for that.

A quote...

“Look again at [the earth]. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.” Carl Sagan when observing the Earth in a photo taken by Voyager in 1990, Pale Blue Dot.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

If you are going to start judging others on what they do and what is lawful then at least get the time of the Sabbath right (Friday sun-down to Saturday sundown) and understand the intent of the Sabbath command instead of deciding for yourself what you think is lawful and what isn't.

Even more murder.

So we should put to death people working from Friday sun-down to Saturday sun-down.

Alright. Lots more potential murder with that understanding.

God describes the fire like that which was reigned down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Are those 2 cities still burning? No. Are the consequences of the actions of the inhabitants of those cities lasting forever? Yes.

And what was their sins? Before I debate it I need to know your interpretation.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

I don't know where you are getting the idea that 'we' should put to death anybody. God is the Judge of someones hearts, like it has been said before on this thread, we can merely point out to people where they may be in error with God if they say they are actually wanting to follow God. It is then up to God to decide if the person is being sincere in trying to follow Him (and listening to the subtle prods of the Holy Spirit trying to direct them in the right path and lead them to Truth).
----
I don't have the Judgement records of all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah in front of me. The only info I have would be what is already in the Bible about it. In Revelation 20 we see the time when we can look at all the Judgement records. We spend our first 1000 years mostly just doing this so we know that God has been Just and Merciful in His decisions.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

If forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist is a moral improvement than I shudder to think what it was like before.

Why would God require a woman to marry her rapist? (Deut 22:28,29).

This law sounds to modern readers as though it punishes the female victim by forcing her to marry the man who raped her. However, the intent is to make the man responsible to support her for the rest of her life. Once she was no longer a virgin, it would be difficult for her family to find a husband for her. Comparison with Exodus 22:16-17 indicates that while the girl would have the right of marriage to the man and he would be required to pay the bride-price in any case, her family was not required to give her to the man in marriage if they did not approve. View the story from Genesis 34 to further expand on this idea.

Such an act against a woman was going to set a man back massively financially with the bride-price he would be up for then the need to support her for the rest of her life. The woman could refuse marriage of course but the whole process provided huge disincentives for a man to ever consider raping a woman. Just like repayments of debts, the best social approach was to build in well defined preventative measure to stop acts like bankruptcy and rape occurring in the first place. If they did occur then appropriate penalties and social safety nets were put in place for all relevant parties.

reply to post by Klassified


I want to make it clearer to people who wish to follow God that obedience to the Divine Law is still what God desires and expects for us. Your verses were not completely clear in this regard so that was the reason for the reply. Your info was okay but it is not 'milk' it is just a slanted version that needed some balancing.

People should not be lured into something making it seem as tantalizing and easy as possible and then switch things up on them when they already have their foot in the door. No bait and switch or bearing false witness thanks.

reply to post by MamaJ


There is no such thing as the eternal fire. The results of ones decisions last forever, NOT the punishment. All those Christian denominations that are preaching eternal fire to compel people fear are very selecting choosing bible texts where a more fully explanation of the Judgment are given in other parts which shows they are in error.

I think you will find some good understanding on this point with the following video called 'The Mystic Realm of Death'


And here are a few rebuttal sites fully explaining the texts used to promote 'eternal torment' to show the error of their understanding:
- 2 Thessalonians 1:9: Everlasting Destruction?
- Revelation 14:11: Tormented forever?
- The Achilles Heel of the Eternal Torment Doctrine

-----
If you have any questions concerning science that you are not convinced of that Christianity has explained to you yet I would be glad to hear them and try answer them for you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

It's the things they DO take literally that frustrates me. And the worst part is, I can't even TRY to make heads or tails of it, because they can't have an open-minded discussion.

It's the most unproductive topic in the history of mankind.

What parts do 'they' take literally that you think should not be taken literally? I will try to evidence some of the things you bring up if you think they didn't actually happen.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

If forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist is a moral improvement than I shudder to think what it was like before.

Why would God require a woman to marry her rapist? (Deut 22:28,29).

