What is our church doing about this?

[there buster]

Quote:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

another example of 'rudeness.'

[Bravus]

I always wonder whether perhaps ichabod is a sock on EDD's hand...

[David Koot]

Quote:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

another example of 'rudeness.'

Interesting. It was Jesus speaking, and He was speaking to a certain group of people. Are you suggesting a parallel? Would you put your rude remarks in the same category as what Jesus said?

[David Koot]

I always wonder whether perhaps ichabod is a sock on EDD's hand...

Multiple rude personalities.

[cardw]

Quote:

The whole concept of agape love and the belief that people are made in God's image destroys the practice of slavery. Most of the abolitionists got their inspiration and hatred for slavery from the Bible. None should forget the stories in the Bible of God's freeing the slaves from Egypt and of Christ's coming here and giving his life in order to free us from slavery to sin.

I agree that the concept of love as expressed by the saying of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself would condemn slavery. It would also consider how we would treat someone who is gay. If I was gay I would not want to be labeled an abomination because my hormones acted in a different way by no choice of my own.

Quote:

It is true that some who kept slaves argued that the Bible "supports the practice of slavery." The same argument, and for the same reasons, can be given for believing the Bible supports polygamy. The Bible actually supports neither. It seems to support it, yes, on a superficial level, but when you look deeper into the Bible, you find that it doesn't support those things at all. Just because God did not say, "Thou shall not practice slavery," doesn't mean God says they should practice it.

The bible does actively support slavery.

Leviticus 25: 45 Moveover the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession.

And it was quite brutal...

Exodus 21: 20 And if a man smite his slave, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 But if he live for a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.

This is far from being superficial. What is simply ridiculous about this cultural argument is that the children of Israel are just coming out of slavery which they knew to be of a brutal nature. Like I said before Jainism had, by this time, clearly understood slavery to be immoral and yet supposedly God adapts to the primitive understanding of the children of Israel by ordering them to make slaves of strangers living among them, a practice they had suffered under through first hand knowledge.

He then seems to think that gathering wood on the Sabbath is a far greater threat to morality of the nation by making that an offense punishable by death. He also seems to think that making graven images, which is basically sculpture, is the 2nd most important moral principle that needs to be taught.

One would think that the command, Thou shalt not have slaves, would hold far greater weight morally than either of these.

Or this wise handling of rape...

Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Not only is the woman caused to suffer the violence of rape, but she has to marry her rapist!! And to top it off her father makes money on the deal.

This is way past the absurd.

[cardw]

Quote:

Slavery as practiced in the United States was not the same kind of slavery the Bible condones. While many Christians argued in favor of slavery, it was those Christians that disagreed with that view that led the abolition movement which ended slavery throughout the western world - Brazil being the last western nation to abolish it.

This is absolutely not true. You might find individual examples of slaves treated in a better manner, but slavery is slavery. It is quite evident from the Bible that slaves were beaten and the whole concept of a chosen people is a form of racism. From your quote it is evident that slaves of Hebrew decent were treated differently. This is clearly racism. You can note this quote...

Leviticus 25: 45 Moveover the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession.

Let us look at your quote...

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”

Note that women have no rights what so ever as a slave. The slavery of women is never lifted. By placing these things and preserving them in this supposedly inspired book God essentially kept women enslaved for centuries through this book. And by keeping this book above critical evaluation these immoral views of women continue to fuel present day devaluation of women within religious organizations.

[Dr. Shane]

The rape in this context is closer to what we call statutory rape. It is also known as virgin rape. That is, having sex with an unmarried virgin. No virgin would want to admit she willing had sex as that would make her a whore in that society. Thus, it was a form of rape. According to that definition, there is a lot of raping going on today and a lot of women marrying their rapists.

Men were paid a dowry for their virgin daughters. Thus when a man's daughter lost her virginity, her value was drastically decreased. So the man who "raped" the virgin owed the father of the virgin a dowry. One must note in the parallel passage, in Exodus 22, that the father of the virgin, does not have to consent to the marriage of his daughter with the "rapist".

[Jeannieb43]

The rape in this context is closer to what we call statutory rape. It is also known as virgin rape. That is, having sex with an unmarried virgin.

Today's definition of statutory rape is: consensual sex with a minor. Since minors are legally deemed incapable of entering into a contract or of consenting to sex, the sexual encounter, though it may have been consensual, is legally (statutorily) rape. Whether the female is a virgin at the time is irrelevant.

