Question For Christians

[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

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: zynner 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

Get real. We're not living in the bronze age, dude.
I don't follow the Jewish laws from the bible...

[ItsDarts]

Zynner,

Christians are not required to follow most of the "OT laws" handed down to Moses during the first covenant after they left Egypt. They are only required to follow the moral laws (10 commandments and some others). The reason for this is that once Jesus came, Christians entered into a new covenant where the punishment of all sins were no longer required to offer a blood sacrifice (no more stoning or animal sacrifices). This was now done by Jesus when he was crucified. The civil laws of the OT(e.g. Deut 22:28-29) were handed down to gods "Choosen People", the Israelites, and were not meant for all people for all times. Chrisitains are only required to follow the teachings of Christ after the second covenant and moral laws.

In short, Christians do not follow the civil or ritutalistic laws of the OT, only the moral laws and the teachings of christ.

This is the way apologists have explained it to me. I'm an atheist and I have a hard time buying it. To me, it seems that depending on the christian you talk to, certain things are metaphorical, certain things are literal and it would seem they pick and choose which depending on the argument being discussed.

My suggestion to you is to pick apart the prophecies in another thread if you want to pick apart the bible.

:)

[Leveller]

Quote by: ItsDarts Zynner, Christians are not required to follow most of the "OT laws" handed down to Moses during the first covenant after they left Egypt. They are only required to follow the moral laws (10 commandments and some others). The reason for this is that once Jesus came, Christians entered into a new covenant where the punishment of all sins were no longer required to offer a blood sacrifice (no more stoning or animal sacrifices). This was now done by Jesus when he was crucified. The civil laws of the OT(e.g. Deut 22:28-29) were handed down to gods "Choosen People", the Israelites, and were not meant for all people for all times. Chrisitains are only required to follow the teachings of Christ after the second covenant and moral laws. In short, Christians do not follow the civil or ritutalistic laws of the OT, only the moral laws and the teachings of christ. This is the way apologists have explained it to me. I'm an atheist and I have a hard time buying it. To me, it seems that depending on the christian you talk to, certain things are metaphorical, certain things are literal and it would seem they pick and choose which depending on the argument being discussed. My suggestion to you is to pick apart the prophecies in another thread if you want to pick apart the bible. :)

Ah, dear boy thats very debatable. You say that you are required only to follow the teacings of Christ?

Here are some of the things that Christ said about the old testiment, and upholding laws written in the O.T.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"

Seems to me that if you wan't to get to your great gig in the sky, youd better start following the OT. I just hppe you haven't raped anyone.

Furthermore, the Ten commandments, or moral laws as you refer to them, are pretty brutal in their own right. Most of the punishments for breaking the 10 comnmandments are to be put to death, even though one of the commendments is that you shall never kill (Someone really didn't think that one through).

[phoenix_fire]

Zynner, that law was more a protection for the girl than anything else. Once an unmarried girl was no longer a virgin, no respectable man would want to marry her (and the unrespectable ones wouldn't want to marry anyway). She would almost certainly be cast out of her family and be destitute. Since women couldn't provide for their own livelihoods, they would be reduced to begging or starving. The law was practical for its time and place and socially just because it forced the offender to provide for the woman he had wronged and provided the woman protection.

[underbear1]

This simply establishes that women are property. If you damage the father's property (his daughter) and he can't even give it away, (after the damage), you owe him restitution, and have to take the damaged goods off his hands.You did notice the woman raped didn't get one F*CKIN shekel! She also gets sentenced to being raped the rest of her life.............NICE LAW, by and for MEN!

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: underbear1 This simply establishes that women are property. If you damage the father's property (his daughter) and he can't even give it away, (after the damage), you owe him restitution, and have to take the damaged goods off his hands.You did notice the woman raped didn't get one F*CKIN shekel! She also gets sentenced to being raped the rest of her life.............NICE LAW, by and for MEN!

Heh. Good point! I bet even the Ortho Jews don't live by this one nowadays...:eek:

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Leveller Ah, dear boy thats very debatable. You say that you are required only to follow the teacings of Christ?