This law sounds to modern readers as though it punishes the female victim by forcing her to marry the man who raped her. However, the intent is to make the man responsible to support her for the rest of her life. Once she was no longer a virgin, it would be difficult for her family to find a husband for her. Comparison with Exodus 22:16-17 indicates that while the girl would have the right of marriage to the man and he would be required to pay the bride-price in any case, her family was not required to give her to the man in marriage if they did not approve. View the story from Genesis 34 to further expand on this idea.

Such an act against a woman was going to set a man back massively financially with the bride-price he would be up for then the need to support her for the rest of her life. The woman could refuse marriage of course but the whole process provided huge disincentives for a man to ever consider raping a woman. Just like repayments of debts, the best social approach was to build in well defined preventative measure to stop acts like bankruptcy and rape occurring in the first place. If they did occur then appropriate penalties and social safety nets were put in place for all relevant parties.

Really? God wanted women to be treated as such? Sounds to me like in all the stuff you just wrote she is someone else's property. Chattle is another word for it. Sad God saw women in such light that others dicated her life in "the rules". Mystery is why he didn't come out and say "a woman has every right to decide for herself who she marries - not her family" And, how about this easy fix - if a man rapes a woman he will be forced to PAY her for the rest of her life - why bring in the sick and twisted "marrying" aspect to it?

CJ

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I don't know where you are getting the idea that 'we' should put to death anybody.

I don't support the idea, The Bible does. I am getting it from there. God being the final judge doesn't change the plethora of times The Bible so very clearly instructs killing. Oftentimes for reasons almost everyone would be morally against in today's world.

Christians use OT to form the moral beliefs still. It's not just included in the Bible as a background story for the NT. If Christians use it, so can the non-religious when we critique.

Here is New Testament.

Romans 1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

This doesn't outright command you to murder me, but I deserve it so God will surely not mind if you decide to rid me of my wickedness indefinitely.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

This law sounds to modern readers as though it punishes the female victim by forcing her to marry the man who raped her.

Indeed it does to this modern reader.

I do not see a convincing argument from you to read it otherwise.

Having the rapist forcefully marry her after he forcefully has intercourse is still a gravely immoral thing even if he 'takes care of her' and buys her things afterwards.

Context of the times does not somehow change our moral understanding. If a thousand years from now we stone people to death for being gay, eating the wrong foods, or working on the wrong day, and countless other reasons, and that instills a cultural belief that murder is just... they might not see what Hitler did was immoral, but it still is.

No contextual understanding of those times is going to persuade me that raping and forcing the victim to marry is not incredibly immoral. You seem to believe the idea that the rapist takes care of her afterwards somehow is sufficient social justice.

That's just crazy. You used this same type of thinking to justify the 'different kind of slavery'.

However, the intent is to make the man responsible to support her for the rest of her life. Once she was no longer a virgin, it would be difficult for her family to find a husband for her.

So it's more difficult. Perhaps the Bible should have focused more on teaching people to not demonize the victim and see rape as an injustice and to be compassionate about it so that 'no longer being a virgin' wouldn't make it so difficult to marry. I like this solution more than forced marriage

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well, Lucid Lunacy, that would then change a major tennant of the whole thing...repressing women.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Did you miss the part where I said

The woman could refuse marriage of course but the whole process provided huge disincentives for a man to ever consider raping a woman.

Your question of bringing in the 'sick and twisted' marrying aspect into it. As part of the culture if a woman was no longer a virgin then her attractiveness to the man thinking of someone to marry would be thrown way out. With the man knowing that if he rapes someone that he could very well be stuck with her for the rest of his life it creates a massive disincentive at the societal level to PREVENT rape from ever happening, but if it does happen then various options and safety nets are given to the woman so that the harm to the rest of her life could be mitigated as much as possible.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

No contextual understanding of those times is going to persuade me that raping and forcing the victim to marry is not incredibly immoral. You seem to believe the idea that the rapist takes care of her afterwards somehow is sufficient social justice.

