Question For Christians

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: Isherwood Is what I've observed incorrect?

You wrote (enumerated):

(1) You fail to take any responsibility for your own life or the planet. (2)The good aspects of your personality are (3)due to god and (4)the parts you are ashamed of are due to satan. How convenient. (5)Thus the theist is just a powerless dupe in the eternal struggle between two supernatural entities. In the end, (6)all superstitions boil down to silliness. Religion is no different.

(1) I recognize that the responsibilities I have (for anything) stem from a singular purpose given to me by God, and that is to spread the word of His free gift of salvation offered to all.

(2) "good aspects"? My personality is comprised of components God has endowed me with, and it is from within that endowing (and how I respond to its affect on me) that I will be judged.

(3) God is good all the time.

(4) There is no shame in Jesus Christ. The parts of my past are just that, parts of my past. Satan is not the worker of all evil, although he does often make it seem easier to manifest itself. However, the Bible teaches that there is no test put before man wherein there is not an escape. We only have to choose to take it.

(5) A Christian is someone who has recognize the futility of living for the flesh and has chosen, rather to follow the path of Jesus Christ, a path which leads only toward salvation, redemption and eternal life in paradise. The world would call someone walking down that path on faith a dupe, but then again the Bible teaches us that we arrived at this world through a lie. Everything we see here is transient and fleeting. Every thing.

(6) In other religions I would agree. Most every religion is works based, meaning you have to do something or achieve something. The reality exists that if you have to do something to achieve salvation, then it's not really salvation, but rather an accomplishment.

What Jesus Christ has offered to all of mankind is a way out. We need only to believe in His teachings and put them into practice in our daily lives. It does not matter if the result of those decisions may not make sense to us in our flesh, but rather it is our duty and responsibility to trust in Him and to deny our flesh. Only in so doing are we truly walking in faith, and only then will we truly be doing God's work while here on Earth.

Everything else is vanity and pride.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GHook93 Say your only anti-zionist, but two post in a row that where exclusively anti-Semitic!

Say what?!

[Fonceai]

@RickHodgin

I told you I was going to trap you...

You do realize that marriage, from a religious perspective, is telling the entire world that you love one person above all others?

That by being married you value her life above even your own?

Your son should be either second to her, or third to you.

So now you have basically said that because of your love for a complete stranger, actually an enemy to you and your family, you would not save them.

You should file for divorce. Right now.

It's unfair for you to say that you don't love your wife and son enough to stain your own soul in order to save their lives.

That's confession, pennance, and forgiveness are for, aren't they?

If you tell a priest that you murdered the man who was about to rape your wife and son to death, do you really think the priest would tell you that you sinned?

A priest would tell you that you're going to go to hell for protecting the two people in your life that you should love more than yourself?

No offense, but your faith sucks.

Too bad I have a life to lose... I'd test your faith by asking for your address and seeing if God showed up to stop me from proving a very grisly but effective point about faith.

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: Fonceai You do realize that marriage, from a religious perspective, is telling the entire world that you love one person above all others?

Marriage is always only exactly this: the joining of two into one by God, an act that cannot be undone by man, unto death.

As for the rest of your post, we have only to justify our actions before Jesus Christ. We are denying ourselves in this life, and therefore we are seeking after Him.

Because of my faith and my unwillingness to kill another, I would be following the teachings of Jesus Christ unto my death (or that of my family), and He would welcome them (and me) into Heaven (were I to die then too). My faith pushes my understanding of the consequences of my actions (or inactions) beyond that which can be seen with my eyes or reasoned with my mind. I see the truth of what the Bible has taught me and for that reason alone the actions I take are more in line with what is right than any actions of self-defense, as this world would teach.

Bear in mind the central premise of what I'm trying to convey here. Everything this world offers us is designed only to deceive us. Satan (who can be thought of as "un-truth", which is to say "a lie") has come to steal, to kill and to destroy. He has no interest in helping any of us. His only motives are to fool you and trick you into believing you are secure when you are not.

Only if we seek honestly, truly and deeply will the true nature of our existence, both personally and collectively, be revealed to us by Jesus Christ (through His word (the Bible) and through His spirit).

We are living for more than that which we see in our flesh and blood existence, much more.

[Fonceai]

Right.

That's your opinion.