And the moral laws of the OT

Here are some of the things that Christ said about the old testiment, and upholding laws written in the O.T. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

If you take ONLY this one line, then yes, it appears to be saying what you are implying, however when you take it in context Luke 16:16-18 you will understand that this is refering to the laws of Divorce only....

16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."NIV.

This was refering to moral laws. :) Like I said, I am an athiest, so if my attempt at apologetics is wrong, I hope the christians here will correct me. I use to make the same mistakes when arguing with atheists by only arguing one or two verses when I should have looked deeper into the context.

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

Again you've taken John 7:19 out of context, look to John 7:14-24 to get the full meaning of that verse. He is refering to the crowd wanting to kill him for healing (working) on the Sabath, but the laws given by moses are clear on what constitutes "work" on the sabath and what doesn't.

As for John 1:17, "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." This is not speaking of civil or ritualistic laws, however it could be argued that Moses never spoke of Jesus Christ. I'm not sure about this verse at all. Maybe Moses said something to the effect of grace and truth came through the lord??? A christian could answer that better than me.

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"

No, he criticizes the Pharisees for being hypocritical and he used that commandment as an example. He is NOT chastizing for not killing disobedient children, Read Mark 7:1-23 to see what I mean. I learned early on in my atheism that it doesn't do much good to use one liners to refute christianity. Even christians are guilty of this (not all but some, usually fundies) who will take a one liner to make their point. Also, as I said in my OP, After Christ came, all debts for sins (even breaking the 10C's) are paid for by Jesus. Stoning a man for working on the sabath is no longer required by christians, just ask for forgiveness because Jesus already died and was resurrected for all sins. (assuming this is true of course)

Seems to me that if you wan't to get to your great gig in the sky, youd better start following the OT. I just hppe you haven't raped anyone.

To be a good christian you shouldn't do any sins, but since thats impossible, you do have an out.... ask for forgiveness and believe in Jesus and his resurrection. Depending on what flavor of Christianity you follow, you may be required to be baptised, born again, and need to do good deeds, but thats for them to figure out...

Furthermore, the Ten commandments, or moral laws as you refer to them, are pretty brutal in their own right. Most of the punishments for breaking the 10 comnmandments are to be put to death, even though one of the commendments is that you shall never kill (Someone really didn't think that one through).

It sucked to be Hebrew at the time of the 10Cs, but after Christ died for all our sins, all sin is forgiven with the above mentioned conditions. Personally, I don't believe in the existence of Christ or his resurrection or the prophecies or miracles, so if I'm wrong, it sucks to be me.

Any christians who think my apologetics needs help, feel free, also, How am I doing for an atheist? LOL

[another day]

Just more evidence that the bible is just a creative book written by men thousands of years ago. Shock horror!

[drgilbert4]

Way to go guys!! Maybe some day you can do away with those evil christian woman abusers. Then maybe the Muslims can take over and women will never have to fear abuse again!!

[another day]

Quote by: drgilbert4 Way to go guys!! Maybe some day you can do away with those evil christian woman abusers. Then maybe the Muslims can take over and women will never have to fear abuse again!!

Who are you talking to? Your comment has no relation to anything on this thread.

No one said anything about christians being women abusers. He asked for a christian opinion on a statement in the 2000 year old bible.

You just couldn't resist the urge to get some good ol muslim bashin in could ya! Hahaha.

It's ok, I dislike the Muslim faith too. Just as much as I dislike the Christian faith, and every other faith. :)

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: ItsDarts Zynner, Christians are not required to follow most of the "OT laws" handed down to Moses during the first covenant after they left Egypt. They are only required to follow the moral laws (10 commandments and some others). The reason for this is that once Jesus came, Christians entered into a new covenant where the punishment of all sins were no longer required to offer a blood sacrifice (no more stoning or animal sacrifices). This was now done by Jesus when he was crucified. The civil laws of the OT(e.g. Deut 22:28-29) were handed down to gods "Choosen People", the Israelites, and were not meant for all people for all times. Chrisitains are only required to follow the teachings of Christ after the second covenant and moral laws. In short, Christians do not follow the civil or ritutalistic laws of the OT, only the moral laws and the teachings of christ. This is the way apologists have explained it to me. I'm an atheist and I have a hard time buying it. To me, it seems that depending on the christian you talk to, certain things are metaphorical, certain things are literal and it would seem they pick and choose which depending on the argument being discussed. My suggestion to you is to pick apart the prophecies in another thread if you want to pick apart the bible. :)

How about you don't know the bible yourself. Most people don't know it that well at all.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not change it. Christains don't follow jesus because he followed the law. And he didn't die for no ones sin.