The victim is not forced. She gets to decide whether she can enforce it or not. The whole thing is to give her the right of enforcement.

Perhaps the Bible should have focused more on teaching people to not demonize the victim and see rape as an injustice and to be compassionate about it so that 'no longer being a virgin' wouldn't make it so difficult to marry.

It is up to the men to decide what qualities they deem attractive or not in someone to marry. Of course if someone raped the woman you loved I doubt the man would just move on to another. I am sure many took on your solution but also involved is the strong message to value chasteness in general which is something that should be emphasized rather more in our society today than what we get from advertising, media and the entertainment industries today.

Context of the times does not somehow change our moral understanding. If a thousand years from now we stone people to death for being gay, eating the wrong foods, or working on the wrong day, and countless other reasons, and that instills a cultural belief that murder is just

The New Covenant contains a forgiveness component in it that was lacking in the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant. Therefore the system of administering Judgement upon people by their fellow many to receive punishment was scraped. The context of the terms of the New Covenant are crucial in why there is no emphasis from Christians in punishing others for various things. That will occur between them and God and it is up to them whether they choose to sincerely repented of the various things that they have done when they feel convicted of their guilt in their heart by the Holy Spirit.

When the Bible talks about those deserving of death in Romans chapter 1 it is talking about the second death (which is the final death God would administer to them at Judgment which involves complete annihilation of body and spirit) not the first death where someone is killed but their spirit remains 'sleeping' in the ground to wait for either the first or second resurrection. You are reading into incorrect understandings of the Bible of what God is advocating, putting words into His mouth that weren't said.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by autowrench

 

And again...

Mark 10
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Neither the New Testament, nor Christ supported any such thing. Marriage is well talked about in the Bible, and Christ and his relationship to the Church is frequently referred too in the Bible in relation to a Marriage. Any sexual relationship outside of Marriage is either Fornication or Adultery in both the New and Old Testament.

OK then, please grant me this: At the wedding where Christ turned water into to wine. Was it his wedding? The custom was the Groom was responsible for the wine. So was Christ and Mary married? Many thing they were, and bore a daughter, Sarah. What is your take here?

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

The victim is not forced. She gets to decide whether she can enforce it or not. T

Well not according to the passage I referenced. It said they must be married and they can never divorce.

When the Bible talks about those deserving of death in Romans chapter 1 it is talking about the second death (which is the final death God would administer to them at Judgment which involves complete annihilation of body and spirit) ...You are reading into incorrect understandings of the Bible of what God is advocating, putting words into His mouth that weren't said.

Fine.

That in my eyes is worse though.

Eternal death. That's the ultimate violence. Thankfully I don't believe God agrees with the Bible, but it's very upsetting to me that someone would believe that some of these sins unrepented would result in that second death. That would be worse than being stoned to death. It's a horrible feeling to think a Christian would believe someone marrying their lover could result in this kind of final judgement. And everyone else that could be thrown under God's wrath according to Romans.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by b14warrior

 

Yet not a single christian lives according to these rules. But I guess it is okay since they can just ask Jesus for forgivance... Does not matter if you murder someone or just lie to someone as you are still accepted into heaven as long as you ask for forgivance...

Perhaps it's you and the OP who misunderstand God's commands. You want to believe that mixing linen and wool together is His message, when in reality He is giving an altogether different message. Hint: it has nothing to do with "fibers", and therefore anyone pushing that interpretation as 'proof' that the Bible is not applicable today is simply controlling your mind to keep you from even wanting to seek the salvation of the One True Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you are happy and content to think that your Creator is at all interested in what you WEAR, then it is your choice to do so. Just know that the prince of this world counts on your love of lies and your distaste of Truth.

How utterly convenient! You disregard what this person interpreted and do not provide an interpretation of your own. The OP has made reasonable claims. Please.....explain this to me as if I were a child. Please explain to me what that specific passage of the bible means to you. Oh.....and please do it without the subterfuge. Honestly, when you went on about One True Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob without explaining why you disagree with the OP's assessment you left me confused. Confused because all you have done is combine words together incoherently.

