Interesting quote from the bible...

Status
Not open for further replies.

SadDude87

Well-Known Member
#61
Do quotes such as this not show that the bible was written to coincide with what was best for the contemporary society in which it was written, opposed to being the word of God?

Oh, wait. It was in the OLD testament, which was flawed. Yeah, God didn't actually want us to use that one, he wanted to use the new one ... created by a random conclave that felt they knew exactly what God wanted kept in and what he wanted left out. Lol, give me a break.

I don't know how any rational person cannot see Christianity, and religion in general for what it is themselves...
 
#62
Just wanted to say "right on" to FoundAndLost1 and silent_enigma. I was raised as an evangelical, Southern Baptist Christian and have read the entire bible. I was raped at aged 15 by other 'Christian' boys. Naturally, I have a strong interest in the bible's take on rape.

First, someone accused the original poster of taking the verse out of context. So let me apply the right context. This verse comes from the written Torah, the inerrant set of laws given to the Jews (the ethnic group God loves best) to be followed for all time. These laws are stated by God to be complete and inerrant and never requiring addition, deletion, or change. These laws were given directly to Moses, who made no alterations. Orthodox Jews and Christian Fundamentalists still follow the Torah.

Second, some Christians decide to ignore the teachings of the old testament, but how does that make any sense? Either God is omniscient (meaning the laws He gave in the Torah must be inerrant) or he isn't omniscient (meaning He realized later that the laws were errant). As a Christian, you must believe God is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, as these are the critical definitions of God-ness. So, Anastasia, you can't claim to be Christian and then choose portions of the bible to declaim or rationalize as only "true for the times."

Now to the brutal rape I experienced at the hands of several good Christian boys. Although it has been 24 years since this happened to me, I am not free from it a single day of my life. I have nightmares, difficulty with intimacy, and sometimes overwhelming fear. This continues to be a HUGE factor in my suicidal tendencies. Rape is absolutely horrific. Just horrific.

All I can say is I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that I am not forced to lay in the same bed with my brutal attackers every night. I imagine the poor women who's fathers made them marry their rapists suffered TREMENDOUSLY, Anastasia, and you have no right to rationalize that they were so much better off to have their reputation 'saved' by the very man who treated them so violently! It is simply absurd! Ask any woman (or man) trapped in an ongoing, violent abusive relationship if you simply can't grasp this. You just aren't really accepting the fact that forcing a young woman back to her rapist should have been construed by God as a SIN. Sadly, God doesn't see it this way, which makes me wonder why.

The real reason for this Jewish/Christian law is that the girl's father would otherwise have been expected to provide food and shelter for his daughter, possibly for the rest of her life, if she didn't marry. Fathers of the time (and some even today) valued their daughters very little and couldn't be bothered to think of their well-being. It was far easier for the selfish father to hand over his daughter to her brutal rapist than it was for him to continue to support her. Plus, fathers of the time (and some today) were much more interested in their own reputations, and an unmarried daughter was thought to embarrass the father (again, sadly still true in some families today).

So, obviously, I completely reject God's point of view, and happily left the church in which I was raised. I'd like to think that *no one* would continue to defend this bible verse as somehow fair and just. It isn't. This verse about rape (and a few others) are what really helped me understand that either God is invented by humans, who then write their own viewpoints as 'sacred texts,' or God is just plain sadistic and mean.

I accept the former, and it has been absolutely LIBERATING! As a Christian or Jew or Muslim (the People of the Book), you aren't allowed to use your own intelligence and moral reasoning, but as an Atheist, I get to do this all the time! Try it, Anastasia! You might find yourself to be very smart and capable of making moral decisions, even up to the point of saying, "No way an omnibenevolent God would force a rape victim back to her brutalizer. Rather, an omnibenevolent God would give a law to Moses that said a rape victim shouldn't be stigmatized and then make it so through His omnipotence."
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
#63
The implication here is not that the woman is FORCED to marry the rapist, but that it is her priveledge to demand that he marry her. It also states that HE can never divorce HER, but says nothing about the woman divorcing the man.


