Is the biblical teaching on marriage a good thing for women?

[Rose]

Many Christians hold the teachings of Jesus to be of the highest value in promoting human rights and equality. I also fell into that category when I was a Christian, but upon closer scrutiny I now see that many of the teachings of Jesus have led to needless suffering. For example, the teaching of Jesus which says anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, has caused untold suffering especially for women. Not only does it keep a woman locked into an abusive marriage, but if she is divorced (which under Jewish law men could do at will) she can never remarry.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


The Old Testament law was bad enough considering a man could divorce his wife at will, but at least she could remarry if her husband divorced her. Under the New Testament law proclaimed by Jesus, if a woman is divorced by her husband she is locked into remaining single for the rest of her life, or until her husband dies if she does not want to be accused of adultery. Even though this teaching also applies to men, it is much more harmful to women because according to the Bible women are to be in subjection to men, who in turn deny women equal opportunities to support themselves. Also, since men are deemed by god to rule over women, they can take away her children leaving the woman completely alone. So, in many ways the New Testament teaching on marriage has elevated the hardships women have to endure instead of decreasing them.


Rose

[CWH]

Many Christians hold the teachings of Jesus to be of the highest value in promoting human rights and equality. I also fell into that category when I was a Christian, but upon closer scrutiny I now see that many of the teachings of Jesus have led to needless suffering. For example, the teaching of Jesus which says anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, has caused untold suffering especially for women. Not only does it keep a woman locked into an abusive marriage, but if she is divorced (which under Jewish law men could do at will) she can never remarry.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


The Old Testament law was bad enough considering a man could divorce his wife at will, but at least she could remarry if her husband divorced her. Under the New Testament law proclaimed by Jesus, if a woman is divorced by her husband she is locked into remaining single for the rest of her life, or until her husband dies if she does not want to be accused of adultery. Even though this teaching also applies to men, it is much more harmful to women because according to the Bible women are to be in subjection to men, who in turn deny women equal opportunities to support themselves. Also, since men are deemed by god to rule over women, they can take away her children leaving the woman completely alone. So, in many ways the New Testament teaching on marriage has elevated the hardships women have to endure instead of decreasing them.


Rose


Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [I]her husband committeth adultery.

In Matthew, it goes even further, "To look at a woman lustfully have already committed adultery in his heart" and "if one divorced his wife and marries another except for unfaithfulness has committed adultery".

The above shows how merciful God is because committing adultery in Jesus time is death sentence yet it seems this wasn't effectively carried out if not all of us would have been sentenced to death for even looking at a woman or man lustfully.

The OT did not stop divorced man and woman from marrying and did not condemn such behavior. So why did Jesus? The reason is a misinterpretation of what Jesus said. The Jews have been taking such law of divorce with liberty by simply divorcing a wife with a letter of divorce and marrying another. What Jesus meant in Luke 16:18 is a warning not to abuse such divorce laws and in actuality marrying a divorced woman or marrying another woman after divorce or even looking lustfully at someone commits adultery. But God is kind and merciful. This is confirmed in the passage in Matthew 19:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “[B]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

I do know that Rose and RAM were divorcee in their first marriage but there is nothing in the Bible that says if a divorced man marries a divorced woman commits adultery. But as I said, God is merciful and probably allows such union even if in actuality constitutes adultery. The commandment against adultery,"Do not commit adultery" is more for sin committed by a married man or married woman having sexual affairs while still legally abide within the vow and sanctity of marriage.

Therefore whoever gathers by this passage that a man or woman cannot be married again after he has divorced his wife or husband has reason incorrectly.

May God Bless Marriages.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In Matthew, it goes even further, "To look at a woman lustfully have already committed adultery in his heart" and "if one divorced his wife and marries another except for unfaithfulness has committed adultery".

The above shows how merciful God is because committing adultery in Jesus time is death sentence yet it seems this wasn't effectively carried out if not all of us would have been sentenced to death for even looking at a woman or man lustfully.

The OT law was still in force when Jesus taught. He did not abrogate the OT law. Therefore, if the Jews were not stoning people for adultery they were directly disobeying God's command. This means the Jews were being more merciful than God.



The OT did not stop divorced man and woman from marrying and did not condemn such behavior. So why did Jesus? The reason is a misinterpretation of what Jesus said. The Jews have been taking such law of divorce with liberty by simply divorcing a wife with a letter of divorce and marrying another. What Jesus meant in Luke 16:18 is a warning not to abuse such divorce laws and in actuality marrying a divorced woman or marrying another woman after divorce or even looking lustfully at someone commits adultery. But God is kind and merciful. This is confirmed in the passage in Matthew 19:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “[B]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Where is the mercy in that passage? I don't see any mercy in verse you highlighted. And if the OT is from God, then why did God change his mind? Christians teach that God does not change, and the Bible says the law of God is eternal. If it was a sin to divorce and remarry, then God's law permits sin and is not holy.



I do know that Rose and RAM were divorcee in their first marriage but there is nothing in the Bible that says if a divorced man marries a divorced woman commits adultery. But as I said, God is merciful and probably allows such union even if in actuality constitutes adultery. The commandment against adultery,"Do not commit adultery" is more for sin committed by a married man or married woman having sexual affairs while still legally abide within the vow and sanctity of marriage.

Therefore whoever gathers by this passage that a man or woman cannot be married again after he has divorced his wife or husband has reason incorrectly.

Your comment contradicts Christ who said that a divorced man or woman commits adultery if they remarry anyone, including another divorcee.

But the Bible is inconsistent on this point anyway since the OT allows for divorce and polygamy.

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;46015]The OT law was still in force when Jesus taught. He did not abrogate the OT law. Therefore, if the Jews were not stoning people for adultery they were directly disobeying God's command. This means the Jews were being more merciful than God.
The fact that God allows such adultery behavior to carry on shows His mercifulness. You and I won't be alive today if God enforced such adultery law strictly that even looking at a woman lustfully have committed adultery at heart.



Where is the mercy in that passage? I don't see any mercy in verse you highlighted. And if the OT is from God, then why did God change his mind? Christians teach that God does not change, and the Bible says the law of God is eternal. If it was a sin to divorce and remarry, then God's law permits sin and is not holy.
Some Christians like me do believe God did change His mind. A good example is the extention of King Hezekiah by 15 years after King Hezekiah have repented of his sin. It is not a sin to divorce and remarry, the OT allowed that. But Jesus stressed thatby right, it is actually a sin to divorce and remarry if the reason is not due to infidelity. This was to warn the Pharisees and Jewish religious men not to abuse the divorce laws which was meant to be fair for everybody. It was ancient evil men who abused such laws at the detriment to women.


Your comment contradicts Christ who said that a divorced man or woman commits adultery if they remarry anyone, including another divorcee.
I am just saying that Jesus is warning those not to abuse the divorce laws to include divorce as one likes and remarry. Divorce is only allowed if one partner is unfaithful otherwise divorce and remarry in actual fact constitutes adultery. Merciful God decided not to be strict on this or most of us won't be alive today as most of us have already committed adultery even by looking at someone lustfully...pornography, sexual fantasies, divorce and remarry for trivial reasons etc.


But the Bible is inconsistent on this point anyway since the OT allows for divorce and polygamy.

It is not consistent; it is the way we misinterpreted the passages without considering the traditions of their times. Is divorce and remarry multiple times which is common today any difference from polygamy and polyandry?

May God Bless Marriages. :pray:

[David M]

Good morning Richard


Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
The OT law was still in force when Jesus taught. He did not abrogate the OT law. Therefore, if the Jews were not stoning people for adultery they were directly disobeying God's command. This means the Jews were being more merciful than God.

Just making a comment on this one point to add to the conversation. Followers of Jesus do not have to follow all the old Law of Moses. Jesus fulfilled the law and did not do away with it. He did not do away with the Ten Commandments; he simply summarized them into two Great Commandments. Jesus did not have to offer animal sacrifices as prescribed by the Law of Moses, because Jesus never sinned.

The true followers and disciples of Jesus are few in number compared to the many millions who are not true followers because they do not have the true knowledge of what Jesus taught. I am placed in the position of being told not to judge other people whereby I would be responsible for the deciding the punishment given, yet I agree that people should be punished. I do not serve on juries for that reason. It is not for me to say what the punishment should be, even though I have an opinion. I have to leave punishment and judgment to God and eventually everyone will receive their just rewards at death. Those who are not deserving of death I leave God to give eternal life.

In the meantime, the punishment of the guilty has to be left in the hands of God or in the hands of people in the world who are without God. The ideal is that all the world believes in Jesus and God and lets Him deal with the punishment of offenders and leaves Him to exercise mercy as He wants. However, the world is not accepting God and so God is leaving man to carry on. It is man who is judging man and giving out the punishment. This is why it might seem like a cop-out by believers in God, but the command to believers is; "come out of the world and be separate". I have to leave it to the world (or to God) to deal with people who commit crimes. Man is in control at present, because God is not interfering and letting him get on with it. However, that will change, because God has promised it will change.

To deal with your comment above, you have drawn another incorrect conclusion. I expect you do this on purpose to incite a response. No-one can be more merciful than God. What you think is man being merciful is a cop-out by man. This is why I pressed Rose on the matter of what she would do to criminals. Rose would not give the punishment to criminals to fit the crime. There are clear cases where there is no possibility of a mistake being made when a murderer is guilty. Under such circumstances, would you not advocate the death penalty? What is the alternative and why? Imprison a murderer for life at the expense of the taxpayer when that money could be better used to help the starving in the world? Let a murderer remain alive with the potential to escape and commit murder again?

Rose would not give the death penalty for fear of making a mistake and I know that mistakes have been made and I would advocate that where there is a shred of doubt that the death penalty is not given until all doubt is removed or evidence is found to grant a pardon. Let's consider what to do in the case of the most heinous of crimes in which there is no doubt about the guilt of the person and no mistake is made. Is the death penalty now appropriate?

Even now, the great unknown to me is whether that murderer can be rehabilitated. There is the argument for locking them up to serve their time, during which there is no guarantee the murderer changes their ways. We have reported incidents where murderers have been released from prison too soon and were considered safe, only to find the person committed murder again. Should that person have been put to death in the first place? God has shown through the episodes recorded in His word that He is merciful to those who sincerely repent. King David demonstrated true repentance and was spared the death penalty, but David did not escape the consequences that followed in his own family in whom David had lost all authority and respect.

Given that only God can know the motives of anyone by reading what is in their mind and knows when someone is truly repentant, should not God be allowed to judge that person? If God declares that a person is a reprobate and beyond saving, is He not at liberty to execute the punishment of the death penalty straight away? That is what the Canaanites were, they were reprobates and child-killers and deserved God's punishment. If you continue to argue against this, you are seen to be on the side of the Canaanites. Your suggestion that God could have closed the wombs of the women is a long-term solution and does not put an end to the immediate practice of child killing and doing other abominable acts that God hates. The closing of wombs would have the long term result of wiping out the Canaanites, but God would have to make all the men sterile also in order to stop them having children with other women from the other nations who they would have raped to which your solution would have been complicit. What God did was to execute judgment and punishment at the same time and this was more of lesson to be feared by those who heard of what God had done. Where is the deterrent in your method? Even God's deterrent was not long-lived, such is the wickedness of man, that you are not coming to terms with. God used the tactics in those days that were less squeamish to those that witnessed them than what you and Rose might be squeamish about now. However, such acts of genocide and rape are being carried out by man against man in the world right now and that is going on unknown until it gets reported and when it is, governments will not get involved. If governments of other countries intervene they are criticized for doing so. If man was in control and capable of control, the world should be a far better and safer place than it is now.

Once again, I doubt I have said anything that will change anyone's mind but we do have to bring out all the arguments and weigh them all up to arrive at some conclusion.

All the best,

David

[Beck]

I would love to get into this discussion, but unable at this time will try in a couple of days (On vacation).

[David M]

Hello Cheowh


In Matthew, it goes even further, "To look at a woman lustfully have already committed adultery in his heart" and "if one divorced his wife and marries another except for unfaithfulness has committed adultery".

Are you getting the same Google ads of Asian women dating sites appearing on the forum? Cannot help thinking how attractive they look. It is just as well they are way outside my age range. Talk about temptation staring us in the face. It would be better if Richard could change some code and get the auto ads replaced with something less sexy.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

Hello Cheowh

Are you getting the same Google ads of Asian women dating sites appearing on the forum? Cannot help thinking how attractive they look. It is just as well they are way outside my age range. Talk about temptation staring us in the face. It would be better if Richard could change some code and get the auto ads replaced with something less sexy.

All the best,

David

Well I do in my PC but not in my Mac. Just looking at the pictures is enough to commit adultery in our hearts. We are indeed living the adulterous generations as stated by Jesus.

May God Bless us.:pray:

[jce]

Many Christians hold the teachings of Jesus to be of the highest value in promoting human rights and equality. I also fell into that category when I was a Christian, but upon closer scrutiny I now see that many of the teachings of Jesus have led to needless suffering. For example, the teaching of Jesus which says anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, has caused untold suffering especially for women. Not only does it keep a woman locked into an abusive marriage, but if she is divorced (which under Jewish law men could do at will) she can never remarry.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


The Old Testament law was bad enough considering a man could divorce his wife at will, but at least she could remarry if her husband divorced her. Under the New Testament law proclaimed by Jesus, if a woman is divorced by her husband she is locked into remaining single for the rest of her life, or until her husband dies if she does not want to be accused of adultery. Even though this teaching also applies to men, it is much more harmful to women because according to the Bible women are to be in subjection to men, who in turn deny women equal opportunities to support themselves. Also, since men are deemed by god to rule over women, they can take away her children leaving the woman completely alone. So, in many ways the New Testament teaching on marriage has elevated the hardships women have to endure instead of decreasing them.


Rose

Hi Rose,

What in the world is wrong with this world anyway that we have so many problems and difficulties? So puzzling.

Grace to you Rose.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Cheowh



Are you getting the same Google ads of Asian women dating sites appearing on the forum? Cannot help thinking how attractive they look. It is just as well they are way outside my age range. Talk about temptation staring us in the face. It would be better if Richard could change some code and get the auto ads replaced with something less sexy.

