Primordial Sex--Eden as Allegory

[chi pan]

Uh, the point is, the bible advocates just about everything which it condemns, and so, it is a self-refuting text full of contradiction and hypocrisy. Suggesting it holds the high moral ground is pure idiocy.

have you read the whole bible? if not how can you make these claims? you cannot read part of a book, take a couple of sentences out of context and out of culture and say it contradicts itself.

[LarissaAnn]

no, though the bible says obey the law of the land that does not mean you can break God's law just b/c it's not against the law. also, if the law conflicts with those laws of the bible, then you are to follow God's law first. example of this can be found in the story of Daniel and the lionsu den.


yes i do believe this. there are athiests who are good people but i also believe morals should come from something greater than ourselves. if we are to decide what's right and what's wrong, it would be like moral anarchy and people would do whatever they want. that for all we know it's not wrong if you don't get caught.

Then we are back to square one. How is "rapists shall marry their victims" less of a law then no homosexuality? Aren't God's laws, God's laws? What if we followed man's laws that way? It's not okay to murder but it's okay to steal someones car etc.. We're still back at square one too in that we have no written proof that God has changed his stance on rape victims rights.

Why not be good for the sake of it? For example, which would your God admire more? Someone who chooses to do good out of DESIRE to do good, or someone who is only good because he told them to be so they can get into Heaven?

[chi pan]

How is "rapists shall marry their victims" less of a law then no homosexuality? We're still back at square one too in that we have no written proof that God has changed his stance on rape victims rights.

well the laws apply but the punishments were for that government at the time. you notice lots of laws back then were punishable by death but they aren't treated as such today even by christians. most of the laws back then had good reason at the time. they had so many laws concerning hygene that they had the best hygene of any culture of the time. rape was always wrong, but the punishment can be changed b/c women are less dependant on men now and having multiple sex partners before marriage is no big deal in today's society.

Why not be good for the sake of it? For example, which would your God admire more? Someone who chooses to do good out of DESIRE to do good, or someone who is only good because he told them to be so they can get into Heaven?

there are many who do, however many do not. many cannot handle themselves when it comes to the rules. also any morality enforced by humans can be thought as limited to only wrong that is punished. if they are not punished, then what do they have to lose? who cares if i download a movie for free online. who cares if i buy a copy of the final. who cares if i take something off a store shelf when no one's looking. see what i mean? in religion, you can say "God cares." God cares about what you do even if other people don't notice.
your second point is a good one. i believe those who only do good just for reward will not get theirs in the kingdom of God. this is how i justify that.

[LarissaAnn]

well the laws apply but the punishments were for that government at the time. you notice lots of laws back then were punishable by death but they aren't treated as such today even by christians. most of the laws back then had good reason at the time. they had so many laws concerning hygene that they had the best hygene of any culture of the time. rape was always wrong, but the punishment can be changed b/c women are less dependant on men now and having multiple sex partners before marriage is no big deal in today's society.



there are many who do, however many do not. many cannot handle themselves when it comes to the rules. also any morality enforced by humans can be thought as limited to only wrong that is punished. if they are not punished, then what do they have to lose? who cares if i download a movie for free online. who cares if i buy a copy of the final. who cares if i take something off a store shelf when no one's looking. see what i mean? in religion, you can say "God cares." God cares about what you do even if other people don't notice.
your second point is a good one. i believe those who only do good just for reward will not get theirs in the kingdom of God. this is how i justify that.

Where does it say in the bible that the laws will stay but the punishments will change?

Thank you, but I can't help but think don't most if not all Christians do that though?

Follow God's laws to avoid his wrath...which walks hand in hand with instead getting his approval regardless of the command? Wasn't Abraham ready to kill his own son just to appease God (even though God was being a jackass and just messing with him)...was that something Abraham really wanted to do with all his heart, kill his own son, or was he doing so to gain God's approval?

[chi pan]

Where does it say in the bible that the laws will stay but the punishments will change?

no it doesn't specifically address this. it does leave government the role for enforcing law though. and there were instances where Jesus said things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone." the fact is, punishments for law are for government, not individuals to punish.

Thank you, but I can't help but think don't most if not all Christians do that though?

christians believe a very wide veriety of things. they disagree on many fundamental beliefs. this is why there are so many denominations of christianity. many of them are wrong as they interpret the scriptures wrong. i try to look into the bible to find what it really means. many of the disagreements could be a result of the different inaccurate translations of the bible so it's good to look into the original hebrew text and greek for new testiment.

Follow God's laws to avoid his wrath...which walks hand in hand with instead getting his approval regardless of the command? Wasn't Abraham ready to kill his own son just to appease God (even though God was being a jackass and just messing with him)...was that something Abraham really wanted to do with all his heart, kill his own son, or was he doing so to gain God's approval?

you don't follow God's laws to avoid his rath. Jesus actually tried to say that you cannot follow the law to the letter so you should not make that your ultimate goal. your ultimate goal should to try to build a personal relationship with God and as you do that obeying the law will naturally follow. Jesus said the greatest commandment is "love the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." the second, "love your neighbor as yourself."
the story of Abraham and Isaac- this was a test of Abraham's faith. God told him to sacrifice his only son to him. the fact that he was willing to do it means he was faithful to God. God did not want him to sacrifice his son which is why he sent an angel to stop him. he was rewarded for his faithfulness. God will put us through bad times as a test of our faith, but he will never give us more than we can handle. he will always reward us for our obedience. another reason why Abraham was willing to do this is b/c God is the one who blessed him with that son (and much more sons later) so everything God gives us he can rightfully take away. and the whole way up the mountain he was hoping God would provide a ram instead which is what happened in the end.