Obviously rape was considered a sin, but this was the best way to make reparations for it at the time. I know it seems absurd now, but this isn't 5,000 years ago in case that escaped your attention.


Also, you are 100% wrong regarding Mosaic law and believing that we CHOOSE not to follow it now because we think it's too difficult or not socially relevant any longer. The New Testament is clear in its teaching that the law given to Moses at Sinai has been abrogated. It was part of a temporary, conditional covenant whose purpose was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus the law of Moses is no longer binding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#64
I'll respond to one of your claims at a time, Anastasia.

The implication here is not that the woman is FORCED to marry the rapist, but that it is her priveledge (sic) to demand that he marry her.

Sorry, you’re wrong about that one. In traditional Judaism (and Christianity), marriages are arranged by the parents through a betrothal contract. Women are never free to choose their mates. Your idea that the raped woman was allowed to assert her free will and make a marital decision in the event of rape simply isn’t true. Please re-read:

Deuteronomy 22:29: then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

As you can see, it doesn’t say that the father shall consult with his daughter, and if she chooses to marry her rapist, then he pockets 50 shekels. Nope. Her free will and choice just doesn’t enter into it.

It also states that HE can never divorce HER, but says nothing about the woman divorcing the man.

Well, of course it doesn’t say that, because women can’t divorce men. There was no need to say that she cannot divorce him all her days, because women are never allowed to divorce on their own anyway. Nowadays they can sue in rabbinical court for a Get, but their husbands can refuse and the women *have* to stay married. But men can divorce their wives whenever. This was true then and is true now. Scary, huh? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DC153EF934A15756C0A963958260
 
#65
Obviously rape was considered a sin, but this was the best way to make reparations for it at the time. I know it seems absurd now, but this isn't 5,000 years ago in case that escaped your attention.

Really? Rape is considered a sin? I would be most grateful if you could point me to the verse that clearly says that God considers rape an actual sin. And I don’t mean a verse about raping a married woman, because it deprives her husband of his property. I mean show me where it says it’s wrong to force a woman to have sex, period. And could you please explain why (if God opposes rape like you say) isn’t it in the Ten Commandments? He could have easily added Number 11 – Thou Shalt Not Rape.

As for your comment that it isn’t 5,000 years ago: No, it hasn’t escaped my attention, and your scathing sarcasm is NOT appreciated and I do not deserve it, just for standing up for my fellow rape victims. And, BTW, you’re wrong about even that! The Torah was written between 950 and 400 BCE, making it about 2,500 years ago. Regardless, the main claim of the bible is it is the infallible word of God, and it requires no update or further revision. Remember? You made this exact claim in an earlier post on this same thread! So it really doesn’t matter what century we are in, does it? God’s word is infallible or it isn’t. Period. Every verse in the bible should be able to stand on its own for all time. If it can’t, then it throws the whole text into question, as it rightly should.
 
#66
Also, you are 100% wrong regarding Mosaic law and believing that we CHOOSE not to follow it now because we think it's too difficult or not socially relevant any longer.

Awww, now you’re making things up! This is the classic Straw Man fallacy, and I suspect the other members aren’t so naive as to fall for it. I said nothing about Mosaic law being difficult or not socially relevant. Where did I say that? I said the opposite – that genuine Christians accept and follow the bible in its entirety, including the old testament, and including the parts YOU may feel are not socially relevant.

The New Testament is clear in its teaching that the law given to Moses at Sinai has been abrogated.

Again, you’re wrong on this point. Please re-read Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5:17-19, and Luke 16:17, as Jesus is clear that He has no intention of usurping any of the traditional laws, but instead will fulfill them. Now, Jesus did challenge a few of them, like his parable about helping a fallen donkey on the Sabbath, but he never challenged the ones concerning women as property. So sad.

It was part of a temporary, conditional covenant whose purpose was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus the law of Moses is no longer binding.

Perhaps you’re thinking of the Paul and Titus story, which happened after Jesus died. Paul wanted to spread Christianity to the Gentiles, but their menfolk had their foreskin attached to their penises, which God hates. Titus was Paul’s test case, as Titus had just converted and was very devout. Peter opposed Titus’s admission to the church, and cited Jesus’ teaching and strict Jewish lifestyle as a reason why. Peter eventually relented, but in no way should overlooking a little foreskin be construed to trump Jesus’ teachings to maintain Jewish law, as cited above.