[cardw]

Quote:

The rape in this context is closer to what we call statutory rape.

First of all, you provide no basis for this view.

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."

This is a seduction and voluntary, the other is rape. The other requires marriage, while this makes it an option for the father. This price is required because the property is "ruined" so there is still a price to be paid to the father.

Not much of an upgrade. You really think this is the best that God could come up with?

Here is another dealing with rape and a form of slavery of women...

Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

To me the simplest explanation is that the Bible was written by men to have a God justify their terrible behavior and to create fear in the populace for the purpose of nation building and maintaining control.

[Gregory Matthews]

Statutory rape is defined by local law, and is not the same in every area.

It should be noted that the law does not typically limit statutory rape to minors. One aspect of a typical broader defination includes people who are unable to give consent. This will include the demented, elderly, nursing home patient, as well as others. But, this is not the full extent of the defination.

It may include the person who slips a product into a food or beverage of another that takes away that persons capicity to give consent.

In may also include certain types of relationships. A physician or counselor may be charageable, in some areas, for sexual contact with a client. In this case consent, and/or the capicity to give consent is not an issue.

[Tom Wetmore]

...To me the simplest explanation is that the Bible was written by men to have a God justify their terrible behavior and to create fear in the populace for the purpose of nation building and maintaining control.

Of interest is the perspective of Jesus. The apostle John captured it by saying, "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." While most Jews regarded the books of Moses as the holy law of God, Jesus consistently refereed to it as the law of Moses.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

In using sola scriptura to interpret the Bible, one passage is used to understand another passage. Thus Exodus 22 is used to define Deuteronomy 22. Are these talking about two different situations? Why would a father be able to prevent his daughter who was tricked into giving up her virginity from marrying the man but not able to prevent the man that forcibly raped his daughter from marrying her? The only logical explanation is that both passages are talking about consensual sex between the virgin and the male. However since the female was property of the father, she did not have the right to consent to sexual relations and thus the relations were rape. The "rapist" had sex with the virgin without consent of the virgin's father. That is the logical understanding of the passage using sola scriptura. That is why I said it is similar to statutory rape. Both parties involved in the sexual act were consenting but the virgin didn't have the right to consent, much like a minor doesn't have the right to consent.

Quote:

To me the simplest explanation is that the Bible was written by men to have a God justify their terrible behavior and to create fear in the populace for the purpose of nation building and maintaining control.

Obviously someone that holds that position is going to disagree with those that hold to sola scriptura on a number of issues.

[David Koot]

While most Jews regarded the books of Moses as the holy law of God, Jesus consistently refereed to it as the law of Moses.

Tom

Simply a common way of describing the laws given by God to Moses for His people. Although they were referred to as the laws of Moses, the people also knew that God was the source of those laws.

[John317]

Quote:

The whole concept of agape love and the belief that people are made in God's image destroys the practice of slavery. Most of the abolitionists got their inspiration and hatred for slavery from the Bible. None should forget the stories in the Bible of God's freeing the slaves from Egypt and of Christ's coming here and giving his life in order to free us from slavery to sin.

I agree that the concept of love as expressed by the saying of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself would condemn slavery. It would also consider how we would treat someone who is gay. If I was gay I would not want to be labeled an abomination because my hormones acted in a different way by no choice of my own.

The Bible doesn't say gay people are abominations. An abomination is a sin that God hates. The sin, not the person, is an abomination (Lev. 20: 13). I don't believe the Bible ever says the sinner himself is an abomination, although the Bible does refer to temple male-prostitutes as "dogs" (Deut. 23: 18), and God commanded that they be killed, just as God commanded that sorcerers be slain. Rev. 22: 15 says that the "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral" will be outside the city of God and not among the saved.

We should treat "gays," transsexuals and transvestites with love. Love requires the church not to hide the Bible truth about how God views sin. But this truth should always be communicated thoughtfully and lovingly. God loves the sinner even while He hates the sin. In fact, God hates the sin because of what it does to people whom He loves and wants to spend eternity with. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 shows that God will spend eternity with all sorts of people, including gays, who have allowed the Holy Spirit to give them new lives so that they are in harmony with God's will and character.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[cardw]

Quote:

In using sola scriptura to interpret the Bible, one passage is used to understand another passage. Thus Exodus 22 is used to define Deuteronomy 22. Are these talking about two different situations? Why would a father be able to prevent his daughter who was tricked into giving up her virginity from marrying the man but not able to prevent the man that forcibly raped his daughter from marrying her? The only logical explanation is that both passages are talking about consensual sex between the virgin and the male.