All the best,

David
Hi David,

I'll look into changing the settings of the Google ads. They are currently set to the default which allows Google to present unique ads to each user according to their estimation of the most relevant ads according to that user's internet activity. For example, we had a plumbing problem last month, and so I searched Google for a local plumber. I then saw ads for plumbers on my forum for days. And it wasn't just on my forum. Any other site that shows Google ads displayed the same plumber ads. And it happened again yesterday when I searched for a new host for my website. The same ads for webhosts followed me everywhere I went on the web. This should be pretty sobering - Google tracks all our activity and presents ads accordingly.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you have been searching for singles. I don't search for singles but ads for them show up occasionally when I surf. And Google often presents me with very irrelevant ads for things like computer games which I never search for. I think this is because everyone in my house - including two teenage boys and any of their friends who come to visit - share the same IP so Google gets confused and presents ads to all of us depending on what searches have been done and what sites have been visited on our shared IP. And there is a certain degree of randomness I'm sure.

As for temptation - I remember well when I was trying to be a good single Christian man. I "made a covenant with my eyes" not to "look upon a woman" (Job 31:1) It was of course impossible. I had to walk around staring at the sidewalk! It turned me into a very awkward individual. I would have to physically close my eyes to avoid the act of "looking." But I tried very hard. Blinded myself in a sense. But it didn't really help anything. It was just an effort to be "holy" according to external standards and rules. I don't have a problem with lusting after other women, but neither do I feel a need to blind myself to their sensual beauty. I think the whole hang up around sex taught in Christianity is the real source of the problem. Like what Paul said:
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

The law in the Bible is like the Prohibition of Marijuana. It creates criminals where there were none. And look at the damage it does. Prohibition creates criminal gangs and changes society in a huge way setting the police against the ordinary citizens. And it causes profound conflicts within individuals who would just be doing what they want and not hurting anyone if not for the arbitrary law.

So the gist of all this is that though I've seen ads on the internet featuring sexy women, they don't cause any conflict in my soul at all because I am free from the law.

It's amazing how all these topics interconnect.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well I do in my PC but not in my Mac. Just looking at the pictures is enough to commit adultery in our hearts. We are indeed living the adulterous generations as stated by Jesus.

May God Bless us.:pray:
You don't need the internet to violate commands against lust. Jesus was talking to first century Jews when he said they were an adulterous generation so we know it was going on back then. Jesus didn't say anything specifically about our generation living in the 21st century.

[sylvius]

Hi David,

I think the whole hang up around sex taught in Christianity is the real source of the problem. Like what Paul said:
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.



Why are we not all murderers then?
And thieves.

Or are we?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rose,

What in the world is wrong with this world anyway that we have so many problems and difficulties? So puzzling.

Grace to you Rose.

John
Good morning John, :yo:

I do believe I detect a subtle implication in your post. :winking0071:

It seems to me that the problems in our world have a very obvious source. Self-interest, ignorance, cultural patterns we have inherited, bad religious dogmas found in every culture that accentuate bigotry and enmity. We are born ignorant and must compete for survival. All the causes that I see are natural and to be expected in a world like ours. The Christain explanation that we are "born sinners" makes no sense to me because that assumption implies there is an external "law" that was not given to all people. The NT defines sin as a violation of God's law which was given only to the Jews. That's why Paul said the Gentiles don't have a law:
Romans 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

This passage exemplifies the ambiguity around the meaning of "law" in the NT. What exactly is the "law" of which Paul spoke? What is its relation to morality? Is avoiding shellfish a fundamental moral principle "written on the heart of believers"?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why are we not all murderers then?
And thieves.

Or are we?
If we are all murderers and thieves even though we have neither killed nor stolen, then what is the meaning of murderer and thief? Those words lose their meaning if they apply to everyone.

[Rose]

Good morning Richard



Just making a comment on this one point to add to the conversation. Followers of Jesus do not have to follow all the old Law of Moses. Jesus fulfilled the law and did not do away with it. He did not do away with the Ten Commandments; he simply summarized them into two Great Commandments. Jesus did not have to offer animal sacrifices as prescribed by the Law of Moses, because Jesus never sinned.

Hi David,

As I pointed out in my post, Jesus made the laws of marriage much harsher on women than the OT laws. In the OT at least women could remarry if they were divorced, but under the New Covenant laws no such option is available.


To deal with your comment above, you have drawn another incorrect conclusion. I expect you do this on purpose to incite a response. No-one can be more merciful than God. What you think is man being merciful is a cop-out by man. This is why I pressed Rose on the matter of what she would do to criminals. Rose would not give the punishment to criminals to fit the crime. There are clear cases where there is no possibility of a mistake being made when a murderer is guilty. Under such circumstances, would you not advocate the death penalty? What is the alternative and why? Imprison a murderer for life at the expense of the taxpayer when that money could be better used to help the starving in the world? Let a murderer remain alive with the potential to escape and commit murder again?

Rose would not give the death penalty for fear of making a mistake and I know that mistakes have been made and I would advocate that where there is a shred of doubt that the death penalty is not given until all doubt is removed or evidence is found to grant a pardon. Let's consider what to do in the case of the most heinous of crimes in which there is no doubt about the guilt of the person and no mistake is made. Is the death penalty now appropriate?

Why are you so adamant on giving a murderer the death penalty? Is it that you hold to the OT "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishment system? What is wrong with life in prison? Statistics show that it ends up costing almost as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life.


Even now, the great unknown to me is whether that murderer can be rehabilitated. There is the argument for locking them up to serve their time, during which there is no guarantee the murderer changes their ways. We have reported incidents where murderers have been released from prison too soon and were considered safe, only to find the person committed murder again. Should that person have been put to death in the first place? God has shown through the episodes recorded in His word that He is merciful to those who sincerely repent. King David demonstrated true repentance and was spared the death penalty, but David did not escape the consequences that followed in his own family in whom David had lost all authority and respect.

David was spared the death penalty for murder and adultery, and instead his son was sentence to death while he was allowed to marry Bathsheba! You call that justice? Why is it that you defend the death penalty for murderers, but because David repented he got off. How many murderers on death row would gladly repent if they knew it would buy them freedom?


Given that only God can know the motives of anyone by reading what is in their mind and knows when someone is truly repentant, should not God be allowed to judge that person? If God declares that a person is a reprobate and beyond saving, is He not at liberty to execute the punishment of the death penalty straight away? That is what the Canaanites were, they were reprobates and child-killers and deserved God's punishment. If you continue to argue against this, you are seen to be on the side of the Canaanites. Your suggestion that God could have closed the wombs of the women is a long-term solution and does not put an end to the immediate practice of child killing and doing other abominable acts that God hates. The closing of wombs would have the long term result of wiping out the Canaanites, but God would have to make all the men sterile also in order to stop them having children with other women from the other nations who they would have raped to which your solution would have been complicit. What God did was to execute judgment and punishment at the same time and this was more of lesson to be feared by those who heard of what God had done. Where is the deterrent in your method? Even God's deterrent was not long-lived, such is the wickedness of man, that you are not coming to terms with. God used the tactics in those days that were less squeamish to those that witnessed them than what you and Rose might be squeamish about now. However, such acts of genocide and rape are being carried out by man against man in the world right now and that is going on unknown until it gets reported and when it is, governments will not get involved. If governments of other countries intervene they are criticized for doing so. If man was in control and capable of control, the world should be a far better and safer place than it is now.

Once again, I doubt I have said anything that will change anyone's mind but we do have to bring out all the arguments and weigh them all up to arrive at some conclusion.

All the best,

David

If your biblegod is real there would be infinite possibilities for meting out true justice, yet for some reason he chose the method of a barbaric tribal war god! Kill the babies and children and save the virgins to be raped!

Take care,
Rose

[sylvius]

If we are all murderers and thieves even though we have neither killed nor stolen, then what is the meaning of murderer and thief? Those words lose their meaning if they apply to everyone.

Yet all adulteres by looking with desire to certain women?

[jce]

Hi David,

If your biblegod is real there would be infinite possibilities for meting out true justice, yet for some reason he chose the method of a barbaric tribal war god! Kill the babies and children and save the virgins to be raped!

Take care,
Rose

Rose,

Not to put to fine a point on it, but you and Richard are beating the drum on this expression with such frequency that you are beginning to sound like tribal warriors summoning the troops to battle against the Most High God.

With all due respect,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yet all adulteres by looking with desire to certain women?
That sounds like hyperbole to me. It's obviously not true in a literal sense.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose,

Not to put to fine a point on it, but you and Richard are beating the drum on this expression with such frequency that you are beginning to sound like tribal warriors summoning the troops to battle against the Most High God.

With all due respect,

John
Well, if we are going to put a "fine point on it" I would say that we are "beating the drum" to "summon troops to battle" for the Truth, which, if there is a "Most High God" is necessarily a battle for rather than against that God.

[Rose]

Rose,

Not to put to fine a point on it, but you and Richard are beating the drum on this expression with such frequency that you are beginning to sound like tribal warriors summoning the troops to battle against the Most High God.

With all due respect,

John

Hi John,

I understand your sentiments, but I feel this is an important message that is too easily sweep under the rug. The same can be said for any cause like "women's rights" it takes persistence to accomplish the task. Take for example the preaching of the Gospel, the same message is spoken over and over again in churches around the globe "repent and be saved".

All the best,
Rose

[jce]

Well, if we are going to put a "fine point on it" I would say that we are "beating the drum" to "summon troops to battle" for the Truth, which, if there is a "Most High God" is necessarily a battle for rather than against that God.


Richard, I am all for the Truth. That is why I keep my mind open to things like the age of the earth and the descent of man. I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible, that is why I will not close the door on it. Because something in Scripture doesn't make scientific sense does not preclude other possibilities. You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans, and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair. On what basis do you convict Him of immorality? What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death? Is He limited to the means He chooses in execution of the just sentence?

You go even further and portray the Biblical God as a thief when he turns the spoils of war over to the Israelites. On what basis do you make that judgement? The Bible openly declares that the earth and all that it contains is His possession to give to whomsoever He will. Since all of creation is His property, what is your complaint?

It is on points such as the aforementioned that I believe you err, not only from Biblical Truth, but also on legislative grounds. You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge, and to make things worse, you then combine such inadequate tools with a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe, seeming to forget that in reality you are the one He has already condemned and sentenced. Based on the Truth, Who is really demonstrating Who has the power in this contest? His condemnation, sentence and appointment for you is far more certain than any scientific hypothesis you hold.

It is easy to tear down fences without giving thought as to why they were erected. Your response to Biblical Christianity is meaningless because you have nothing to offer in its place. You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads. Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden? One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know.

I remain your friend in time.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there my friend, :tea:

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your frank speech. It makes these conversations very interesting, fruitful, and valuable.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that you and I stand on absolutely equal footing when you say "You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge." You are a man just like me. You have a finite grasp of knowledge just like me. You have no demonstrable "power of reason" beyond mine. We are equally human and limited. This is why your charge of arrogance applies equally to you when you use your own fallible judgment to assert that the Bible as speaking truly about God. What if you are wrong and some ignorant or wicked man put falsehoods in the Bible? If you use your limited judgment and attribute those falsehoods to God then you are committing a gross blasphemy. The sword of truth cuts both ways my friend.

Now on to your specific points:


Richard, I am all for the Truth. That is why I keep my mind open to things like the age of the earth and the descent of man. I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible, that is why I will not close the door on it. Because something in Scripture doesn't make scientific sense does not preclude other possibilities. You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans, and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair. On what basis do you convict Him of immorality? What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death? Is He limited to the means He chooses in execution of the just sentence?

This is why we can be friends. We have the same goal - truth!

There is no more debate about the age of the earth than there is about its geometry. It is an oblate spheroid about 4.5 billion years old. These facts are based on the consilience of all science - chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, evolution. It is this consilience, this unity of knowledge, that makes it impossible to pick out and reject bits and pieces of science that contradict the Biblical account. Each part of science is inextricably interwoven with all the rest. Truth is unified.

"I'm also open to alternate interpretation possibilities of the Bible." Me too! I know that much of the Bible has been misinterpreted in the most ridiculous ways. Things that are obviously figures of speech are taken as literal, and things that are literal are explained away when they contradict preferred doctrines. That's why the Bible fails as a guide to anyone. It all depends upon our own fallible interpretations and there is no objective test to discern between the true and the false. Folks have nothing to go on but their interpretation of words, words, and more words. And those words were written thousands of years ago by cultures very different than ours and in languages few understand.

"You say you reject the Bible due to passages wherein God orders the execution of humans." I've never had any problem with God commanding the execution of known criminals. My problem is with merciless brutal GENOCIDE commanded by God. The slaughter of men, women, and innocent babies, coupled with the command to preserver 32,000 virgins which were distributed to the soldiers is a moral abomination. And you have never answered why the god of the Israelites "just happens" to emulate the brutal Bronze age tribal war gods common from that time. Is the logical answer simply too obvious for you to touch?

"and then go even further in such ruthless self confidence by declaring Him barbaric and unfair." Your description of me as "ruthless" makes no sense in that sentence. Indeed, it is quite ironic given that it means "having or showing no pity or compassion for others" which is exactly what the God of the Bible commanded his people to be. It doesn't matter if you think God was justified in ordering their destruction, you cannot deny that his actions were "ruthless" by definition.

"On what basis do you convict Him of immorality?" On the basis of the universal moral standards understood by everyone except religious fundamentalists and psychopaths. That's the great irony of the Christian argument that there would be no objective morality without the God of the Bible. It is the Bible that destroys and corrupts the innate moral sense of humanity. The atheist Hector Alvaros had no hesitation to reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral. His Christian opponent could not agree because God had ordered those things, so they can't be immoral. This is why I say that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to it.

"What rule of man constrains Him from taking any life which He has already sentenced to death?" The problem is that God did not do the "taking" of the Canaanites lives. If he had done that, I wouldn't be pressing my complaint. Have I ever said the flood was immoral? Nope. It may be, but it's an entirely different case and the answer is not obvious so I don't press it.