Is there not still sin in the world? In fact, since jesus followed the laws, it has it that he didn't die for anyone's sin. Deuteronomy 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Amaziah even followed this law 2 Chronicles 25:4
But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the lord commanded, saying, the fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for te fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

When you know the bible well, you'll learn that no preacher has the heart to go against traditional teachings even when it's wrong in effort to explain to you that Jesus did not die for your sins. Ezekiel gives a serious breakdown in this in chapter 18
You'll see a strong take onto the commandments and you should notice verse 20.... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The soul shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteous of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It explains how nothing can destroy a soul like sin and how nothing can save a soul but good deeds through the commandments, the law.

And...it was teachings of paul that left these laws, period.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zauhiyq How about you don't know the bible yourself. Most people don't know it that well at all.

Apparently this includes you. You're using the OT to refute the NT? You haven't refuted anything I said in post #8. Did you even read the links to the passages I cited refuting Zynners and Levellers Claims?

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not change it. Christains don't follow jesus because he followed the law. And he didn't die for no ones sin.

He didn't? Hmmm let me re-phrase that so even YOU can understand. Jesus died (presumably) to PAY for everyones sins. It was the blood sacrifice required by the OT laws for commiting a sin i.e. stoning, animal sacrifices etc.... He payed the blood sacrfice for all future sins commited. John 3:10-21

Is there not still sin in the world?

of course there is, he didn't die to STOP sin, but to pay the price (eternal spiritual death) for sin.

In fact, since jesus followed the laws, it has it that he didn't die for anyone's sin. Deuteronomy 24:16

This is where you use the OT to refute the NT.... doesn't work that way, not even for you. You DO understand what covenants are don't you? The laws of Deuteronomy, Leviticus etc, were all part of the first covenant. Jesus is part of the Second. If you reat Deut 24:16 you will see that god is speaking of Human fathers and children, and NOT his own.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Amaziah even followed this law 2 Chronicles 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the lord commanded, saying, the fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for te fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

Again, this is OT stuff applied to OT times and OT people. After the second covenant, This didn't apply in totality, we still don't kill fathers for the children and vis versa, and we are still responsible for our own sins and will be put to death (spiritially speaking) if we don't allow Jesus into our lives. John 3:16... pretty famous verse and it explains it.

When you know the bible well, you'll learn that no preacher has the heart to go against traditional teachings even when it's wrong in effort to explain to you that Jesus did not die for your sins. Ezekiel gives a serious breakdown in this in chapter 18

You seem to be arguing from the Jewish standpoint, you keep using OT scripture to refute NT scripture. Why? Are we to suppose that Christians all got it wrong and only the Hebrews got it right? Please explain from what view you are arguing.

You'll see a strong take onto the commandments and you should notice verse 20.... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The soul shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteous of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

And you will notice that this verse isn't speaking of Jesus (the Son) or of God (The Father). So what is your poiint?

It explains how nothing can destroy a soul like sin and how nothing can save a soul but good deeds through the commandments, the law. And...it was teachings of paul that left these laws, period.

Again, you seem to be arguing from the Jewish standpoint and would seem to warrant its own thread.

[Fonceai]

@zynner

I never looked upon that part as rape.

I saw it as him being her first, but they snuck off somewhere. If they are caught, because she was a virgin, he is now beholden to her, and gives the father the dowry and must marry her.

It's a moral lesson about sexual responsibility, and about saving that kind of expression for a married relationship.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[phoenix_fire]

Did anyone read a word I said?

[zauhiyq]

Quote by: ItsDarts You seem to be arguing from the Jewish standpoint, you keep using OT scripture to refute NT scripture. Why? Are we to suppose that Christians all got it wrong and only the Hebrews got it right? Please explain from what view you are arguing.