This is making the assumption that some great intelligence put the Bible together so that it would communicate cryptic and difficult to understand rules of behavior that have to be teased out of the texts through a complex system of interpretation. To me, this is highly magical thinking.

What it is more likely is that you have decided what is the most ethical or in your words logical and made the text say what agrees with your understanding of what God really means. This is what I mean when I say that you pick and choose until the texts say what YOU want them to say.

[Dr. Shane]

Those of us that believe in sola scriptura do believe that a Great Intelligence did put the Bible together so that it would interpret itself. Using one portion of the Bible to interpret another is the basis of sola scriptura. Exodus and Deuteronomy were both written by Moses so it isn't much of a jump to use one to interpret the other. Daniel and Revelation were written by two different authors centuries apart. Yet one interprets the other.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3: 17---The whole concept of agape love and the belief that people are made in God's image destroys the practice of slavery. Most of the abolitionists got their inspiration and hatred for slavery from the Bible. None should forget the stories in the Bible of God's freeing the slaves from Egypt and of Christ's coming here and giving his life in order to free us from slavery to sin.

Quote:

cardw-- I agree that the concept of love as expressed by the saying of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself would condemn slavery...

Quote:

John: 3: 17--- It is true that some who kept slaves argued that the Bible "supports the practice of slavery." The same argument, and for the same reasons, can be given for believing the Bible supports polygamy. The Bible actually supports neither. It seems to support it, yes, on a superficial level, but when you look deeper into the Bible, you find that it doesn't support those things at all. Just because God did not say, "Thou shall not practice slavery," doesn't mean God says they should practice it.

Quote:

cardw---The bible does actively support slavery.

The same argument may be made in defense of divorce. God permits things that he hates because of the "hardness of our hearts," as Jesus said. See Mark 10: 4-6, below.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

In the same way, God allowed slavery because of the hardness of man's heart and not because He did not hate it. Paul told the Athenians, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent..." (Acts 17: 30).

It's no different with us today. God allows people to do many things He hates, even though He has revealed how He views those sins and even though He has sent prophet after prophet to show us a better way. We shouldn't consider God's permissive will to be His ideal. God came in the person of Jesus Christ to show us God's way. Even Jesus, however, didn't say, "Thou shalt not have slavery." Neither did the Apostle Paul. The message of the gospel, when truly received into the heart, changes people from the inside, not by making new legislation but by the Spirit. Legislating laws changes people's behavior temporarily and on the surface but what God is most interested in is the deeper, spiritual condition of people's hearts and minds.

If someone considers the civil laws of God inhumane or harsh, he should compare them with the code of Hammurabi, which predates the laws of Moses by about 400 years.

It's true that God could have made laws abolishing all forms of slavery, but there is no reason to believe they would have been obeyed any better than the laws against idolatry, etc. God works with human beings where they are, and doesn't require them to change everything immediately. For instance, he allowed Abraham, David, and Solomon to have concubines, even though it was not according to God's will. God allowed it even though He knew many people-- Mormon's, for instance-- would take it to mean that it is God's ideal for man. The same with slavery: many people unfortunately took God's permissive will in the area of slavery to mean it was God's will when it really never was, any more than divorce was ever really God's will.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[cardw]

Quote:

Those of us that believe in sola scriptura do believe that a Great Intelligence did put the Bible together so that it would interpret itself. Using one portion of the Bible to interpret another is the basis of sola scriptura. Exodus and Deuteronomy were both written by Moses so it isn't much of a jump to use one to interpret the other. Daniel and Revelation were written by two different authors centuries apart. Yet one interprets the other.

To me the Bible does not reveal great intelligence, but convoluted religious barbarism, disorganized thinking, and some rather immoral and cruel views of humanity.

This reveals to me a much less than Divine origin.

[John317]

Quote:

Those of us that believe in sola scriptura do believe that a Great Intelligence did put the Bible together so that it would interpret itself. Using one portion of the Bible to interpret another is the basis of sola scriptura. Exodus and Deuteronomy were both written by Moses so it isn't much of a jump to use one to interpret the other. Daniel and Revelation were written by two different authors centuries apart. Yet one interprets the other.