I beg you...please be specific in regards to why you disagree with the interpretation of the passages presented to you. Dispose of the "Hint" and speak plainly if you can.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The verse states that 'the man' can not divorce, not that 'they' can not divorce. The man must marry as the verse states but as I also mentioned that this is fuller explained in saying that he must marrying if the parents/daughter enforce it.

Concerning your thoughts on eternal death.

When people are born their name is already in 'the book of life', it is by their own decisions in this life that decides if they rule themselves out of receiving eternal life. Eternal Death just means you cease to exist. If you want eternal life and all the great opportunities that will befall all those for eternity then follow God, be obedient to His commands (the 10 commandments), give your life over to His purposes. If you don't want this then you get this life to do as you wish for free. The opportunity is their for you to decided one way or another, to decide whether you want to attune your life with that of Jesus.

Why would the second death be worse than being stoned to death. Most people who reject God will be consumed away in mere moments. In terms of the fear of the pain of it people who reject God should not in any way be compelled by that at all. Of course completely being erased from existence is worse in other respects to being stoned but that is only from the perspective that you deserve to live forever. No one on this earth deserves to even live now let alone forever. It is only by God sustaining our every breath that we are even alive now and eternal life is only granted to those who wish to attune themselves with the rules of the Creator of the universe (the Divine Law) and having their allegiance with Him.

It is more to do with your attitude towards transgressing God's Law than making sure you haven't forgotten everything to repent from. I am sure that there were things I did or thought about years ago that I could not remember now and that I haven't specifically repented from so you might just say something more broad to God about your past then not dwell on it anymore.

No such Final Judgment is going to be upon lovers for marrying in those circumstances...

What do you mean by 'thrown under God's wrath'?...you make it sound like you have no free will in deciding which way God will decide, their is no pre-destination here

But isn't divorce a sin also?

It is quite clear that the bible was written by men for men. You try to make it sound like women had a say about what happened to them. It's not like she had a choice I mean who would marry her after she had already been defiled in those times?!!!! By raping her he took away all of her so called choices. You should really read up not only in your bible but history.

Here's another verse which just shocks me.

DEU 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.
You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored
her.

24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he
finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of
divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man,

3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of
divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies,

4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her
again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of
the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

There's one thing I understand better now about the character of Jesus, than I ever did when I was a Christian. He was the absolute antithesis of religious legalism. It takes some time and study to figure this out, but the writer(s) of the bible, and Jesus himself, pointed it out in the old and new testament plainly and repeatedly.

There are exceptional few Christians who comprehend this. The church as a whole is still bound up in legalistic doctrine that perpetuates bondage and fear.

The bible is about the relationship between a creator and his creation, not about laws and ordinances.

Matt 9:13

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Malcher

Marrying a rapist is not part of Christianity and i dont think that is part of the Bible. Maybe you can elaborate on where you got this from. When did this occur?

“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 the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).

Deuteronomy (old testament) does not use the term rape either

According to some modern translations the term rape is indeed used. Perhaps this is incorrect, have you taken a look at the original language or maybe even the Latin translations? I have done this with the words now translated to homosexual and am in the process of writing my own thread.

It does state that he is obliged to financially support her and the child or something to that effect.

Doesn't change that it was rape and that rape is horribly immoral. Doesn't change she was forced into marriage.

The rapist I believe is only stoned to death if the victim was engaged/married. Not sure. I would bet conflicting information.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

I could not tell you what the original text states or how it translates. You have to remember we are talking about books written over two thousand years ago and in languages other than English. Words translate differently and even the meaning change over time. In this case they are referring to having sex before marriage. The key there is "and they are discovered" as if they are trying to hide something so basically sexual relations means they are to get married.

I think the larger point is that i am not aware of instances past or present of someone having to marry a person who rapes them. I never heard of this occurring. Also, I am not a religious person myself, although i have certain beliefs that are personal, so i could not explain this any better.