First lets get into the fact that your New Covenant clinging has no foundation. What does the term “New Testament” mean? Allow me.

Luke 22:20 (King James Version) “likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

Luke 22:20 (New International Version) “In the same way after the supper he took the cup, saying, the cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

Luke 22:20 (Revised Standard Version) “And likewise the cup after supper saying, this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

All three of these translations are translated from the same Greek word, “Diatheke.”

Go back to Jeremiah 31:31-32 and realize that they are interpreting the New Covenant to mean “New Testament.” Christians define “testament” as “covenant”, but ‘testament’ and ‘covenant’ are not the same thing. If your scholars are confused and definitely unqualified to translate, how come you aren't confused?

I know why I’m not confused and it’s because the New covenant is under a different God.

First the confusion starts with translating the Greek word Diatheke, it has two meanings. Testament has to do with witnessing, where as covenant has to do with an agreement.

Here is a question for you. How can there be a New Covenant when according to Genesis 17:7 the covenant established between God and Abraham was an EVERLASTING Covenant?

Genesis 17:1
“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee and their generations for an EVERLASTING COVENANT to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”

If you try and use John 1:17 where it says……….”For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” …………to say that the law is gone and with the coming of Jesus came the period of Grace, then this is out-right innovation!

Jesus words out of his own mouth was, Matthew 5:17 ……..”think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I Am Not Come To Destroy, But To Fulfill.” Please show me where Jesus said with his coming was the end of the law and the beginning of faith???? Even the prophets and disciples had to abide by the law. So who are the self-righteous Christians to consider themselves above the law??? The covenant established with the children of Israel was an everlasting covenant.

But if you look in Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Hebrews 8:8-9 you’ll find…..A “New Covenant”
………”Behold, the days come, saith the lord, when I will make A New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which MY COVENANT THEY BROKE, although I was a HUSBAND unto them saith the lord:

So ask yourself if the covenant was an everlasting covenant, then how can there be a new covenant or new testament?

Here’s another question for you. How many everlasting covenants can there be?

1- Everlasting covenant made with Noah, between God and every living creature according to genesis 9:16
2- Everlasting covenant of circumcision, between God, Abraham and Abraham’s seed according to Genesis 17:7, 10, 13
3- Another one in Isaiah 55:3
4- Another one in Isaiah 61:8
5- Another one in Jeremiah 32:40
6- Another one in Ezekiel 16:60
7- And again in Ezekiel 37:26
8- Then there was a man made book called the “New Testament.”

If the Covenant established in genesis 17:7 was an everlasting covenant, AND IT WAS, then why does the God of the bible keep re-establishing it, if it’s everlasting?

What was the name of the God that the Israelite’s covenant was made with in Jeremiah 31:32?

Yahweh, the god of the Israelites right? Wrong! This particular Lord (Yahweh) or God called himself BAAL which is a Phoenician deity and says, HE WAS A BAAL to the children of Israel.

The word HUSBAND is translated from a Babylonian word, (Bah-‘al) Baal and a title that means LORD which in Hebrew would be BAAL. He was a Phoenician and Babylonian deity adopted by the Canaanites in 1Kings 18:40

This is the same deity that the children of Israel were worshipping at shechem after the death of Gideon, only they were worshiping him under “Baal-Berith”, meaning lord of the covenant in Judges 8:33; 9:4

………………”And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-Berith their God

Also in Judges 9:46
So now, quote your scripture for this blood sacrifice which was law and lets deal with that. Make sure you explain your point because I don’t need you trying to say we are saying the same thing. You already say you’re atheist, but you don’t explain that.

Quote by: ItsDarts of course there is, he didn't die to STOP sin, but to pay the price (eternal spiritual death) for sin. This is where you use the OT to refute the NT.... doesn't work that way, not even for you. You DO understand what covenants are don't you? The laws of Deuteronomy, Leviticus etc, were all part of the first covenant. Jesus is part of the Second. If you reat Deut 24:16 you will see that god is speaking of Human fathers and children, and NOT his own.