You go even further and portray the Biblical God as a thief when he turns the spoils of war over to the Israelites. On what basis do you make that judgement? The Bible openly declares that the earth and all that it contains is His possession to give to whomsoever He will. Since all of creation is His property, what is your complaint?

I did not portray God as a thief. I said that he commanded his people to be murderers and thieves. If you don't think that's what he did, then please explain how invading Canaan, killing everyone and stealing their land and belongings fails to meet the definition of murder and thievery.



It is on points such as the aforementioned that I believe you err, not only from Biblical Truth, but also on legislative grounds. You have at your disposal, nothing more than your internal standard of morality, your limited powers of reason and your finite grasp of knowledge, and to make things worse, you then combine such inadequate tools with a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe, seeming to forget that in reality you are the one He has already condemned and sentenced. Based on the Truth, Who is really demonstrating Who has the power in this contest? His condemnation, sentence and appointment for you is far more certain than any scientific hypothesis you hold.

My moral intuitions are not merely "internal." They are based on my humanity which I share with the objects of my moral intuitions.

There is no difference between you and I on this issue. You have nothing to go on different than I, unless you think your unsupportable presuppositions constitute authentic knowledge.

"a lack of humility and attempt to use them as evidence in a case to convict the Creator of the Universe." Two problems: First, who is more arrogant: A man who says that the true God could not commit the moral abominations attributed to him in the Bible, or the man who asserts without proof or reason that the Bible is true no matter what it says? You have set yourself us as an arbitrary judge when you declare that you know that the Bible is the true word of the true God. What gives you that right or that power?

Second, I am not trying to convict the Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, I am defending him from the slander against him in the Bible. Think of me as his lawyer. He's gotten a bad rap.



It is easy to tear down fences without giving thought as to why they were erected. Your response to Biblical Christianity is meaningless because you have nothing to offer in its place. You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads. Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden? One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know.

I remain your friend in time.

John
I've got plenty to "offer in its place." It's called Truth and Reality. Now I know you won't be happy with this because you want answers that Truth and Reality don't offer. There's nothing I can do about that, and it would be irrational for you to reject Truth and Reality merely because they can't give correct answers to replace the false answers you found in the Bible.

"You seem critical of others who are reluctant to follow your path of logic and reason, and yet, you yourself are not even sure where it leads." Of course I don't know where it leads. No one has that knowledge. Are you suggesting that I must know everything to have an opinion about anything?

"Are you blazing a new trail that generations of men before you have not already trodden?" That's an ironic question coming from someone who does nothing but follow in the footsteps of others.

"One thing is certain, your quest will end in the same way of the others who came before you, in the grave. And then what? Tell us if you know." I'm glad you stated the truth. Your path will end in the grave exactly like that of every other person who has ever lived. What comes after that is anyone's guess. If there were any certain knowledge that could be verified, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

Great chatting my friend. And again, I really appreciate your frank speech. It really clears the air and makes for very fruitful discourse.

Richard

[jce]

Hey there my friend, :tea:

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your frank speech. It makes these conversations very interesting, fruitful, and valuable.

Great chatting my friend. And again, I really appreciate your frank speech. It really clears the air and makes for very fruitful discourse.

Richard

Hello Richard

Thanks for the kind words. We all have a certain level of sensitivity built into us and there are times after writing a post and publishing it, I second guess myself, not in content, but in tone. I too like being frank and to the point, and at the same time do not want to be little another or sound uncaring and rude. Unfortunately, some of my posts have had that appearance, and there have been a couple recently that were rude by intent and I am not referring to you or Rose. You both demonstrate much restraint and civility and that is to your credit.

I enjoy the free spirited debates and I do believe they are extremely significant to the point that it has challenged me to examine much more closely the things which I presume to be true. If it were not for the witness of the Holy Spirit in my life, it would be easier to receive your critiques of Scripture, but because He has revealed Himself to me in such a supernatural way, I can never go back. He has won my trust and friendship forever.

Well, I took quite a bit of time away from my desk work today to play in the forum, so it will be necessary to back off a bit, but I thought it good to say these few words for now, to both you and Rose.

May our friendship progress to... Brother and Sister in Christ I hope (if it is not already a reality)!!!!

John

[David M]

Good morning Rose


Hi David,

Is it that you hold to the OT "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishment system?

Just to be clear on this point, the words in quotes are words spoken by Jesus. Was he teaching an Old Testament principle? I am doing a Berean thing (Acts 17:11) and checking this out. Can you please give me some example of Old Testament teaching to support this. It is important we understand these things correctly. I know that if someone was accidentally killed, the relatives of the dead person could seek the life of the one who had caused the death, but seeking the exact same revenge for every deed done, I am not sure that the quoted words are the principle of the OT. Jesus was quoting but on this occasion he did not say; "it is written", so I am just checking.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose



Just to be clear on this point, the words in quotes are words spoken by Jesus. Was he teaching an Old Testament principle? I am doing a Berean thing (Acts 17:11) and checking this out. Can you please give me some example of Old Testament teaching to support this. It is important we understand these things correctly. I know that if someone was accidentally killed, the relatives of the dead person could seek the life of the one who had caused the death, but seeking the exact same revenge for every deed done, I am not sure that the quoted words are the principle of the OT. Jesus was quoting but on this occasion he did not say; "it is written", so I am just checking.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

When Jesus spoke the words "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" he began with "you have heard it said" which comes from the Old Testament.

Matt.5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:


Exo.21:23-24 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Lev..24:19-20 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deut. 19:19-21 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


Rose

[Beck]

Many Christians hold the teachings of Jesus to be of the highest value in promoting human rights and equality. I also fell into that category when I was a Christian, but upon closer scrutiny I now see that many of the teachings of Jesus have led to needless suffering. For example, the teaching of Jesus which says anyone who divorces and remarries is guilty of adultery, has caused untold suffering especially for women. Not only does it keep a woman locked into an abusive marriage, but if she is divorced (which under Jewish law men could do at will) she can never remarry


Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Hey Rose,

I can only agree that the New Covenant commandments of Jesus seem to bring even more suffering on the woman. So then I would like to at least examine this topic even more. One thing that I would like to bring up is that we might look at how it was first written in the account by Mark.

Mark 10:11:12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery

This by Mark seem to be placing both man and woman on even grounds when one or the other puts away their mate and thus marry another it is adultery.
We might also notice that Mark in his usage of 'woman' is that she is married (bethorthed) as a wife. Where woman is Strong's G1135 - gynē which is used as wife. I say this in regard to Matthew 5:28 of someone looking to lust after a woman. I would be my opinion that woman is meant as a woman in bethroth or as a wife of another man.




The Old Testament law was bad enough considering a man could divorce his wife at will, but at least she could remarry if her husband divorced her. Under the New Testament law proclaimed by Jesus, if a woman is divorced by her husband she is locked into remaining single for the rest of her life, or until her husband dies if she does not want to be accused of adultery. Even though this teaching also applies to men, it is much more harmful to women because according to the Bible women are to be in subjection to men, who in turn deny women equal opportunities to support themselves. Also, since men are deemed by god to rule over women, they can take away her children leaving the woman completely alone. So, in many ways the New Testament teaching on marriage has elevated the hardships women have to endure instead of decreasing them.


Rose

I would take that in Jesus instructions to those Phraisees he was reaffirming the Old Coveanant that when a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife they become one. How then can a man divorce himself? Thus Jesus said that Moses allowed you to put away your wifes, but it wasn't so at the beginning. For it was your harden hearts that Moses allowed you put away your wifes.

So the bottom line is that Jesus called them hypocrites and said that it was infact adultery to simply put away their wifes and to take another wife. To 'put away' isn't the same thing as divorce for the woman would just be put out of the house without any support of any kind. Jesus has indicated that the Pharisees that even this 'letter of divorcement' can't brake the bonds of marriage for it is still adultery to both the man or the woman that marry another.


So to make the parallel of them 'putting away' their wifes to our generation today where one can divorce should not be seen as the same. Now concerning how Paul taught he said that if a christain woman choose to depart (to leave) let her depart, yet remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let her husband put her away.

So there's no getting around it if either man or woman divorce and remarry they are considered by the New Covenant as Adulterers.

[Rose]

Hey Rose,

I can only agree that the New Covenant commandments of Jesus seem to bring even more suffering on the woman. So then I would like to at least examine this topic even more. One thing that I would like to bring up is that we might look at how it was first written in the account by Mark.

Mark 10:11:12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery

This by Mark seem to be placing both man and woman on even grounds when one or the other puts away their mate and thus marry another it is adultery.
We might also notice that Mark in his usage of 'woman' is that she is married (bethorthed) as a wife. Where woman is Strong's G1135 - gynē which is used as wife. I say this in regard to Matthew 5:28 of someone looking to lust after a woman. I would be my opinion that woman is meant as a woman in bethroth or as a wife of another man.

Hi Beck,

I agree, in the New Testament men and women are put on even grounds as far committing adultery after being divorced. What makes the suffering greater on the woman's part is the fact that women had a much harder time of supporting themselves because of all the restrictions placed on her by men. So, if a woman was divorced and couldn't remarry she was at the mercy of her family if she had one to help her out.





I would take that in Jesus instructions to those Phraisees he was reaffirming the Old Coveanant that when a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife they become one. How then can a man divorce himself? Thus Jesus said that Moses allowed you to put away your wifes, but it wasn't so at the beginning. For it was your harden hearts that Moses allowed you put away your wifes.

So the bottom line is that Jesus called them hypocrites and said that it was infact adultery to simply put away their wifes and to take another wife. To 'put away' isn't the same thing as divorce for the woman would just be put out of the house without any support of any kind. Jesus has indicated that the Pharisees that even this 'letter of divorcement' can't brake the bonds of marriage for it is still adultery to both the man or the woman that marry another.


So to make the parallel of them 'putting away' their wifes to our generation today where one can divorce should not be seen as the same. Now concerning how Paul taught he said that if a christain woman choose to depart (to leave) let her depart, yet remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let her husband put her away.

So there's no getting around it if either man or woman divorce and remarry they are considered by the New Covenant as Adulterers.

Not only could men divorce their wives at will under the Old Covenant, but they could also marry as many women as they wished. So how could a man ever truly be one with his wife if he had many? Polygamy was allowed from the very beginning, even Abraham was allowed to take Hagar, and that was long before Moses came on the scene. So, it wasn't just Moses who allowed men to put away their wives. Something to think about.

All the best,
Rose

[CWH]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;46029]Hi David,

I'll look into changing the settings of the Google ads. They are currently set to the default which allows Google to present unique ads to each user according to their estimation of the most relevant ads according to that user's internet activity. For example, we had a plumbing problem last month, and so I searched Google for a local plumber. I then saw ads for plumbers on my forum for days. And it wasn't just on my forum. Any other site that shows Google ads displayed the same plumber ads. And it happened again yesterday when I searched for a new host for my website. The same ads for webhosts followed me everywhere I went on the web. This should be pretty sobering - Google tracks all our activity and presents ads accordingly.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you have been searching for singles. I don't search for singles but ads for them show up occasionally when I surf. And Google often presents me with very irrelevant ads for things like computer games which I never search for. I think this is because everyone in my house - including two teenage boys and any of their friends who come to visit - share the same IP so Google gets confused and presents ads to all of us depending on what searches have been done and what sites have been visited on our shared IP. And there is a certain degree of randomness I'm sure.
Yes, the internet tracks all our activities. Even the Government do that. Soon it will be a scary world in which nothing is secret or private.


As for temptation - I remember well when I was trying to be a good single Christian man. I "made a covenant with my eyes" not to "look upon a woman" (Job 31:1) It was of course impossible. I had to walk around staring at the sidewalk! It turned me into a very awkward individual. I would have to physically close my eyes to avoid the act of "looking." But I tried very hard. Blinded myself in a sense. But it didn't really help anything. It was just an effort to be "holy" according to external standards and rules. I don't have a problem with lusting after other women, but neither do I feel a need to blind myself to their sensual beauty. I think the whole hang up around sex taught in Christianity is the real source of the problem. Like what Paul said:[INDENT]Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
This shows that it is impossible not to sin in a sinful world, "For all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".


The law in the Bible is like the Prohibition of Marijuana. It creates criminals where there were none. And look at the damage it does. Prohibition creates criminal gangs and changes society in a huge way setting the police against the ordinary citizens. And it causes profound conflicts within individuals who would just be doing what they want and not hurting anyone if not for the arbitrary law.
Can you please get rid of your Hippie mentality. It's old fashion, it's DEAD. Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is hallucinated with drugs? The legalization of Marijuana will cause more problems in society. A good example was the social harm done to the Chinese who were enticed to smoke opium introduced by the British during the 19th century. It makes people lazy with the addiction and leads to several wars known as the Opium Wars.


So the gist of all this is that though I've seen ads on the internet featuring sexy women, they don't cause any conflict in my soul at all because I am free from the law.
Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?
No one is free from the law. You either love God or mammon. "Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself", that is the law.

May God not lead us into temptations but deliver us from evil. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, the internet tracks all our activities. Even the Government do that. Soon it will be a scary world in which nothing is secret or private.

Are you using "soon" in the Biblical sense of "2000 years"? If so, we've got nothing to worry about! :lmbo:

I think your religion causes you to worry too much. Folks were all worried 50 years ago that the US government was going to be taken over by the antichrist and that the American social security cards would become the "mark of the beast." I'm glad I didn't waste those precious years of my life in vain worry about things that never happened.

It also shows how self-centered American Christians can be. They made the USA the center of their whole end-time panic party.



This shows that it is impossible not to sin in a sinful world, "For all have sin and fall short of the glory of God".

Actually, it shows how religious dogmas make healthy normal people feel bad for simply being human. Now that I'm free from the dogma of sin, I don't experience any of the internal conflicts caused by false doctrines of "sin" being imposed upon me. And that's how I should have felt when I was a Christian if Christianity were true, because Christianity is supposed to set you free from the law. But judging by what you and other Christians write, I would have to say that you are still in bondage to the law of sin.