In the meantime, I will strike down with great wrath and furious anger those who... oh hell... you know the rest of it.

God granted me the ability and wisdom to weigh situations and decide when and where to decide.

I have killed before. It was in the line of duty and I apologized to God and asked forgiveness. And that was only to protect my own life. I won't ask forgiveness if it's to save my family.

When faith healing works or when God miraculously saves a rape victim, I'll be sure to take notice.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: zynner I ran across this gem from Deuteronomy (22:28-29): "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed [married/engaged], and seizes her and lies with her [rapes her], and they are found [oops!], then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver [whew! not too bad], and she shall be his wife [uh-oh...], because he has violated her [raped her]; he may not put her away [no divorce, bro] all his days [like...ever]. Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position? ~ zynner

Times that letter of law was written, correspondents to different respondents.
Taking the whole Bible literally - as it is, may raise up the issue as your one.
Are you joking ? :-)

[Jack]

I recognize that the responsibilities I have (for anything) stem from a singular purpose given to me by God

My personality is comprised of components God has endowed me with

(emphasis added)
You won't even accept responsibility for your own personality? You just made my point. Thank you.

Most every religion is works based, meaning you have to do something or achieve something. The reality exists that if you have to do something to achieve salvation, then it's not really salvation, but rather an accomplishment.

(emphasis added)

We need only to believe in His teachings and put them into practice in our daily lives.

it is our duty and responsibility to trust in Him and to deny our flesh

Your last two statements appear to make your religion as works based as any other.

[xJesterx]

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed [married/engaged], and seizes her and lies with her [rapes her], and they are found [oops!], then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver [whew! not too bad], and she shall be his wife [uh-oh...], because he has violated her [raped her]; he may not put her away [no divorce, bro] all his days [like...ever]. Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position?

This quote isn't talking about rape. The 'lies with her' part is from a primary male perspective with no regard to the female but it still means concentual sex.

This are the previous verses to those you quoted:

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-28).

So we can safely assume that's not what it meant in the following passages. The big indicator in your quote that it was concentual is the word 'they' - which indicates both of them were guilty.

[Apokalupsis]

Jester...how does the fact that someone must witness the account, result in it not being forced sex vs consentual? After all, that's your only defense for it being consentual (that they were found during the event).

I realize that some scholars suggest that it is not forced, but it would appear that that a great many more believe the proper rendering is indeed, "forced sex". The arguments are a bit more compelling as well.

If you still believe it is of a consentual nature, perhaps you could expand? The "they" defense doesn't seem to hold much water...it is merely a requirement for the event to be witnessed in order for it to be charged as a crime. Obviously, "he" wouldn't be witnessed, or "she" wouldn't be witnessed, as it would be after the fact. The act of rape must be witnessed in progress in order for it to be charged, else it is merely hearsay.

[OratorDeVeritas]

[Quote: And Joseph Smith found some gold tablets that told him something different. What makes his interpretation wrong and your's right?

Many millions believe that the Pope is god's spokesman on Earth. What makes him wrong and you right?

What, to you, constitutes "a true, believing and devout Christian"?[/quote]

Joseph Smith began the Mormon religion. What is wrong with their beliefs, is that they think Jesus has come back. They believe Jesus made his return to the world and gave Smith the tablets, however the Bible teaches that when Jesus returns everyone will now about it. That is what is wrong with their beliefs.

Yes, many do believe that the Pope is God's spokesman. However, if you observe the part of Scripture after Jesus' death, you see that is partly true. The Pope is one of God's Spokesman. However, anyone at any time can be God's spokesman. When the veil in the temple is torn at Jesus' death, it symbolizes that everyone (not just the High Priest) can pray to God, and everyone can act for God.

A devout Christian is one who follows God wherever that may be, and one who trusts God completely. However, devout or not every Christian goes to heaven.

A true believer is one who prayed to Jesus for forgiveness and help. A believer has admitted his imperfection and his need of Jesus. As the Bible says, "because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10: 9

[OratorDeVeritas]

[Quote: A priest would tell you that you're going to go to hell for protecting the two people in your life that you should love more than yourself?[Quote/] Fonceai

A priest does not have the right to tell you that you are going to hell. Priests don't (and never have) have the right to excommunicat people. The only requirement for going to heaven is specified in Romans 10:9. Committing a sin does not keep you from going to heaven. Not believing in the One True God does.