What did Jesus say? And when Jesus was asked how one can get to heaven, what did he say?
What is heaven? Vs What is the Kingdom of God?

Is eternal Life the same?

Luke chapter 18 verse 18- 20: Jesus said keep the commandments.
Matt. chp. 19 starting at verse 16
Mark chp. 10 starting at verse 17

How does one get to heaven?

When I read it, it appears to me that Jesus is saying, "You have to have faith." (John 3:8-12) Notice there were questions accompanying the inquiry of the chapter and verse concerning being born again. Because the chapters which share a similar concern speaks of keeping the commandments. Is keeping the commandments and being born again the same thing?

First, Jesus tells Nicodemus to discard his statement about being born again. The word marvel is from the root, "asah" meaning use, observe, or commit. Jesus said marvel not.......
Then jesus explains how he is really speaking more of being born of spirit. Is the spirit the breath of life or is the soul the breath of life?

Spirit = Nephesh = a movement of air, blood, personality
Soul = Ruwach = the breath of life, life mind

Remember in Luke 18:21 Jesus said he kept the commandments from his youth up. Geneis chp. 2:7 says God created man, breathed in him the breath of life and man became a living soul. To be born again does God have to do this again?????

Is God made up of any of this spirit and soul material? In Geneis it says God came down from heaven to confound a peoples language. God had to come down?????? From where????? He's everywhere.

Heaven = orion = 6th star constillation. A real place. Is this where God lives and not in Adromeda or Pleiades? Even hell is spoken about with the terms of Brimstone. That's a very physical fire!!! Can souls burn there?

Like I said, these are simple concerns. How do you get to heaven? what was Jesus really saying??? Here are a few things below to consider before we get into your answers. After seeing what I see, then I would like to speak with you on how to get to heaven and what Jesus was saying about it.

The questions were: Heaven + Eternal life + Kingdom of God + Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 19:12) = Is it all the same?

Heaven & God
1- Was there a heaven before God? Answer ____???
2- If God always was, was there a heaven just as long as there was God? Answer ____????
3- Is God in Heaven? ____????

Heaven & Kingdom of God
1- Is heaven the Kingdom of God? Answer ___???
2- What was God's Kingdom before creating Heaven & Earth or just heaven? Answer ___???
3- What in God's creation is not the Kingdom of God, especially if he is omnipresent? Ans ___???

Eternal life & Kingdom of Heaven
1- Does flesh accompany eternal life or enter the kingdom of heaven? Answer ___???
2- Is God a being of flesh with eternal life? and Does flesh reside in the kingdom of heaven? Ans ___???
3- Are there suns and stars that live forever and have no choice but to worship God in order to be the kingdom of heaven? or is Eternal life and the kingdom of heaven nothing physical at all? ___???

Soul & Spirit
1- What is a living soul if it is a spirit before it enters the body? Answer ___???
2- Can spirit and soul exist without a body? and If one loses his soul does it mean the soul has died?
3- Is soul and spirit something physical and why does flesh effect the soul? Answer ___???
4- Was there a time Jesus was ever without the holy spirit, the spirit of God?
---He was baptised and received the holy ghost, Plus the descending of the holy ghost could be seen by John.
---Did Jesus not already have the holy ghost??? (John 1:32-33)

I’ll give you a chance to catch up here. I would love to see what your understanding to this all is.

[Fonceai]

I read it, phoenix, and my opinion slightly differed from yours, which is what I posted.

[underbear1]

what would polygamists do?

opps sorry this isn't a gay thread

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Did anyone read a word I said?

I saw it... and my only complaint would be the automatic assumption that she was "wronged". Where as Foncaei made some good points, that she may have just been a slut and ran off with the guy and if they got caught, then daddy still get compensation for spoiled goods. If indeed this is speaking of rape, then I have no problem with your interpretation other than she always has the choice to become a prostitute to support herself, afterall, it is the oldest profession.

[bob60292]

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

______________________________________________________________
This is an Old Testament concept, not a New Testament concept. Ask our Jewish friends instead of us; but I would wonder if it is not an error to read the Bible without taking the cultural implications of the day and age in which it was written into consideration. Perhaps there are symbolic or idiomatic implications between the lines.