The law in the Bible is like the Prohibition of Marijuana. It creates criminals where there were none. And look at the damage it does. Prohibition creates criminal gangs and changes society in a huge way setting the police against the ordinary citizens. And it causes profound conflicts within individuals who would just be doing what they want and not hurting anyone if not for the arbitrary law.
Can you please get rid of your Hippie mentality. It's old fashion, it's DEAD. Do you want to live in a world in which everyone is hallucinated with drugs? The legalization of Marijuana will cause more problems in society. A good example was the social harm done to the Chinese who were enticed to smoke opium introduced by the British during the 19th century. It makes people lazy with the addiction and leads to several wars known as the Opium Wars.

You are confused. Opium is entirely different than Marijuana. It is addictive, marijuana is not. What's it like in China? Do many folks smoke pot?

Your implication that everyone who smokes pot is "hallucinating" is false and it shows that you know nothing of which you speak.

And why didn't you address any of the points I made? The prohibition of marijuana is not good for society. It makes criminals out of otherwise good citizens. It costs LOTS of money to chase down the "criminals" and prosecute them and put them in prison. And we lose money again because we have removed a productive tax-paying citizen from the work force. It's utterly absurd. We should have learned our lesson with the prohibition of alcohol. Would you support that? We tried it in the USA and discovered that it helped create organized crime. Is that what you want? Do you not understand that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol? You should inform yourself on these issues.

And what's wrong with a "hippie mentality"? I think it's pretty cool. A lot more interesting than sitting around moaning and groaning about all the evil in the world and praying for God to forgive me for being human.




So the gist of all this is that though I've seen ads on the internet featuring sexy women, they don't cause any conflict in my soul at all because I am free from the law.
Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?
No one is free from the law. You either love God or mammon. "Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself", that is the law.

May God not lead us into temptations but deliver us from evil. :pray:
There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.

Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.

All the best,

Richard

:hippie:

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I agree, in the New Testament men and women are put on even grounds as far committing adultery after being divorced. What makes the suffering greater on the woman's part is the fact that women had a much harder time of supporting themselves because of all the restrictions placed on her by men. So, if a woman was divorced and couldn't remarry she was at the mercy of her family if she had one to help her out.
I for one don't like to use 'divorce' as relating to the OT and NT, but rather like the usage of to put away. I think there's a great deal of differences among these two. To put away is to force the woman out of the house and that goes without any support. I would only think that the man would say that she was unworthy and casted her out and therefore placed a bad name upon her. This of course lead to any reason to put away their wifes. In the OT before the writting of the letter given by Moses a man put away their wife for any reason and that woman was marked and at times even her family wouldn't support her. Therefore the letter was an attempt to help the woman not to be left unsupported and allowed her to marry another for that support.

But as we can see this goes against the principle at the beginning that of a man and woman become one.







Not only could men divorce their wives at will under the Old Covenant, but they could also marry as many women as they wished. So how could a man ever truly be one with his wife if he had many? Polygamy was allowed from the very beginning, even Abraham was allowed to take Hagar, and that was long before Moses came on the scene. So, it wasn't just Moses who allowed men to put away their wives. Something to think about.

All the best,
Rose

Polygamy is much different that to put away one's wife. The question that Jesus dealt with was 'Were it lawful to put away one's wife?'. Jesus addressed the Pharisees that it was'nt lawful at the beginning to just put away your wife. And if whosoever put away his wife and marry another commit adultery. Why because the marriage of man and woman as one can't be broken by man. Therefore the man if put away his wife and then went go and married another was committing adultery. Likewise the woman that has been put away commit adultery if marry another.

Now today if the widow is left unsupported and remains unmarried the church is instructed to give support. As far as I know the bible gives no instruction to the 'divorce' woman. Today if an divorce happens the woman is supported.

[Rose]

I for one don't like to use 'divorce' as relating to the OT and NT, but rather like the usage of to put away. I think there's a great deal of differences among these two. To put away is to force the woman out of the house and that goes without any support. I would only think that the man would say that she was unworthy and casted her out and therefore placed a bad name upon her. This of course lead to any reason to put away their wifes. In the OT before the writting of the letter given by Moses a man put away their wife for any reason and that woman was marked and at times even her family wouldn't support her. Therefore the letter was an attempt to help the woman not to be left unsupported and allowed her to marry another for that support.

But as we can see this goes against the principle at the beginning that of a man and woman become one.

Polygamy is much different that to put away one's wife. The question that Jesus dealt with was 'Were it lawful to put away one's wife?'. Jesus addressed the Pharisees that it was'nt lawful at the beginning to just put away your wife. And if whosoever put away his wife and marry another commit adultery. Why because the marriage of man and woman as one can't be broken by man. Therefore the man if put away his wife and then went go and married another was committing adultery. Likewise the woman that has been put away commit adultery if marry another.

Now today if the widow is left unsupported and remains unmarried the church is instructed to give support. As far as I know the bible gives no instruction to the 'divorce' woman. Today if an divorce happens the woman is supported.

Nowhere in the Bible, aside from the words Jesus spoke does it say it is unlawful for a man to divorce, or put away his wife. Jesus is the one who introduced the concept of god allowing divorce because of the hardness of mans hearts. The only place in the Old Testament that it speaks of a man and woman being one flesh is in Genesis. My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.

There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives. In-fact God gave Moses laws that allowed men to put away their wives for various petty reasons such as not finding her desirable any more, or gather more wives from captives at will. So exactly where Jesus got the idea of God allowing men to put away their wives I don't know, because the Bible says God gave Moses the laws concerning divorce. The Jews were only following the laws that God gave to Moses.

All the best,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Thank you for looking up the verses I did not have time to yesterday. I think that this is fair from a human point of view and God has given His authority to men and women to be justice and give out punishment fit or the crime involving injury and death to another human being. It is God's prerogative to take back life, since God is the ONE to have created life and given life. You either agree with this or not. Can you believe in God still as the Creator even though you attribute God's word to that of men? Have you lost all belief that God exists? If God exists, you must have some belief in what you think the nature of God is, whether that comes from your own intuition or from what you have heard others say (verbally or written). It is not the right of men and women to take another person's life. To take another person's life is to deny them the life they would have had, a person who takes another person's life should expect to forfeit their own life. If you argue against this, you argue against the vast majority of the human race that would say this is fair, it is just.


Hi David,

When Jesus spoke the words "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" he began with "you have heard it said" which comes from the Old Testament.

Matt.5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:


Exo.21:23-24 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Lev..24:19-20 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deut. 19:19-21 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


Rose
The above quotes talk about taking life and causing serious injury to another person. They say the law is blind and in carrying out the law mercy does not come into it. This is a very simple law that does not need anything thinking about. If you cut off another person's hand the, the law would say that you should have your own hand cut off. What is wrong with this? Pity does not come into this and that is why in the verse you refer to it says; "thine eye shall not pity".

Consider in the case of criminal acts that do not personal injury or death to another. In this case, restoration must take place by the one found out and in this case it is more than one for one. I have copied the verses for us to read.
Exodus 22
1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

So restitution can be double or fourfold. You might think this is unfair if you are the one who has been caught stealing, but the one who was stole from would say that this is a fair and just punishment. Unless there is a punishment fit for the crime, then there would be no deterrent and it only invites a free for all. Whether you attribute such laws to God or to human law, the laws are at the center of our morals. If you agree that morals come about by social interaction, then it is humans that have developed their own justice system? Fixed penalties for committing a crime is what the law administers. We see these fixed penalties in the law of Moses.

The teaching of Jesus goes beyond the law and contrast the motives of a good person against that of an evil person. The teaching of Jesus says (in the same spirit of; "it is better to give than receive" than if someone makes a request from you, they should give the person what they ask and more. We can contrast this with a law that would say you should only give another person what they ask for or deserve.

Matthew 5:
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I will reply to what else you have said by way of your reply to my earlier post in the post to follow this.

All the best,

David

[sylvius]

My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.




Rashi has:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/showrashi/true

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

I don't think NT means it different.

It strikes a blow for all bastards.

[David M]

Hello Rose


Hi David,

As I pointed out in my post, Jesus made the laws of marriage much harsher on women than the OT laws. In the OT at least women could remarry if they were divorced, but under the New Covenant laws no such option is available.
The ideal is that men and women should not need written laws. When Jesus stated that in the beginning man and woman became one flesh, that is the way it was intended to be. Many marriages are as this, but many are not and that is the problem that has to be dealt with when men and women fail to live up to that ideal. Once man and woman have become one flesh, the operation is irreversible. That is why divorce is an anathema. That is why adultery is wrong for the person who commits adultery is becoming one flesh with two or more people. They are no longer joined to one but are now divided, just as their loyalty has been divided and shattered. Was God wrong to have this as the ideal in the way He would like all men and women to be; i.e. happily married to one person?

The problem we have and the problem God anticipated and it was all proved by the test He gave Adam and Eve. It stems from freedom to choose. God gave Adam and Eve a test. They had a choice, and they were free to choose. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit. The moment God said; "thou shalt not" was to deny them something but it was their choice to obey that command or not. This is at the root of all human problems and why I keep saying "blame man and not God". Have men and women come up with any better laws than God gave man? God gave men and women laws that either they would not have come up with or would have taken them centuries to develop. The period before the Great Flood proved that man left to his own devices showed that he did not have laws governing his actions and "everyone did that which was right in their own eyes". Surely, God has put these things on record so we learn the lesson. As it is written in the Book of Jeremiah; "it is not in man to direct his steps". God knew this and that is why the law was produced in the time of Moses. Later that law was surpassed when Jesus not only fulfilled the law, he exceeded it. Truly, God's law was written in the heart (mind) of Jesus which is exactly the same mind that Paul exhorts us to have; "let this mind be in you, as it was in Christ Jesus". Can you think of anything better than this. Have you mind the mind of Christ in you or have you abandoned that in rejection of the Bible as a work of fiction by man?


Why are you so adamant on giving a murderer the death penalty? Is it that you hold to the OT "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishment system? What is wrong with life in prison? Statistics show that it ends up costing almost as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life.
We have dealt with this in part in our other post dealing with "eye for eye" etc..
Prison for murderers is wrong for some reasons I stated in another reply in this or another thread, but let's examine some of the problems caused by locking people up.
First of all, may I suggest that since you want to lock up murderers you should be a prison warden guarding those prisoners. If you are already, that is good. Someone has to look after them, and it might be a paid job, but it is not a job that I want to do. Working inside a prison all day (or night) is like serving a prison sentence but with more freedom that the people locked up. This goes to show that we can all slaves and prisoners to our "jobs". We are slaves and prisoners to sin whether we agree with that or not; that is the way it appears to God.

Locking murderers up in prison, I do not agree to for the following reasons;
1. They should have forfeited their life for taking deliberately another person's life denying their victim of having life.
2. The expense of keeping them in prison without future life outside is wasting money and food that would be better spent on the poor and needy.
3. There is the possibility the prisoner could escape and get their freedom back (all be it they are on the run from the authorities)
4. The justice system does not always keep murderers in prison for life and so (as has been experienced) murderers who have been released, go on to commit the same act of murder again.
5. Prison does not rehabilitate the person to make them fit to live in society and they often re-offend when released.
6. The murderer while in prison does not make any form of restitution to the relatives of their victims.
7. Imprisonment is no deterrent to others to prevent them from committing the same crime. (Prison can be seen to be a luxury compared to the conditions endured by starving and homeless people).

Ask yourself this question, what if a murderer who was locked up in prison escaped or was released into the community again only to commit the same crime again and maybe this time they killed one of your own sons; would you be so forgiving to see them locked up in prison again?

How can it cost the same to execute a murderer than keep them in prison. Keeping a murderer on death row for example does not count as the cost of executing them. Where there is absolutely no doubt involved, death by whatever means you say is acceptable should be soon and not prolonged. I cannot see that this should be more expensive. Ask the relatives of the victims to do it who I guess will kill the murderer for free.


David was spared the death penalty for murder and adultery, and instead his son was sentence to death while he was allowed to marry Bathsheba! You call that justice? Why is it that you defend the death penalty for murderers, but because David repented he got off. How many murderers on death row would gladly repent if they knew it would buy them freedom?
I admire the work of those who go into prisons and save people's souls. Even then, a person who is saved is not let out or prison or if they are, they have been rehabilitated if they have genuinely accepted Jesus as their saviour. Prisoners who are converted are not taught that they are not guilty of their punishment. I have heard of a case where a man killed his wife and then in prison became a "brother in Christ". He accepts that he has to serve his sentence. I expect if and when he is released, he is a converted person.
The answer to our question as to how many would repent to buy their freedom is probably "none". Most would feign their repentance. That is why it is essential to be able to read a person's heart and know their motives and know that the person is genuine; Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. (3) For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
The vast majority of so called born-again-Christians who convert at evangelical meetings have been shown by surveys conducted to have given up within months of their conversion. Very few remain converted after 12 months. This calls into question the quality of that conversion. It is not enough to say; "I repent" or "I am born again". Even baptism as an outward sign to witnesses of a person's inward faith is not a guarantee that a person's motives were right in the first place. People in general are fickle. I find no reason to change my beliefs that have got stronger over time and which having to answer for on this forum has had the same effect to make my belief stronger. I am growing stronger in faith, not weaker.

David bore the consequences of his sins. His sons acted in defiance of him. David had lost authority within his family. If Rose you repent of your lack of faith in God of the Bible, would you not want God to forgive you should you realize the error of your ways. I think we all would want a second chance. I accept God's mercy and grace. Since men and women are liars even when they say to your face that they are not a liar, I accept that God is the best judge of people. God tells us that He knows what is in each person's heart, He knows our motives and so if He knew what was in David's heart, I accept that. As David said; "I delight in the law of God, it is my meditation all the day" and David truly repented in what he had done, I accept God's judgement on David. As we say; "there but for the Grace of God, go I". Without God's forgiveness and mercy, then none of us would have any hope of life now or of eternal life to come.