To me the Bible does not reveal great intelligence, but convoluted religious barbarism, disorganized thinking, and some rather immoral and cruel views of humanity.

This reveals to me a much less than Divine origin.

God never intended for us to like everything we see in the Bible. Some of what we see in it is pretty ugly. There are many things in it that He wants us to hate. For instance, a great deal of what is recorded in the book of Judges. But we must consider the context. It was written for an emergency period. It might be compared to the laws made for a time when martial law is required. The world as we see it is not the way God intended it to be. Again, the things in the Bible must be seen in the light of the context of rebellion against God. It is similar to the pictures in a medical text book. When viewed apart from the text, those pictures might be considered pornographic, but within the context of illness and the attempt to make people well, those terrible pictures are logical and appropriate. The same with the Bible: it must be seen within the context of a freedom-loving God's attempt to bring a rebellious planet back to trust in Him.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[cardw]

Quote:

God never intended for us to like everything we see in the Bible.

How do you know this? And how do you know which parts God wants us to like and which parts we shouldn't like. Sounds like a mysterious version of pick and choose.

Quote:

It was written for an emergency period. It might be compared to the laws made for a time when martial law is required.

This makes no sense at all when you look at the laws that contained the death penalty. Gathering wood on the Sabbath is a threat to national security? Come now.

Martial law is intended to keep people safe. Granted, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery make a lot of sense to maintain a community But these don't require Divine revelation to come up with. I also don't see how having the Israelites participate in genocide helps improve their characters.

If we went into a primitive culture and ordered them to kill all their neighbors because we have chosen them to be the paragon of virtue and love would be seen as ridiculous. To suggest that some superior intelligence would use that method is to ignore the ignorance of Iron age writers.

Most of us could come up with far better systems of law than the OT presents and we aren't God. I see no context where the form of government used in the OT would show any hint of a superior intelligence when during the same time period other cultures had far better understandings of what was ethical. Why aren't we studying their writings?

[cardw]

Quote:

Those of us that believe in sola scriptura do believe that a Great Intelligence did put the Bible together so that it would interpret itself. Using one portion of the Bible to interpret another is the basis of sola scriptura.

This would make sense if there was actually a law that covered violent forcible rape. The logical thing would be to conclude that this law covers both. So in some cases God is ordering the woman to marry her rapist.

To consider that this is really the best that God could come up with is a form of madness. To support this form of ethical "logic" is to deny our natural sensibilities in regard to empathy and suffering which has been shown to justify some of the most cruel behaviors through out history. The men involved in the Inquisition had a sophisticated theology to support the cruel mutilation and torture of men and women to "save" their souls and others from an eternal hell.

They fully believed that exposure of their children to heresy would threaten their eternal life. From this belief they justified the terribly cruel tortures inflicted on those they deemed heretics based on a very sophisticated sola scriptura.

To support this type of reasoning is to maintain a system of "logic" that relies on a book rather than empathy to determine what is ethical behavior. Jesus referred to our own ability to feel as the highest form of ethical judgment. e.g. Love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[cardw]

Quote:

It's true that God could have made laws abolishing all forms of slavery, but there is no reason to believe they would have been obeyed any better than the laws against idolatry, etc.

Then why make any laws at all. And if you are going to at least communicate a message of love and empathy for one's fellow man I would think abolishing slavery would communicate this far more effectively than than ordering the death of a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath.

I guess gathering wood is so dangerous that it far out weighs the effects of slavery.

To me this makes no sense at all and to continue to support this book as the highest wisdom available is simply not sustainable.

[cardw]

Quote:

The Bible doesn't say gay people are abominations. An abomination is a sin that God hates. The sin, not the person, is an abomination (Lev. 20: 13). I don't believe the Bible ever says the sinner himself is an abomination, although the Bible does refer to temple male-prostitutes as "dogs" (Deut. 23: 18), and God commanded that they be killed, just as God commanded that sorcerers be slain. Rev. 22: 15 says that the "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral" will be outside the city of God and not among the saved.

Your own quotes argue against this. I see little difference between calling someone an abomination and calling them dogs. You wouldn't say God considers their sin a dog, not them. And to order the death of these people leaves no chance for reform which implies that there is no chance of reform in God's eyes.

And if I was gay and every instinctual drive in my body motivated me to commit something considered an abomination that was punishable by death I don't think I would be able to recognize the distinction between hating the sin and the sinner.