[OratorDeVeritas]

Quote by: zynner OK. So, are you saying the only punishment for a rapist is to love him? I think that is a pretty disgusting position for you to take. It is also contrary to your god's recommendation. Why is that? ~ zynner

We should love everyone, regardless of what they have done. And it is not the only punishment for rape. This whole topic started with the part of Deuteronomy that speaks of rape, that gives a punishment for every circumstance. But even when you must punish someone, you must do it out of love. God punishes his children because he loves them, so also do earthly parents.

I don't see how that is disgusting, love is the best thing anyone can do for another. All good things come from love.

God is Love. And True Love knows no bounds. If it knows no bounds than how could one not love everyone. It is Love that caused God to die for everyone. To die, even though he knew that until He came back, there would be more people like you than there would be those who truly loved him.

He loved the thief on the cross next to him, who accepted Jesus before he died.

And He loved the man on the other side who spat at him, and taunted him.

And He loved the soldiers who watched him die and put the crown of thorns on his head.

And He loved the Pharisees who put him to death.

And He loved the crowd who laughed when he was flogged.

And He loved Judas. His betrayer, the one who turned him over to be flogged, ridiculed, crucified.

And He loves us. We are just as bad as the others, had it not been for us, He would not have been crucified.

[OratorDeVeritas]

Quote by: Isherwood So religious faith=nonsense. I agree. According to Western religion. The problem with believing you have the ultimate truth is that you're unable to appreciate the joy and richness of our lives here. Your book has told you that life is misery and pain, and that you should divorce yourself from it. You fail to take any responsibility for your own life or the planet. The good aspects of your personality are due to god and the parts you are ashamed of are due to satan. How convenient. Thus the theist is just a powerless dupe in the eternal struggle between two supernatural entities. In the end, all superstitions boil down to silliness. Religion is no different.

Right, Religious Faith= Nonsense
However, Faith in Jesus= Joy, salvation, life, and many more.

The problem with us believing the ultimate truth is the sadness we have to feel when we meet people who do not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. The horrible knowledge of their eternal punishment. That is the only problem.

I don't know where you find a part in the Bible saying life is horrible. Life is wonderful, with Jesus as your Lord.

We have no right to take responsibility for our lives. Everyone's life is ultimatley God's. I don't know where you are going with the planet part.

The good parts of us are due to God. I don't know who told you our bad parts are due to Satan. Our bad parts are our fault. They are due to our humanity, our imperfection.

And yes we are all "powerless dupe"s as you put it. But only by ourselves, We are instruments of God.

I'll give you an analogy. Humans are like musical instruments. Without a misician we do nothing except collect dust. But with God, we can do wonderful things. And in heaven, when all the Christians are combined, each doing there part, we will make the most beautiful music ever heard.

[Fonceai]

@Orator

I knew that already.

I also knew that committing a sin is not grounds for going to hell.

Which is why I think it's stupid to "not kill under any circumstance" because of a religious belief that is incorrectly understood.

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: OratorDeVeritas The only requirement for going to heaven is specified in Romans 10:9. Committing a sin does not keep you from going to heaven. Not believing in the One True God does.

The word "believing" can be misleading to newcomers to the faith. It's is not enough to simply believe in Jesus Christ, as if a one-time event where you come to the cross and cry out "I believe" and truly mean it will suffice. It means rather that you believe in Jesus Christ and will carry out His will and will put into practice the teachings of the Bible. You lay down your life in this world and pick up the holy task of being a disciple of Christ, which means "walking the walk" as well as "talking the talk".

The Bible teaches that by His word we will live.

[xJesterx]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Jester...how does the fact that someone must witness the account, result in it not being forced sex vs consentual? After all, that's your only defense for it being consentual (that they were found during the event). I realize that some scholars suggest that it is not forced, but it would appear that that a great many more believe the proper rendering is indeed, "forced sex". The arguments are a bit more compelling as well. If you still believe it is of a consentual nature, perhaps you could expand? The "they" defense doesn't seem to hold much water...it is merely a requirement for the event to be witnessed in order for it to be charged as a crime. Obviously, "he" wouldn't be witnessed, or "she" wouldn't be witnessed, as it would be after the fact. The act of rape must be witnessed in progress in order for it to be charged, else it is merely hearsay.