If your biblegod is real there would be infinite possibilities for meting out true justice, yet for some reason he chose the method of a barbaric tribal war god! Kill the babies and children and save the virgins to be raped!
How can you say there are "infinite possibilities for meting out true justice". This is an assumption on your part; dropping the word "infinite" for the word "many" is a more reasonable thing to say. You must show me how your justice is "true". I believe God's justice is true. You must prove to me that man's justice is better than God's. The fact that you disagree with mass destruction in the way that God ordered it, does not prove you are right. God could have killed all the Canaanites Himself, but he ordered the Israelite nation to do it as another test of their faith and obedience to Him. Once again they failed. That is on record for us to learn by. The Children of Israel brought upon themselves the consequences God was avoiding by having them kill the Canaanites completely. It was not a long term solution to the problem brought about by human nature. Whatever we think God could have done better, we are not in a position to prove. Why did God not make us all perfect to begin with? God hates wicked and evil people, yet for all the wickedness in the world there are a few by comparison who are almost perfect and who are certainly acceptable to God. Like the potter and the clay, the potter knows that some of his vessels will get cracked in the firing of them. As such those vessels that get cracked are thrown away. That is what God is doing. God is giving us the opportunity to show that we are not cracked vessels to be dis-guarded. Praise God that He has given us the way to appear perfect before Him. That would be impossible without the Lord Jesus who proved to God and you and me that it is possible for a human to lead an obedient and perfect life. Once you can do that, I will begin to believe you. Until then, I will believe in the Creator who has revealed Himself in the Bible (His inspired word).

All I would say is that I cannot limit God's grace and mercy. The number of times God can show mercy is determined by the number of people who have ever lived which is not infinite. The fact is that there are people living or who have lived, who God does not have to show mercy to. God has already given up on them. Those He gave up on, like the Canaanites, He destroyed and that should be a warning to the world today, but the world will not listen and it goes its own way. It will not surprise me when God's judgement comes on the world again and reprobates will once again destroyed in large numbers. I am given the assurance that all those who are worthy will be saved and that is where I have to put my trust in God. God has given us the assurance of eternal life in that he has raised Jesus from the dead. It was God who raised Jesus from the dead; Jesus did not raise himself.

I have given you some questions to answer Rose, so it will be good to hear your answers to those questions.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;46079]Are you using "soon" in the Biblical sense of "2000 years"? If so, we've got nothing to worry about! :lmbo:

I think your religion causes you to worry too much. Folks were all worried 50 years ago that the US government was going to be taken over by the antichrist and that the American social security cards would become the "mark of the beast." I'm glad I didn't waste those precious years of my life in vain worry about things that never happened.

It also shows how self-centered American Christians can be. They made the USA the center of their whole end-time panic party.
At the rate computer technology is progressing, it won't take 2,000 years to track every person on earth, probably less than 100 years. Currently, there are technology that can see what people are seeing, the images are blurr but it is still in the infancy stage,...just imagine how the technology will be like in 100 years time. Soon we will be able to watch TV without the television set but in our brains and with our eyes closed.


Actually, it shows how religious dogmas make healthy normal people feel bad for simply being human. Now that I'm free from the dogma of sin, I don't experience any of the internal conflicts caused by false doctrines of "sin" being imposed upon me. And that's how I should have felt when I was a Christian if Christianity were true, because Christianity is supposed to set you free from the law. But judging by what you and other Christians write, I would have to say that you are still in bondage to the law of sin.
So you are the perfect man with no sin, since you are free from the law. Brilliant!


You are confused. Opium is entirely different than Marijuana. It is addictive, marijuana is not. What's it like in China? Do many folks smoke pot?
I am not from China but I do know that there are still some cases of opium smoking and pots. But the main problem now facing the Chinese is from cigarette smoking. If I am a terrorist, I will bomb all cigarettes companies, manufacturing plants and tobacco farms....And death sentence to those who sold cigarettes. Am I morally right to do so in order to save millions and millions of people in this world? Marijuana can be addictive same as nicotine.


Your implication that everyone who smokes pot is "hallucinating" is false and it shows that you know nothing of which you speak.

And why didn't you address any of the points I made? The prohibition of marijuana is not good for society. It makes criminals out of otherwise good citizens. It costs LOTS of money to chase down the "criminals" and prosecute them and put them in prison. And we lose money again because we have removed a productive tax-paying citizen from the work force. It's utterly absurd. We should have learned our lesson with the prohibition of alcohol. Would you support that? We tried it in the USA and discovered that it helped create organized crime. Is that what you want? Do you not understand that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol? You should inform yourself on these issues.
Marijuana is evil:
Obviously, this guy is high:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXI5iidgc80


Marijuana is not that innocent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-05-marijuana_x.htm



And what's wrong with a "hippie mentality"? I think it's pretty cool. A lot more interesting than sitting around moaning and groaning about all the evil in the world and praying for God to forgive me for being human.
I am not against Hippies, only their negative influence...free sex, drug abuse, free religion, alcoholism, punk music.... better to spent their time doing more constructive things. So you admit you are a hippie?


There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.
I am not talking about Christ but you and everybody. Let's be honest, were we ever been tempted and sin? I am not just talking about sexual sin but sin of all kinds...stealing, lying, fighting, greed etc. Who never sin?


Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.
I think you are equally confused...what is love? God is love; you will never experience true love unless you experience the love of God in you. God is love which is why He told us to Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love others as yourself. Do these things and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

God is Love, Amen.:pray:

[Beck]

Nowhere in the Bible, aside from the words Jesus spoke does it say it is unlawful for a man to divorce, or put away his wife. Jesus is the one who introduced the concept of god allowing divorce because of the hardness of mans hearts. The only place in the Old Testament that it speaks of a man and woman being one flesh is in Genesis. My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.
Rose,

To put away their wifes is departing from the orginal principle of Adam and Eve of them two becoming one. This oneness is by the man going and laying with the woman and to place his seed in her. To which is the consummation of this marriage of oneness. Therefore I believe it was written in Malachi that God hates putting away after one has laid seed to the woman.(Malachi 2:16) Were as Malachi seem to have a metaphorical meaning it can also be seen in the Jewish people relationship of husband and wife.

I can see how Polygamy would be in that time. If a man married (consummated the union by laying seed) with an bethrothed woman and without putting her away he might marry (lay seed) another woman as his second wife, etc. Where he wasn't putting away any of his wifes. This presumably wasn't very common, but only in cases where the man was very wealthy and could support many wifes. As noted the 'oneness' is the laying of seed. The reason why some men took other wives is due to producing a son to carry on the man's name. The problem came up when a man went after another man's wife this is what the commandment of Adultery was forbiding.



There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives. In-fact God gave Moses laws that allowed men to put away their wives for various petty reasons such as not finding her desirable any more, or gather more wives from captives at will. So exactly where Jesus got the idea of God allowing men to put away their wives I don't know, because the Bible says God gave Moses the laws concerning divorce. The Jews were only following the laws that God gave to Moses.

All the best,
Rose

Would you say that Malachi was mistaken? In the case of a young woman that is betrothed unto an husband and is found in adultery then both shall be stoned, so to put away evil from among them. Instead of this type of death penalty to put away the woman that is found unclean is simply by the letter of divorcement put out of the husbands house and allowed to make a union with another man. Jesus is reinstating the first covenant that it is still adultery only unless the young woman which has been betrothed is found upon the consummation unclean 'forincation'. The husband is thus allowed to put her away.

[Rose]

Hello Rose


The ideal is that men and women should not need written laws. When Jesus stated that in the beginning man and woman became one flesh, that is the way it was intended to be. Many marriages are as this, but many are not and that is the problem that has to be dealt with when men and women fail to live up to that ideal. Once man and woman have become one flesh, the operation is irreversible. That is why divorce is an anathema. That is why adultery is wrong for the person who commits adultery is becoming one flesh with two or more people. They are no longer joined to one but are now divided, just as their loyalty has been divided and shattered. Was God wrong to have this as the ideal in the way He would like all men and women to be; i.e. happily married to one person?

Good morning David,

As I said to Beck in another post, the idea of one man, one woman equals one flesh only happened with Adam and Eve; all through the rest of the Old Testament polygamy is approved of. The twelve tribes were born of the four wives of Jacob, so there is not much unity going on with multiple wives who many times are quarreling amongst themselves. If Divorce is so anathama, why did God give Moses laws concerning divorce? Giving laws is far different from just allowing something to happen.


The problem we have and the problem God anticipated and it was all proved by the test He gave Adam and Eve. It stems from freedom to choose. God gave Adam and Eve a test. They had a choice, and they were free to choose. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit. The moment God said; "thou shalt not" was to deny them something but it was their choice to obey that command or not. This is at the root of all human problems and why I keep saying "blame man and not God". Have men and women come up with any better laws than God gave man? God gave men and women laws that either they would not have come up with or would have taken them centuries to develop. The period before the Great Flood proved that man left to his own devices showed that he did not have laws governing his actions and "everyone did that which was right in their own eyes". Surely, God has put these things on record so we learn the lesson. As it is written in the Book of Jeremiah; "it is not in man to direct his steps". God knew this and that is why the law was produced in the time of Moses. Later that law was surpassed when Jesus not only fulfilled the law, he exceeded it. Truly, God's law was written in the heart (mind) of Jesus which is exactly the same mind that Paul exhorts us to have; "let this mind be in you, as it was in Christ Jesus". Can you think of anything better than this. Have you mind the mind of Christ in you or have you abandoned that in rejection of the Bible as a work of fiction by man?
Men and women have most definitely come up with better laws than those that are given by God in the Old Testament. Slaves have been freed and women are beginning to share in equal human rights, something that they were denied under the laws of Moses given by God in the Bible.



We have dealt with this in part in our other post dealing with "eye for eye" etc..
Prison for murderers is wrong for some reasons I stated in another reply in this or another thread, but let's examine some of the problems caused by locking people up.
First of all, may I suggest that since you want to lock up murderers you should be a prison warden guarding those prisoners. If you are already, that is good. Someone has to look after them, and it might be a paid job, but it is not a job that I want to do. Working inside a prison all day (or night) is like serving a prison sentence but with more freedom that the people locked up. This goes to show that we can all slaves and prisoners to our "jobs". We are slaves and prisoners to sin whether we agree with that or not; that is the way it appears to God.

Your reasoning makes no sense...:confused:


Locking murderers up in prison, I do not agree to for the following reasons;
1. They should have forfeited their life for taking deliberately another person's life denying their victim of having life.
2. The expense of keeping them in prison without future life outside is wasting money and food that would be better spent on the poor and needy.
3. There is the possibility the prisoner could escape and get their freedom back (all be it they are on the run from the authorities)
4. The justice system does not always keep murderers in prison for life and so (as has been experienced) murderers who have been released, go on to commit the same act of murder again.
5. Prison does not rehabilitate the person to make them fit to live in society and they often re-offend when released.
6. The murderer while in prison does not make any form of restitution to the relatives of their victims.
7. Imprisonment is no deterrent to others to prevent them from committing the same crime. (Prison can be seen to be a luxury compared to the conditions endured by starving and homeless people).

Ask yourself this question, what if a murderer who was locked up in prison escaped or was released into the community again only to commit the same crime again and maybe this time they killed one of your own sons; would you be so forgiving to see them locked up in prison again?

How can it cost the same to execute a murderer than keep them in prison. Keeping a murderer on death row for example does not count as the cost of executing them. Where there is absolutely no doubt involved, death by whatever means you say is acceptable should be soon and not prolonged. I cannot see that this should be more expensive. Ask the relatives of the victims to do it who I guess will kill the murderer for free.

Of course the cost of death row is included as part of the whole cost, they would not be on death row if they weren't going to be executed.

All your reasons for believing in capital punishment avoid the point that I see as being relevant. Throughout the Old Testament capital punishment in never meted out fairly, many people deserving of death according to the laws given by God are let off while some poor guy picking up sticks is stoned to death! This is called God's justice!



I admire the work of those who go into prisons and save people's souls. Even then, a person who is saved is not let out or prison or if they are, they have been rehabilitated if they have genuinely accepted Jesus as their saviour. Prisoners who are converted are not taught that they are not guilty of their punishment. I have heard of a case where a man killed his wife and then in prison became a "brother in Christ". He accepts that he has to serve his sentence. I expect if and when he is released, he is a converted person.
The answer to our question as to how many would repent to buy their freedom is probably "none". Most would feign their repentance. That is why it is essential to be able to read a person's heart and know their motives and know that the person is genuine; Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. (3) For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
The vast majority of so called born-again-Christians who convert at evangelical meetings have been shown by surveys conducted to have given up within months of their conversion. Very few remain converted after 12 months. This calls into question the quality of that conversion. It is not enough to say; "I repent" or "I am born again". Even baptism as an outward sign to witnesses of a person's inward faith is not a guarantee that a person's motives were right in the first place. People in general are fickle. I find no reason to change my beliefs that have got stronger over time and which having to answer for on this forum has had the same effect to make my belief stronger. I am growing stronger in faith, not weaker.

David bore the consequences of his sins. His sons acted in defiance of him. David had lost authority within his family. If Rose you repent of your lack of faith in God of the Bible, would you not want God to forgive you should you realize the error of your ways. I think we all would want a second chance. I accept God's mercy and grace. Since men and women are liars even when they say to your face that they are not a liar, I accept that God is the best judge of people. God tells us that He knows what is in each person's heart, He knows our motives and so if He knew what was in David's heart, I accept that. As David said; "I delight in the law of God, it is my meditation all the day" and David truly repented in what he had done, I accept God's judgement on David. As we say; "there but for the Grace of God, go I". Without God's forgiveness and mercy, then none of us would have any hope of life now or of eternal life to come.

Of course I would want to be forgiven if I repent on any wrong that I have done; the problem I have Old Testament justice is it's capriciousness. Letting murderers off while killing their innocent children, killing people for picking up sticks, or not being a virgin on their wedding night, then letting men rape women with no consequences...all done I might add by God's command or approval.