I do have some knowledge of this because I had a gay roommate in college who decided to "come out" while we were roommates. From my discussion with him and other gay men and women I have come to the understanding that for all of them their orientation was not a choice. Besides, in this culture, who would choose to be gay?

If God understood this, why condemn them to death? Who is ultimately responsible for creating them within your cosmology? This whole line of reasoning is simply unsustainable.

[John317]

Quote:

The Bible doesn't say gay people are abominations. An abomination is a sin that God hates. The sin, not the person, is an abomination (Lev. 20: 13). I don't believe the Bible ever says the sinner himself is an abomination, although the Bible does refer to temple male-prostitutes as "dogs" (Deut. 23: 18), and God commanded that they be killed, just as God commanded that sorcerers be slain. Rev. 22: 15 says that the "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral" will be outside the city of God and not among the saved.

Your own quotes argue against this. I see little difference between calling someone an abomination and calling them dogs. You wouldn't say God considers their sin a dog, not them.

To me, it makes a difference when we realize that it is not God, but rather Moses, who calls them "dogs". Moses is not here quoting God. Moses is relaying God's instructions but they are given in Moses' own words. So it would be unfair to judge God by every word that Moses uses. There are many things in the Bible that express man's viewpoint without necessarily conveying God's. For instance, in the Psalms, the writer at one point describes the joy with which babies of the enemies of Israel are to be dashed against the wall.

I think another thing that needs to be kept in mind when considering the eradication of the male temple-prostitutes and mediums, etc., is that if they were not gotten rid of, their sins would spread. As it turned out, the Israelites failed to get rid of them, and therefore in time Israel began practicing the same sins as found among the surrounding nations, a situation which eventually led to the apostasy and exile of most of the children of Israel.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

The Bible doesn't say gay people are abominations. An abomination is a sin that God hates. The sin, not the person, is an abomination (Lev. 20: 13). I don't believe the Bible ever says the sinner himself is an abomination, although the Bible does refer to temple male-prostitutes as "dogs" (Deut. 23: 18), and God commanded that they be killed, just as God commanded that sorcerers be slain. Rev. 22: 15 says that the "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral" will be outside the city of God and not among the saved.

...And if I was gay and every instinctual drive in my body motivated me to commit something considered an abomination that was punishable by death I don't think I would be able to recognize the distinction between hating the sin and the sinner.

I do have some knowledge of this because I had a gay roommate in college who decided to "come out" while we were roommates. From my discussion with him and other gay men and women I have come to the understanding that for all of them their orientation was not a choice. Besides, in this culture, who would choose to be gay?

If God understood this, why condemn them to death? Who is ultimately responsible for creating them within your cosmology? This whole line of reasoning is simply unsustainable.

There are many factors that come into play in deciding a person's sexual "orientation". I have no doubt that many are born with a predilection toward being attracted to members of their own gender. I believe I was. I spent virtually all of my life, until only about 3 years ago, as a practicing homosexual. I'm convinced that I was one of those born with a feminine brain. So, yes, people can be "born gay." But I also met many who began practicing homosexual sex for other reasons, based on a conscious decision to seek out more "exciting, interesting" sexual experiences. A lot of men that I knew were bored with "straight sex" or their wives or girl friends would not provide certain sexual "services," and therefore they went out looking. For some it may be a one-time thing; for others, it begins a habit, or pattern of behavior. This is easy for people to do when they have no other motive in life than to satisfy fleshly desires.

There are also young boys who get involved in this kind of behavior early in life, either through molestation or through prostitution, and many of these eventually consider themselves "gay." At first the young male prostitutes think of themselves as males taking advantage of "faggots," but what they don't realize is that one day they also will be a "faggot."

The bottom line in all this is that God is well able to help gays and bisexuals overcome their sins, even those that they are born with. I still consider myself "gay," because for me, being "gay" is a lot more than having sex or wanting sex with a member of one's own gender. It affects how one thinks and feels about virtually everything. I lost in the struggle against being "gay" for over 30 years, so I know what struggle and even defeat is in the battle against it. I very nearly gave up. I didn't find victory until I surrendered my whole mind and body to Christ, without any reservation whatsoever. I was defeated earlier by the fact that I wanted my sexual sins once in a while, at the same time that I wanted Christ. But it doesn't work that way. I've learned there are only two alternatives for me: either I give ALL of me to Him, to be a slave of righteousness and of God, or I become a slave of sin.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"