And the Christians have never disregarded all the old Jewish laws - just a few that hurt the recruitment in gentile communities, like the circumcision and pork-eating rules. That’s why Christians still revere the Ten Commandments and Leviticus’s “homosexuality is an abomination” law. The Law of Moses is definitely binding on those purporting to be Christians and if you claim to be one, you should study and follow the old testament with the same attention and veracity as the new testament.

Anastasia, can you please offer something to refute my final statement, “Rather, an omnibenevolent God would give a law to Moses that said a rape victim shouldn't be stigmatized and then make it so through His omnipotence."

Any idea why God would choose to reward violent rapists with wives, yet doom rape victims to forced marriages? He could have easily chosen the opposite, so why didn’t He?
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
#67
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13)

"Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt. 5:38)".

"In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).

"whoever is justified by the (Israelite) law, Christ has become of no effect to you, and ye are fallen from grace" (Gal.5:3,4); "For all the (Israelite) law is fulfilled in one word, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal.5:14); "If righteousness comes by the (Israelite) law, then Christ is dead in vain" (Gal.2:21); "But if you be led by the Spirit, you are not under the (Israelite) law" (Gal.5:18).

Regarding your quote that Jesus did not come to destroy but to FULFILL the law, you are missing the point. Here is a follow-up to that statement which might help you to better understand what the intention of that actually was:

"he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery', 'Do not murder', 'Do not steal', 'Do not covet', and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbour as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10)". "The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'" (Gal. 5:13).


And it wasn't the "Christians" who abolished the law about eating pork, it was Jesus Himself if you remember correctly.


Now, as I stated before, God did not REQUIRE the raped woman to marry the rapist, but rather gave her the OPTION of taking him as a husband if she chose to do so in order to protect her social standing. Should God have forced another man to marry the rape victim against his will when he had done nothing wrong? The bottom line is that in that time, no-one would want to marry a non-virgin, nor should they be forced to because of another's actions. This would leave the victim childless and husbandless, a ward of her family for the rest of her life. It's not like people were throwing rocks at these women in the street, they simply wanted to marry virgins and a raped woman would likely go through life without a husband. Thus, she had the choice of marrying her rapist OR most likely remaining single for the rest of her life. Was God supposed to take away all free will and "ZAP" some man so that he would fall in love with her and want to marry her? Gimme a break.
 

wanttodie

Well-Known Member
#68
My personal opinion about religion is that religion and tribalism go hand in hand. People get tribal about their religions...look at the world today. Anything that divides is tribal, religion divides when there are two or more of different faiths. This kind of tribal mentality has to go for the betterment of humanity.

With that said, I do not really care about what the bible is saying because it seems a lot of Christians after a millenia long reign of terror, war, oppresion, murder, torture, slavery, heresy hunts, crusades and religous bigotry have finally matured and use their conscience rather than blindly following every word of Bible. The only group which bothers me more than other groups at the moment is that of Muslims.
 

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
#69
This is just one of the many horrible quotes found in many parts of the bible. Old and new testament.

Erm why should a christian justify it:unsure: it's old testament, christians follow the new testament.
So? It's still the same God.


Also, to Christians who only follow the new testament and ignore the old:

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

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

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
#70
This is just one of the many horrible quotes found in many parts of the bible. Old and new testament.



So? It's still the same God.


Also, to Christians who only follow the new testament and ignore the old:

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

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

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
Yes, but all was accomplished when Jesus died on the cross. As a matter of fact, Jesus' last words were "It is accomplished". That's what He meant.
 

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
#71
As a matter of fact, Jesus' last words were "It is accomplished". That's what He meant.
Is this your personal interpretation of what his last words mean, or is this stated somewhere in the bible?

Even if the Old Testament is no longer needed to be followed, we're still talking about the same God who wants everyone dead who works on sundays (Exodus 31:15), and the punishment for rape is paying 50 pieces of silver to the father. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top