How can you say there are "infinite possibilities for meting out true justice". This is an assumption on your part; dropping the word "infinite" for the word "many" is a more reasonable thing to say. You must show me how your justice is "true". I believe God's justice is true. You must prove to me that man's justice is better than God's. The fact that you disagree with mass destruction in the way that God ordered it, does not prove you are right. God could have killed all the Canaanites Himself, but he ordered the Israelite nation to do it as another test of their faith and obedience to Him. Once again they failed. That is on record for us to learn by. The Children of Israel brought upon themselves the consequences God was avoiding by having them kill the Canaanites completely. It was not a long term solution to the problem brought about by human nature. Whatever we think God could have done better, we are not in a position to prove. Why did God not make us all perfect to begin with? God hates wicked and evil people, yet for all the wickedness in the world there are a few by comparison who are almost perfect and who are certainly acceptable to God. Like the potter and the clay, the potter knows that some of his vessels will get cracked in the firing of them. As such those vessels that get cracked are thrown away. That is what God is doing. God is giving us the opportunity to show that we are not cracked vessels to be dis-guarded. Praise God that He has given us the way to appear perfect before Him. That would be impossible without the Lord Jesus who proved to God and you and me that it is possible for a human to lead an obedient and perfect life. Once you can do that, I will begin to believe you. Until then, I will believe in the Creator who has revealed Himself in the Bible (His inspired word).

All I can say is what kind of a monster would a parent be considered if they ordered their children to go an slaughter innocent women and babies as a test of their obedience! Is this the kind of behavior the biblegod requires of his "children"? I have to say your reasoning is utterly beyond my comprehension...:confused:


All I would say is that I cannot limit God's grace and mercy. The number of times God can show mercy is determined by the number of people who have ever lived which is not infinite. The fact is that there are people living or who have lived, who God does not have to show mercy to. God has already given up on them. Those He gave up on, like the Canaanites, He destroyed and that should be a warning to the world today, but the world will not listen and it goes its own way. It will not surprise me when God's judgement comes on the world again and reprobates will once again destroyed in large numbers. I am given the assurance that all those who are worthy will be saved and that is where I have to put my trust in God. God has given us the assurance of eternal life in that he has raised Jesus from the dead. It was God who raised Jesus from the dead; Jesus did not raise himself.

I have given you some questions to answer Rose, so it will be good to hear your answers to those questions.

All the best,

David

So I guess according to your reasoning no one is really assured of God's mercy, only hopeful of it. Isn't that sort of like how the Calvinists believe?

Take care my friend,
Rose

[David M]

Good morning Rose
I will try and keep this reply short.



As I said to Beck in another post, the idea of one man, one woman equals one flesh only happened with Adam and Eve; all through the rest of the Old Testament polygamy is approved of. The twelve tribes were born of the four wives of Jacob, so there is not much unity going on with multiple wives who many times are quarreling amongst themselves. If Divorce is so anathama, why did God give Moses laws concerning divorce? Giving laws is far different from just allowing something to happen.
How can you be sure that it only happened with Adam and Eve. We have record of multiple wives yes, but what proportion are these to the hundreds of thousands of men. There would not be enough wives to go round and if a man wanted more than one woman he would have to commit adultery. I think we have to accept that God as our Father lets us get away with things that is not the ideal. On all these subjects we come back to considering motives. Why did a men want more than one wife? Did men use and abuse or were women thankful for the protection and support from their husband even though they were not the only wife? Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

I read in another post of yours that you mentioned Abraham took Hagar to wife and therefore had multiple wives. You know that it was Sarah that told Abraham to go and take Sarah that she might bare him a son. This was a woman instructing her own husband to have sex with another woman that God's promise would be fulfilled. This is a case of God's promise being beyond her comprehension and so she took it on herself make God's promise come true. This example you have used to cite against men having multiple wives and you have ignored the fact that in this example it was condoned and suggested by a woman and a wife who had misinterpreted God's word and took it upon herself to do God's job for Him. I think this shows that Sarah also lacked comprehension of God's word.


Men and women have most definitely come up with better laws than those that are given by God in the Old Testament. Slaves have been freed and women are beginning to share in equal human rights, something that they were denied under the laws of Moses given by God in the Bible.
In the context of all the laws God gave to Moses and the Children of Israel, how would you better all those laws? Please give more examples instead of just this one relating to marriage. God gave laws relating to hygiene that modern-day hospitals have neglected and failed to implement.


Your reasoning makes no sense...:confused:
What is difficult with what I said which you have highlighted. Would you be a prison warden and do the job of looking after murderers? What if there is a shortage of prison wardens, would you volunteer do the job? It is not a job that I would do and it is people who want murderers locked up and kept in prison that should be their wardens. The results of voting on the death penalty is generally a close won vote in favor not having the death penalty. This means that there are many people who would like the death penalty reinstated. In most cases, it would not take a large swing in the voting to get the death penalty reinstated.


Of course the cost of death row is included as part of the whole cost, they would not be on death row if they weren't going to be executed.
Death row does not count, it is only because an appeal is lodged which means there is the element of doubt. I am talking about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever. Please answer the question in this case.


All your reasons for believing in capital punishment avoid the point that I see as being relevant. Throughout the Old Testament capital punishment in never meted out fairly, many people deserving of death according to the laws given by God are let off while some poor guy picking up sticks is stoned to death! This is called God's justice!
The fact is you are focusing on a few examples that might be exceptions to the rule. It is like news on the radio and TV, unless it is out of the ordinary, we do not get to hear about it. The normal is not news.


Of course I would want to be forgiven if I repent on any wrong that I have done; the problem I have Old Testament justice is it's capriciousness. Letting murderers off while killing their innocent children, killing people for picking up sticks, or not being a virgin on their wedding night, then letting men rape women with no consequences...all done I might add by God's command or approval.
The things which you say men do with God's command or approval with no consequences is not true. Everyone will receive their just rewards whether immediately or delayed. Men will be punished for rape, but you are calling the capture of 32,000 women as rape when that is not as bad as you try to make out, so unless you are prepared to reason, we are never going to agree on this.


All I can say is what kind of a monster would a parent be considered if they ordered their children to go an slaughter innocent women and babies as a test of their obedience! Is this the kind of behavior the biblegod requires of his "children"? I have to say your reasoning is utterly beyond my comprehension...:confused:
If my reasoning is beyond your comprehension then we will have to see what others have to say. These were exceptional circumstances and if the Children of Israel had done as instructed would have resulted in less bloodshed than what followed. You are using one or two episodes to build a negative case against God and ignoring all the positive episodes to give a balanced view.


So I guess according to your reasoning no one is really assured of God's mercy, only hopeful of it. Isn't that sort of like how the Calvinists believe?
Many people are convinced of God's mercy to them now and I am not arguing against that. We have to be confident tempered with humility and not arrogance. I am not going to speak for Calvanists, I make my case from the Bible, not what other people think.

Are you happy to let a convicted murderer be released or escape to kill again and what if it was your son that was killed by this murderer? Are you so forgiving that you would not want them killed and would even be prepared to be a warden to ensure the murderer stayed locked up in prison till the end of his days?

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose
I will try and keep this reply short.
Thank you :signthankspin:



How can you be sure that it only happened with Adam and Eve. We have record of multiple wives yes, but what proportion are these to the hundreds of thousands of men. There would not be enough wives to go round and if a man wanted more than one woman he would have to commit adultery. I think we have to accept that God as our Father lets us get away with things that is not the ideal. On all these subjects we come back to considering motives. Why did a men want more than one wife? Did men use and abuse or were women thankful for the protection and support from their husband even though they were not the only wife? Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

It's not whether or not there was enough wives to go around, or that God lets people get away with things. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Old Testament does God speak against multiple wives.


I read in another post of yours that you mentioned Abraham took Hagar to wife and therefore had multiple wives. You know that it was Sarah that told Abraham to go and take Sarah that she might bare him a son. This was a woman instructing her own husband to have sex with another woman that God's promise would be fulfilled. This is a case of God's promise being beyond her comprehension and so she took it on herself make God's promise come true. This example you have used to cite against men having multiple wives and you have ignored the fact that in this example it was condoned and suggested by a woman and a wife who had misinterpreted God's word and took it upon herself to do God's job for Him. I think this shows that Sarah also lacked comprehension of God's word.

I never said that it was Abraham's idea to take Hagar as a wife. What I did say is that God never reprimanded Abraham or Sarah for taking Hagar as a second wife no matter whose idea it was, implying God had no problem with men having multiple wives.



In the context of all the laws God gave to Moses and the Children of Israel, how would you better all those laws? Please give more examples instead of just this one relating to marriage. God gave laws relating to hygiene that modern-day hospitals have neglected and failed to implement.


I did give examples other than marriage. Why didn't God make laws forbidding slavery, or laws giving women equal human rights?


What is difficult with what I said which you have highlighted. Would you be a prison warden and do the job of looking after murderers? What if there is a shortage of prison wardens, would you volunteer do the job? It is not a job that I would do and it is people who want murderers locked up and kept in prison that should be their wardens. The results of voting on the death penalty is generally a close won vote in favor not having the death penalty. This means that there are many people who would like the death penalty reinstated. In most cases, it would not take a large swing in the voting to get the death penalty reinstated.


Death row does not count, it is only because an appeal is lodged which means there is the element of doubt. I am talking about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever. Please answer the question in this case.


The fact is you are focusing on a few examples that might be exceptions to the rule. It is like news on the radio and TV, unless it is out of the ordinary, we do not get to hear about it. The normal is not news.

So, you don't want to be a prison warden, but you wouldn't mind being the executioner? You are saying that anyone who wants criminals locked up in prison should have to be their wardens? That just sounds plain crazy to me.

I have answered your question. I do not believe in the death penalty! If I had to I could be a prison warden, even though it is not a job I would choose to do.


The things which you say men do with God's command or approval with no consequences is not true. Everyone will receive their just rewards whether immediately or delayed. Men will be punished for rape, but you are calling the capture of 32,000 women as rape when that is not as bad as you try to make out, so unless you are prepared to reason, we are never going to agree on this.

Since you are not a woman and have no clue what it is like to be raped you have no grounds to say "it's not as bad as you try to make out". Rape is a violent, horrible crime perpetrated against women by insensitive cruel men, and in the case of the 32,000 virgins it was "God approved". :eek: Being given by force to a strange man without her consent is the same a being raped!



If my reasoning is beyond your comprehension then we will have to see what others have to say. These were exceptional circumstances and if the Children of Israel had done as instructed would have resulted in less bloodshed than what followed. You are using one or two episodes to build a negative case against God and ignoring all the positive episodes to give a balanced view.

I really don't understand you. On one hand you are adamant about the death penalty for murderers, yet when God told the Israelite's to murder the women and children of Canaan you seem to think that is perfectly fine and the only reason there was a problem is because they didn't kill everyone?



Many people are convinced of God's mercy to them now and I am not arguing against that. We have to be confident tempered with humility and not arrogance. I am not going to speak for Calvanists, I make my case from the Bible, not what other people think.

Are you happy to let a convicted murderer be released or escape to kill again and what if it was your son that was killed by this murderer? Are you so forgiving that you would not want them killed and would even be prepared to be a warden to ensure the murderer stayed locked up in prison till the end of his days?

All the best,

David

I never said anything about releasing a convicted murderer, where did you get that idea from?

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

At the rate computer technology is progressing, it won't take 2,000 years to track every person on earth, probably less than 100 years. Currently, there are technology that can see what people are seeing, the images are blurr but it is still in the infancy stage,...just imagine how the technology will be like in 100 years time. Soon we will be able to watch TV without the television set but in our brains and with our eyes closed.

Yes, the progress of technology is a most amazing thing! It is what makes modern life possible. I am very optimistic about the future, largely because of the advances of technology, as well as the advances in society such as equal rights for all.



So you are the perfect man with no sin, since you are free from the law. Brilliant!

I think your use of the word "brilliant" is anything but.

And no, I am not a "perfect man." I don't believe in perfection. But yes, I have no "sin" because no one has "sin" because I don't believe in the concept of sin. I already explained this to you, but you failed to understand. Why is that?



I am not from China but I do know that there are still some cases of opium smoking and pots. But the main problem now facing the Chinese is from cigarette smoking. If I am a terrorist, I will bomb all cigarettes companies, manufacturing plants and tobacco farms....And death sentence to those who sold cigarettes. Am I morally right to do so in order to save millions and millions of people in this world? Marijuana can be addictive same as nicotine.

Actually, the cigarette smoking in China is very interesting because the Chinese often do not suffer the same health consequences as smokers in the west. Scientists don't know why, but they think it might have something to do with all the green tea the Chinese consume. Here's one such study:

Chinese green tea ameliorates lung injury in cigarette smoke-exposed rats. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487113)



Marijuana is evil:
Obviously, this guy is high:

Ha! "Marijuana is evil." :hysterical: Have you ever smoked any? How do you know? Your video was meaningless. It proves nothing. You should Google cannabis oil cured my cancer (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=cannabis+oil+cured+my+cancer&oq=cannabis+oil+cured+&aq=0&aqi=g1g-K1g-bK2&aql=&gs_l=hp.3.0.0j0i30j0i8i30l2.1109.5962.0.7248.23.20 .2.1.1.1.210.3574.0j19j1.20.0...0.0.R04Jpo2crlM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9b6c7f81dbed2a17&biw=1270&bih=817) - it returns about 1.95 MILLION pages. We can continue the conversation after you inform yourself with the facts.



Marijuana is not that innocent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-05-marijuana_x.htm

I never said it was "innocent." It is a psychoactive drug and so should be used responsibly like any other medicine.



I am not against Hippies, only their negative influence...free sex, drug abuse, free religion, alcoholism, punk music.... better to spent their time doing more constructive things. So you admit you are a hippie?

You are so obsessed with SEX SEX SEX! Are you married, or is this a symptom of never getting any?

And where in the world did you get the lunatic idea that alcoholism has anything to do with "hippies"? In general, hippies are against alcohol. For example, at the Rainbow Gatherings - the biggest "hippie" event around - everyone is welcome and almost everything is allowed except alcohol and guns.






Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?
There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.
I am not talking about Christ but you and everybody. Let's be honest, were we ever been tempted and sin? I am not just talking about sexual sin but sin of all kinds...stealing, lying, fighting, greed etc. Who never sin?

You missed my point. You had falsely implied that temptation was the same thing as sin. That's not true at all. On the contrary, a person who is tempted but withstands the temptation is lauded because he has not given in to sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. That's why I mentioned Christ. He experienced temptation but did not sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. Do you get it now?

Now in answer to your question - there are many times I've been tempted to do something I felt would be wrong. Sometimes I gave in to the temptation, sometimes I resisted it. I think this is the universal human experience. But now I realize that the concept of "sin" is not meaningful. That word has too much baggage. It's very strange - a lot of people have done very immoral things because they thought it would be a sin not to. In other words, the concept of sin causes people to be immoral because sin is not morality but rather religious dogma.




Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.
I think you are equally confused...what is love? God is love; you will never experience true love unless you experience the love of God in you. God is love which is why He told us to Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love others as yourself. Do these things and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

Your comment makes no sense. I said I was not free from the law of love. So where is the confusion? Are you asserting that only Christians know love? If not, then your comment makes no sense.

[Rose]

Rose,

To put away their wifes is departing from the orginal principle of Adam and Eve of them two becoming one. This oneness is by the man going and laying with the woman and to place his seed in her. To which is the consummation of this marriage of oneness. Therefore I believe it was written in Malachi that God hates putting away after one has laid seed to the woman.(Malachi 2:16) Were as Malachi seem to have a metaphorical meaning it can also be seen in the Jewish people relationship of husband and wife.
Hi Beck,
As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. Even Genesis 1 only says that God created them male and female and to go forth and multiply with no restrictions. It is impossible to have a marriage of two becoming one flesh when men start having multiple wives, which we see with God's approval throughout the Old Testament.


I can see how Polygamy would be in that time. If a man married (consummated the union by laying seed) with an bethrothed woman and without putting her away he might marry (lay seed) another woman as his second wife, etc. Where he wasn't putting away any of his wifes. This presumably wasn't very common, but only in cases where the man was very wealthy and could support many wifes. As noted the 'oneness' is the laying of seed. The reason why some men took other wives is due to producing a son to carry on the man's name. The problem came up when a man went after another man's wife this is what the commandment of Adultery was forbiding.

Polygamy happened often enough in the patriarchal lineage to show that God had no problem with it. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that God reprimands someone for having multiple wives. The wisest man on the planet according to Jesus was Solomon and he had 700 wives.


Would you say that Malachi was mistaken? In the case of a young woman that is betrothed unto an husband and is found in adultery then both shall be stoned, so to put away evil from among them. Instead of this type of death penalty to put away the woman that is found unclean is simply by the letter of divorcement put out of the husbands house and allowed to make a union with another man. Jesus is reinstating the first covenant that it is still adultery only unless the young woman which has been betrothed is found upon the consummation unclean 'forincation'. The husband is thus allowed to put her away.

The verse in Malachi is a bit ambiguous, also it was written quite late so it's teachings would not have been known to Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, or Solomon all of whom had many wives explicitly approved of by God. Saul's wives were even given to David by God, and then taken from David and given to Absalom to be raped by God's command. Obviously when God gives multiple wives from one man to another he must not have a problem with it.

All the best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Beck,

As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament.
This is a really important point. It led to the discovery that the ten chapters of Genesis 2-11 are not referenced in almost any of the other books of the Bible, or even within the book of Genesis itself. This indicates that those ten chapters were inserted into Genesis very late, after all the other books had already been composed. I've written a post about this called Where's Adam? The Mystery of the Missing Mythological Chapters of Genesis (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3158-Where-s-Adam-The-Mystery-of-the-Missing-Mythological-Chapters-of-Genesis). I would be very interested if folks would comment on that thread. This discovery is really mind-blowing because I have studied the Bible for decades but never noticed the omission of references to those chapters of Genesis which Christians take as the very foundation of the Gospel (e.g. Romans 5).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

Hey there David,

Your comment leaped out at me because you seem to be implying that the Torah is not the Word of God, but rather the word of a mere man, Moses. When you say that Moses was "permitted" to write the law allowing divorce, you imply that it was his idea and not the will of God. If this is the case, how do we sort out which parts of the Bible are "God's Word" and which parts are the mere opinions of men that can be rejected?

All the best,

Richard

[Beck]

Hi Beck,
As I mentioned in my previous posts this so-called "original principle" of "becoming one flesh" given in Genesis 2 is mentioned nowhere else in the entire Old Testament. Even Genesis 1 only says that God created them male and female and to go forth and multiply with no restrictions. It is impossible to have a marriage of two becoming one flesh when men start having multiple wives, which we see with God's approval throughout the Old Testament.

Just because a principle is only mention once in any testament should not be negated.



Polygamy happened often enough in the patriarchal lineage to show that God had no problem with it. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible that God reprimands someone for having multiple wives. The wisest man on the planet according to Jesus was Solomon and he had 700 wives.
Again the principle that Jesus was addressing was that of a man putting away his wife and that wouldn't apply to Polygamy. Those that took on another wife was not putting away their first wife. Even in Deu. 21 of the 'law of marriage' has instructings for the man that have two wives. Therefore the becoming one flesh is the consummation of the marriage by the man laying with the woman. In this act they were 'married' joined / one flesh.

So if a man was only betrothed and went in the tent to consumate the betrothal if he then founded out that she wasn't a virgin or what he had been promised he by law (Deu.22:13-21) could put her away. She at the time of her betrothal would have been considered his wife. This is presumably the reason behind Matthew inserted the 'save for fornication exception'.




The verse in Malachi is a bit ambiguous, also it was written quite late so it's teachings would not have been known to Abraham, Jacob, Saul, David, or Solomon all of whom had many wives explicitly approved of by God. Saul's wives were even given to David by God, and then taken from David and given to Absalom to be raped by God's command. Obviously when God gives multiple wives from one man to another he must not have a problem with it.

All the best,
Rose

Just thought you might have over looked Malachi in your assumption. There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives

[Rose]

Just because a principle is only mention once in any testament should not be negated.

Hi Beck,

I'm not saying that it is negated, only that it is not applicable. The entire context of the Old Testament makes no mention of the principle of two becoming one flesh, so that makes it a mute point.



Again the principle that Jesus was addressing was that of a man putting away his wife and that wouldn't apply to Polygamy. Those that took on another wife was not putting away their first wife. Even in Deu. 21 of the 'law of marriage' has instructings for the man that have two wives. Therefore the becoming one flesh is the consummation of the marriage by the man laying with the woman. In this act they were 'married' joined / one flesh.

So if a man was only betrothed and went in the tent to consumate the betrothal if he then founded out that she wasn't a virgin or what he had been promised he by law (Deu.22:13-21) could put her away. She at the time of her betrothal would have been considered his wife. This is presumably the reason behind Matthew inserted the 'save for fornication exception'.



Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.

Have a good night,
Rose

[Beck]

Hi Beck,

I'm not saying that it is negated, only that it is not applicable. The entire context of the Old Testament makes no mention of the principle of two becoming one flesh, so that makes it a mute point.
Afternoon Rose,

I would like to say that I'm not trying to :deadhorse: this to death ,but I'm doing it for my own understanding. I think I have a good understanding of what Jesus was saying, but I'm trying to be open minded to other possibilities. With the 'one flesh' principle of Genesis having no other mention in the OT, but then Jesus makes mention of it. Like I said it rather seem to only indicate the two (husband and wife) consummating the covenant. Therefore a man could have more that one wife so long as he doesn't take another man's wife.

The OT of putting away seem to be what is not good for the woman. She is put out of the house and abondoned without any support from her husband and her family more than likely would not receive her back. This was even true in the first century when Paul addressed Timothy about how the church was to support the widows. Paul said that if the man would not provide for his own [his daughter that has become a widow] that he was worse that an infidel. (1Tim.5:8)

Looking at the response of the Phraisees which asked this question to Jesus they seem to have been aware of the writing of 'male and female becoming one flesh.' [Jesus asked them had they not read!] Jesus had addressed their question of is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? Jesus not only said that it wasn't lawful for any cause, but that it wasn't lawful at the very first.

If we really look at why the Phraisees came unto Jesus to tempt or test him so that they might accuse him. Well looking at the question and seeing that he was in the area of the Jordan River where Herod Antipas ruled one would think that they had in mind to get Jesus for the same reason John the Baptist was beheaded. For speaking out about the sin of adultery which Antipas was married, therefore, to a woman who had been another man's wife, and whose husband was still living.

So Rose where do we go from here? Are we to say that Jesus had no authority to say this? That he was just being overly righteous? That once a man and woman make a covenant with blood, that covenant can't be broken or can it?



Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.

Have a good night,
Rose

You make a good point here. So I thought of Ephesians where Paul said some what the same even quoting from Genesis 2 as Jesus did, but Paul used it toward Christ and the chruch. Might Jesus be speaking of himself and the chruch as well?

[David M]

Hello Rose
I will keep this reply even shorter and just answer your questions.


I did give examples other than marriage. Why didn't God make laws forbidding slavery, or laws giving women equal human rights?
God did not need to give laws against slavery and human rights because the laws you want are impilicit in the laws relating to treating thy neighbour as thyself or treating thy neighbour as you want to be treated. There is a difference between slaves and servants. So the employing of servants is OK because that is giving work, food and shelter. Slavery is the abuse of another person. There is nothing in the text to say the the 32,000 virgins were to be taken as slaves. Wives were not slaves and taken as wives was not rape as you want it to be. Neither of us is able to interview the women involved to find out the percentage of those who accepted their roles as wives. Of course I accept that some would object, that is normal in any situation, you never get 100% agreement.




So, you don't want to be a prison warden, but you wouldn't mind being the executioner?
I am agreeing with the sentence, it has nothing to do with whether I mind being the executioner of not. If I did not want to be the sole executioner in the way that you are thinking, I would agree to be a joint executioner on the proviso that the method of stoning is used. You will now see the value of stoning from my point of view.


I really don't understand you. On one hand you are adamant about the death penalty for murderers, yet when God told the Israelite's to murder the women and children of Canaan you seem to think that is perfectly fine and the only reason there was a problem is because they didn't kill everyone?
I do not understand you either but I will try and answer. I am accepting of God's judgement on the Canaanites. You do not seem to think the Canaanites were the repbrotes they were and did not deserve to be punished/wiped out. I am not sure what you are meaning or implying by "the only reason". I am saying that God used the Israelites as His instrument of destruction and in so doing God tested the obedience of the Israelites. They failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. That is like a national sin for disobedience. The fact that they did not carry out God's instruction to the letter and lets some live, meant that they became idolatrous that much sooner because of the influence that remained. All the problems presented to God are man-made. Stop blaming God and blame man!!



I never said anything about releasing a convicted murderer, where did you get that idea from?
Releasing convicted murders is a present day fact which is part of our justice system. Some murderers do get life and never released and some do get released. You want murderers locked up so you accept the present-day justice system.

BTW you have have not answered all my questions and I want to know if a murderer escapes prison and subsequenty murders your son; what do you want to happen to that person?

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hello Rose and Beck
I am enjoying your discussion. I just want to respond to two points Rose has made and I will let you continue your discussion


Jesus was conflating two different ideas, the first was that of the "two flesh becoming one", and the second was "what god has joined together let no man put asunder", neither of which occurs anywhere in the Old Testament except for the two becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24. There is no way a man can be of one flesh with multiple wives, so this concept of monogamy that Jesus was introducing was something that the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post concerning divorce, God himself was the one who gave Moses the laws concerning divorce...it wasn't something Moses came up with himself.
Rose

The Pharisees had the ancient scriptures which included the Book of Genesis so they would have read the words we have in Genesis 2:24. This contradicts what you say;"the pharisees would have been unfamiliar with as a biblical teaching" This is the principal that was laid down at the beginning and the fact that the kings of Israel (especially) were the ones who had wives and concubines is the exception. In general the principle is; one man and one woman.

As you say,"it wasn't something Moses came up with himself", it was because as Jesus said; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. It was God who permitted Moses to write the bill of divorcement. This is once again a man-made problem presented to God in which God compromised with His people. I expect you would blame God for compromising on a man-made problem. Had nothing been done, the people could have rebelled and gone ahead and committed adultery without putting away their wives and that would have been a worse situation leading to a downward spiral of depravity in their society. This could have lead to God doing the same to His chosen people as He did to the Canaanites. This could not be, because God already had plans and the promises He had made to Abraham, which is why Israel (Gods chosen race) could never be totally destroyed and lose their identity. That is why Israel is a nation today.

We have a repeating pattern caused by man. It is part of man's lack of self control that leads to depravity. It takes self-control and listening to the guidance of God to lead to a harmonious society which is respectful of one another. So once again, blame man and not God!!

All the best,

David

[David M]

Hello Richard

I nearly missed this question and post and just happened to come by it.


Hey there David,

Originally Posted by David M
Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.Your comment leaped out at me because you seem to be implying that the Torah is not the Word of God, but rather the word of a mere man, Moses. When you say that Moses was "permitted" to write the law allowing divorce, you imply that it was his idea and not the will of God. If this is the case, how do we sort out which parts of the Bible are "God's Word" and which parts are the mere opinions of men that can be rejected?

All the best,

Richard

I was not meaning to imply anything, certainly not what you think I was implying. Jesus does not mention God; Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so., but this does not mean that Jesus was excluding God. It is my opinion, since I cannot quote an OT text to say otherwise, but I think after the incident of the water from the rock, Moses would not have done anything without consulting (God in prayer) and getting God to sanction such an act. If God had not compromised and let Moses write the bills of divorcement, we can speculate what might have happened next. As I have commented to Rose (before answering your question), the result could have been that the people went ahead and committed adultery without putting away their wives. This would have lead to a downward spiral of ever increasing depravity, which God steered away from. God could not allow the situation to develop that happened to the Canaanites and God could never do to the Israelites what He did to the Canaanites, because of His promises to Abraham, Issac and Jacob. We are dealing with man-made problem by the free will of man to chose to obey or disobey.