It is my defence for it being consentual because if it was forced it would have been only him that was guilty (as it specified in the directly previous verses). Therefore the word would have been 'he' to indicate the guilty party. 'They' groups them together as being the same. Therefore both guilty.

The quote you gave doesn't say rape it says 'lay hold on her, and lie with her' now if you draw this parallel to the quote I gave you from the previous verses you will see a distinction - the previous verse uses the word 'force' while here it doesn't say anything like that. They are therefore trying to be as clear as they can about the indicated translation of the text without completely obliterating the hebrew translation.

Even if it did say rape, it wouldn't matter. The bible is full of phrases like 'kill this person for what they've done' and 'kill that person for what they've done'. Of course it doesn't really mean kill them all. Most times it simply means punish them - or even just 'I'm saying this is not okay for you to do'. Why? Because terms like kill and rape as Hebrew words are the same for many definitions. Remembering that English is a much more complex language.

In the NIV they translate two words as rape: taphas and shakab.

taphas - 1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield (a) (Qal) (i) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch (ii) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully (b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured (c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

shakab - 1) to lie down (a)(Qal) (i) to lie, lie down, lie on (ii) to lodge (iii) to lie (of sexual relations) (iv) to lie down (in death) (v) to rest, relax (fig) (b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually) (c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually) (d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down (e) (Hophal) to be laid

You can't just look at one section of the Bible and say 'look look at this supposed holy book'. Translating involves looking at the whole text to see the context and similarities and ruling out bad interpretations. I could laughingly say 'I'm going to kill you'. Written down it would still be 'I'm going to kill you' but if you looked at the surrounding text you would probably get the translation that it was a offhand joke because you did something that suprised me.

[OratorDeVeritas]

Zynner, you asked a question a long time ago, and since then we have gone off on many other ideas. I would like to answer your original question.

"Here's my question to Christians:

Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced?

If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position?"

I do not support a law that says a rapist and the victim must get married. Here is why:

God's laws for the Jews were for the purpose of sanctifying them. The Jews were set apart from the other nations because they had different laws. And they were hated for that.

When Jesus came to earth, He came to fulfill the law (as so many others have brought up). However, you aren't remembering what fulfill means. He completed the law. None of the laws in the OT are condemning laws for those who have accepted Jesus. The only laws Christians really focus on are the 10 commandments, which are not laws anymore. They are now guidelines for living like Christ.

I hope that answered your question. If you have anymore I would love to help.

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: OratorDeVeritas When Jesus came to earth, He came to fulfill the law (as so many others have brought up). However, you aren't remembering what fulfill means. He completed the law. None of the laws in the OT are condemning laws for those who have accepted Jesus. The only laws Christians really focus on are the 10 commandments, which are not laws anymore. They are now guidelines for living like Christ.

To those who are nonbelievers, know that Orator has explained this very well.

[1slam]

refer to my post at the end Christians or Muslims: Who is Right?

[zynner]

Quote by: OratorDeVeritas I do not support a law that says a rapist and the victim must get married. Here is why: God's laws for the Jews were for the purpose of sanctifying them. The Jews were set apart from the other nations because they had different laws. And they were hated for that.

Are you saying that, prior to the NT, your god did not mean to imply that anybody other than non-Jews had to abide by his laws?

If so, how do you explain all the bloodshed and hissy fits he had when nobody listened?

When Jesus came to earth, He came to fulfill the law (as so many others have brought up). However, you aren't remembering what fulfill means. He completed the law. None of the laws in the OT are condemning laws for those who have accepted Jesus. The only laws Christians really focus on are the 10 commandments, which are not laws anymore. They are now guidelines for living like Christ.

Then, why don't you refer to them as the Ten Guidelines?

Let's say you and I are in the state legislature and we have been directed to come up with a rape law.

Whatever law you support, what is your moral foundation upon which you support that law? You cannot be using the OT. I am not aware of a rape law "guideline" in the NT that you could point to and say we have to go with that.

So, what is your moral authority? And if I point out that your own god has already shown us a "guideline" for what rape laws should be, on what basis can you say that you do not accept that law?

And what if our community also had a lot of Jews?

I think you get your real moral authority outside of the Bible. I think that is the reason why you do not support this kind of law for rape. But I am open to being corrected.

~ zynner