We know what God's ideal for man is and I think on this occasion God compromised in order to keep on track. It is not much different to when God allowed the people to have a king selected of their own people and let the people reject Him from leading them. We are witnessing the problems brought about by men being lead by men; they have rejected God. God is allowing this situation to continue. God is in control and steering events by which His believers can see what is happening. Despite all of what took place in the history of the Children of Israel, God brought about the birth of His Son and all that subsequently Jesus did and what happened to him. By seeing how God has steered the nation of Israel and what has happened to them until this day, this is evidence to me that God is in control fulfilling His plan and bringing about His purpose.

I say he was "permitted" in that Moses would have been asked by the people (men). It was not something he did of his own accord, but the people would have seen that it was Moses replying to their request for a bill of divorcement, which would have Moses's seal on it. I do not know how you can think I was implying it was Moses's idea; it was the people that requested it.

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Hello Rose
I will keep this reply even shorter and just answer your questions.
I do appreciate shorter posts. :thumb:



God did not need to give laws against slavery and human rights because the laws you want are impilicit in the laws relating to treating thy neighbour as thyself or treating thy neighbour as you want to be treated. There is a difference between slaves and servants. So the employing of servants is OK because that is giving work, food and shelter. Slavery is the abuse of another person. There is nothing in the text to say the the 32,000 virgins were to be taken as slaves. Wives were not slaves and taken as wives was not rape as you want it to be. Neither of us is able to interview the women involved to find out the percentage of those who accepted their roles as wives. Of course I accept that some would object, that is normal in any situation, you never get 100% agreement.

Hi David,

Having a choice to work as a servant for pay is far different that being owned as a slave, which is denying that human equal rights...God gave laws on how to treat slaves, so we know he condoned slavery.

We don't need to interview those women to know that no woman given a choice would choose to become the wife of the man who just murdered her family! Come on David get real! God did not give women equal rights under the law, in fact he gave laws that took away a woman's equal rights. Women and slaves were treated as PROPERTY throughout the Old Testament and were never given equal rights.



I am agreeing with the sentence, it has nothing to do with whether I mind being the executioner of not. If I did not want to be the sole executioner in the way that you are thinking, I would agree to be a joint executioner on the proviso that the method of stoning is used. You will now see the value of stoning from my point of view.

I had to read that sentence twice to believe my eyes! :woah::woah: You are saying that you would be a joint executioner provided the method of execution was stoning! I'm sure your reasoning is that it might not be your stone that actually kills the person. Do you have any idea how horribly cruel stoning is? Why would you want to inflict excruciating pain on another human? I am shocked at the hardness of your heart. :eek:


I do not understand you either but I will try and answer. I am accepting of God's judgement on the Canaanites. You do not seem to think the Canaanites were the repbrotes they were and did not deserve to be punished/wiped out. I am not sure what you are meaning or implying by "the only reason". I am saying that God used the Israelites as His instrument of destruction and in so doing God tested the obedience of the Israelites. They failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. That is like a national sin for disobedience. The fact that they did not carry out God's instruction to the letter and lets some live, meant that they became idolatrous that much sooner because of the influence that remained. All the problems presented to God are man-made. Stop blaming God and blame man!!

Maybe you can answer this one question for me. What is the difference between the Canaanites who offered there children to Molech and the Hebrews who slaughtered the Canaanites babies along with the men, women and children? Those poor Canaanite children didn't stand a chance...those who didn't get killed by their parents, got killed by the Hebrews. :eek:


Releasing convicted murders is a present day fact which is part of our justice system. Some murderers do get life and never released and some do get released. You want murderers locked up so you accept the present-day justice system.

BTW you have have not answered all my questions and I want to know if a murderer escapes prison and subsequenty murders your son; what do you want to happen to that person?

All the best,

David



I already said I do not believe in the death penalty, so my mind is not going to be changed if it is my son who happens to be murdered.

Take care,
Rose

[David M]

Good morning Rose
This is the last reply to answer your questions.


We don't need to interview those women to know that no woman given a choice would choose to become the wife of the man who just murdered her family! Come on David get real! God did not give women equal rights under the law, in fact he gave laws that took away a woman's equal rights. Women and slaves were treated as PROPERTY throughout the Old Testament and were never given equal rights.
I am getting real and I am giving you reasons. You keep repeating your mantra and not willing to contemplate any possible alternative. It is as though you always see as black where I see as grey. There can be a little truth in what we both say. The women's thinking in the culture we are considering would not have been as your 21st century thinking is. We are never going to see eye to eye on this.


I had to read that sentence twice to believe my eyes! :woah::woah: You are saying that you would be a joint executioner provided the method of execution was stoning! I'm sure your reasoning is that it might not be your stone that actually kills the person. Do you have any idea how horribly cruel stoning is? Why would you want to inflict excruciating pain on another human? I am shocked at the hardness of your heart. :eek:
You do not know what I am thinking. I could be drafted in as an executioner and would be one of the crowd and that is why I would choose stoning as the method. Who says I am going to throw a stone, or that if I did the stone would hit the target? It is you who is saying stoning is cruel and not everybody agrees with you. Stoning is not necessarily as long and drawn out and brutal as you want others to believe you. There can be individual examples in which we are both correct, so perhaps we should leave it at that.


Maybe you can answer this one question for me. What is the difference between the Canaanites who offered there children to Molech and the Hebrews who slaughtered the Canaanites babies along with the men, women and children? Those poor Canaanite children didn't stand a chance...those who didn't get killed by their parents, got killed by the Hebrews. :eek:
You deny the fact that the children brought up in the Canaanite society would not have be taught the same idolatrous practices. You have to blame the parents in that case. It might sound harsh, but if you kill the parents, who looks after the infants. It would have been better for the parents not to have been corrupt and cause God's anger at their abomination. You cannot blame God who has made it very clear that idolatry is an abomination to Him. I think you must get real and realize the motives of the Canaanites and anyone who displays such evil.

"The difference" to answer your question is that as you know the Hebrews acted under instruction. They were God's instrument and as has been dealt with elsewhere, the Hebrews in God's sight were held guiltless. It was God's solution and God take's responsibility for His decision. I accept God's decision.


I already said I do not believe in the death penalty, so my mind is not going to be changed if it is my son who happens to be murdered.
That is what you have to say and I expected you to say it. Whether others think that is an honest feeling of yours (if it ever happened), is for them to decide. You might be an very unusual person, and I think most people put in that position would not be so tolerant and forgiving. By what you say, you are showing the restraint that followers of Jesus are expected to do. One can have restraint and still desire justice. Knowing that God/Jesus will judge correctly and have given assurance to those who believe and have the true faith, we have to leave judgment to them. We are powerless to change the situation. Although we might be concerned about someone Else's future, our priority is to ensure we have our lives in order before God. I thank God that He is merciful or else none of us are worthy to be saved. Whether we are more worthy than anyone else to be saved is not our judgment to make, even if we have a personal opinion.


Take care

And you Rose.


David

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;46109]Yes, the progress of technology is a most amazing thing! It is what makes modern life possible. I am very optimistic about the future, largely because of the advances of technology, as well as the advances in society such as equal rights for all.
Most Christians are also optimistic about the future for a new world is about to begin, A world in which there is no sin, death, diseases, eternal life etc. and with technology way beyond our imaginations.


I think your use of the word "brilliant" is anything but.

And no, I am not a "perfect man." I don't believe in perfection. But yes, I have no "sin" because no one has "sin" because I don't believe in the concept of sin. I already explained this to you, but you failed to understand. Why is that?
It's a foolish thinking like saying, "I do not believe in the country's law and thus I cannot commit any crime or break any law". Ignorance of the laws is no excuse. Everyone is subject to the law whether you like it or not.



Actually, the cigarette smoking in China is very interesting because the Chinese often do not suffer the same health consequences as smokers in the west. Scientists don't know why, but they think it might have something to do with all the green tea the Chinese consume. Here's one such study:

Chinese green tea ameliorates lung injury in cigarette smoke-exposed rats. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487113)
Thanks for the info. Smoking is still a big problem in China.


Ha! "Marijuana is evil." :hysterical: Have you ever smoked any? How do you know? Your video was meaningless. It proves nothing. You should Google cannabis oil cured my cancer (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=cannabis+oil+cured+my+cancer&oq=cannabis+oil+cured+&aq=0&aqi=g1g-K1g-bK2&aql=&gs_l=hp.3.0.0j0i30j0i8i30l2.1109.5962.0.7248.23.20 .2.1.1.1.210.3574.0j19j1.20.0...0.0.R04Jpo2crlM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=9b6c7f81dbed2a17&biw=1270&bih=817) - it returns about 1.95 MILLION pages. We can continue the conversation after you inform yourself with the facts.
I am surprised you believe in all this claims. Looks like doctors will be out of job soon. Hopefully, cannabis can cure Rose's obsession.:winking0071:



I never said it was "innocent." It is a psychoactive drug and so should be used responsibly like any other medicine.
Agree that it must be controlled.



You are so obsessed with SEX SEX SEX! Are you married, or is this a symptom of never getting any?
This is a sex obsessive world, don't you think so? Even Sigmund Freud said that all man's and animal's motives is sex.


And where in the world did you get the lunatic idea that alcoholism has anything to do with "hippies"? In general, hippies are against alcohol. For example, at the Rainbow Gatherings - the biggest "hippie" event around - everyone is welcome and almost everything is allowed except alcohol and guns.
Fine but that does not mean they are not alcoholics. How I wish they abstain also from drugs and free sex.


You missed my point. You had falsely implied that temptation was the same thing as sin. That's not true at all. On the contrary, a person who is tempted but withstands the temptation is lauded because he has not given in to sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. That's why I mentioned Christ. He experienced temptation but did not sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. Do you get it now?
We are all tempted to sin which is why the Lord give us the prayer,"And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil".


Now in answer to your question - there are many times I've been tempted to do something I felt would be wrong. Sometimes I gave in to the temptation, sometimes I resisted it. I think this is the universal human experience. But now I realize that the concept of "sin" is not meaningful. That word has too much baggage. It's very strange - a lot of people have done very immoral things because they thought it would be a sin not to. In other words, the concept of sin causes people to be immoral because sin is not morality but rather religious dogma.
Your comment is absurd. Everybody (religious or non-religious) sin whether there is religious dogma or not "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".



Your comment makes no sense. I said I was not free from the law of love. So where is the confusion? Are you asserting that only Christians know love? If not, then your comment makes no sense.
What I am asserting is the universal law of love, "Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself". Do these and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

God Bless us all.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sylvius and I have been having an interesting conversation about many topics that diverge quite a bit from the topic of this thread, so I have moved those posts to their own thread called Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc. (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3161-Conversations-with-sylvius-Rashi-666-in-Genesis-1-31-etc).

Carry on!

[Rose]

Good morning Rose
This is the last reply to answer your questions.
Okay then, this will be my last response. :winking0071:


I am getting real and I am giving you reasons. You keep repeating your mantra and not willing to contemplate any possible alternative. It is as though you always see as black where I see as grey. There can be a little truth in what we both say. The women's thinking in the culture we are considering would not have been as your 21st century thinking is. We are never going to see eye to eye on this.
You only say that because it is what you want to believe, because you don't want to think your God could do something that horrendous. People who lived 4,000 years ago still had compassion, empathy and could feel love just like we do today. Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? The sentiments of loving another human in that book could easily have been written by a contemporary of you or I. You are only deceiving yourself if you think there was ever a woman on the planet who could love a man who just murdered her family, and willingly marry him.


You do not know what I am thinking. I could be drafted in as an executioner and would be one of the crowd and that is why I would choose stoning as the method. Who says I am going to throw a stone, or that if I did the stone would hit the target? It is you who is saying stoning is cruel and not everybody agrees with you. Stoning is not necessarily as long and drawn out and brutal as you want others to believe you. There can be individual examples in which we are both correct, so perhaps we should leave it at that.
You are the one who believes in capital punishment, so why would you not want to throw a stone? I think you need to do some research on stoning, it's much more brutal than you want to believe.


You deny the fact that the children brought up in the Canaanite society would not have be taught the same idolatrous practices. You have to blame the parents in that case. It might sound harsh, but if you kill the parents, who looks after the infants. It would have been better for the parents not to have been corrupt and cause God's anger at their abomination. You cannot blame God who has made it very clear that idolatry is an abomination to Him. I think you must get real and realize the motives of the Canaanites and anyone who displays such evil.

"The difference" to answer your question is that as you know the Hebrews acted under instruction. They were God's instrument and as has been dealt with elsewhere, the Hebrews in God's sight were held guiltless. It was God's solution and God take's responsibility for His decision. I accept God's decision.

Yes, it was God's solution and he is the one responsible, just like all the other commands he gave the Hebrews. Why was it in the case of the Canaanite that all the women, children and babies were slaughtered whereas in the case of the Midianites the 32,000 virgin girls were allowed to live? Those 32,000 virgin girls would have been taught all those idolatrous practices like you said the Canaanites children were taught. Seems pretty inconsistent to me. :p


That is what you have to say and I expected you to say it. Whether others think that is an honest feeling of yours (if it ever happened), is for them to decide. You might be an very unusual person, and I think most people put in that position would not be so tolerant and forgiving. By what you say, you are showing the restraint that followers of Jesus are expected to do. One can have restraint and still desire justice. Knowing that God/Jesus will judge correctly and have given assurance to those who believe and have the true faith, we have to leave judgment to them. We are powerless to change the situation. Although we might be concerned about someone Else's future, our priority is to ensure we have our lives in order before God. I thank God that He is merciful or else none of us are worthy to be saved. Whether we are more worthy than anyone else to be saved is not our judgment to make, even if we have a personal opinion.



And you Rose.


David

It's not what I HAVE to say, it's what I believe. If I believed in capital punishment I would have no problem saying so! I am wondering why you have such a strong opinion on capital punishment, since Jesus said to "love your enemies and turn the other cheek"? People can be punished and justice carried out without killing. The eye for an eye method of punishment is barbaric.


Thanks for conversing with me on these topics :thumb:
Rose