[LarissaAnn]

no it doesn't specifically address this. it does leave government the role for enforcing law though. and there were instances where Jesus said things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone." the fact is, punishments for law are for government, not individuals to punish.

christians believe a very wide veriety of things. they disagree on many fundamental beliefs. this is why there are so many denominations of christianity. many of them are wrong as they interpret the scriptures wrong. i try to look into the bible to find what it really means. many of the disagreements could be a result of the different inaccurate translations of the bible so it's good to look into the original hebrew text and greek for new testiment.


you don't follow God's laws to avoid his rath. God will put us through bad times as a test of our faith, but he will never give us more than we can handle.

So yet again, no proof at all that god has changed his stance and no longer thinks rape victims should have to marry their attackers?

Besides you said:

Well the laws apply but the punishments were for that government at the time....the punishment can be changed b/d women are less dependent on men now....

Again your biblical source that says this opinion is God's will?

So many Christians can't agree on the definitive meanings of the bible because it's for a culture who lived 2000 years ago and irrelevant for our society today, also because there are so many contradictory messages in it.

This was a test of Abraham's faith

And did Abraham really WANT to kill his son? Or was he about to kill his son just to avoid God's wrath if he didn't? What if Abraham had said, "No I won't kill my son"

According to James 1:13 God doesn't tempt people....and even if he does "test" people, he is sure one insecure dude isn't he? Not almighty, all powerful, all glory, but insecure.

[Epimethean]

You are debating with one of those blind fools who plays biblical buttons, Larissa. Sometimes, he pushes the "interpretation" button; other times, the "literal take" button; still others, he pushes the "overarching meaning" button; and, when things get very grim, he pushes the "OT/NT separation" button while pulling the "you wouldn't understand because god is incomprehensible" lever.

Yes, chipan, I have read it, and taken two years of study of it in uni. It is a conflicted, confounded, corrupted text.

[chi pan]

So yet again, no proof at all that god has changed his stance and no longer thinks rape victims should have to marry their attackers?

Besides you said:


Quote:Well the laws apply but the punishments were for that government at the time....the punishment can be changed b/d women are less dependent on men now....

Again your biblical source that says this opinion is God's will?

you don't seam to understand. i said punishment if for government to enforce. that government and culture was very different from ours, therefore, laws and punishments of our government are very different from theirs. it's the culture and government that changed, not the commandments.

And did Abraham really WANT to kill his son? Or was he about to kill his son just to avoid God's wrath if he didn't? What if Abraham had said, "No I won't kill my son"

i actually said he didn't want to kill his son. did you read this? very last thing i wronte on that post.

and the whole way up the mountain he was hoping God would provide a ram instead which is what happened in the end.

According to James 1:13 God doesn't tempt people....and even if he does "test" people, he is sure one insecure dude isn't he? Not almighty, all powerful, all glory, but insecure.

your right, God does not tempt people. he sometimes will lead us into temptation, but it's only to make us stronger. you think it's insecure but he has a good reason for it. the more we are tempted and resist, the stronger our faith becomes. if someone is sheltered their whole life and all the sudden get exposed to the real world then they will fall apart. they won't know what to do. what God does is similar to giving a vaccine. though it will get you a little sick, in the end it will make you stronger.

[LarissaAnn]

you don't seam to understand. i said punishment if for government to enforce. that government and culture was very different from ours, therefore, laws and punishments of our government are very different from theirs. it's the culture and government that changed, not the commandments.

i actually said he didn't want to kill his son. did you read this? very last thing i wronte on that post.

and the whole way up the mountain he was hoping God would provide a ram instead which is what happened in the end.

your right, God does not tempt people. he sometimes will lead us into temptation, but it's only to make us stronger. you think it's insecure but he has a good reason for it. the more we are tempted and resist, the stronger our faith becomes. if someone is sheltered their whole life and all the sudden get exposed to the real world then they will fall apart. they won't know what to do. what God does is similar to giving a vaccine. though it will get you a little sick, in the end it will make you stronger.

Again I am asking for your evidence that God has changed his stance on rape victims having to marry their rapists, nothing more, nothing less. You've given attempt after attempt but giving no solid straightforward answer. It's either he still thinks as he did...which according to the bible he must since he never changes and never makes mistakes....or he has contradicted his own word and was mistaken, which is it?

He didn't want to kill his son....therefore that can only mean he was going to do so to avoid pissing God off, hence doing something only for the reward or lack of punishment which kind of walk hand in hand, not with the sole purpose of doing glory to God out of the desire in his heart to do so. YOU yourself said, if you do something just for the reward or avoiding wrath that you don't get God's reward....contradiction right there and that makes Abraham not a good follower, by your previous stance he should have grabbed the knife with glee and said "Time to go Junior!"

LOL I'm not even going to touch the God vaccine, your statement about God "leading into temptation" is no different from a girlfriend asking her boyfriend "Does this make me look fat?" just to verify by manipulation that her boyfriend finds her beautiful. It's a pathetic move.

---

You are debating with one of those blind fools who plays biblical buttons, Larissa. Sometimes, he pushes the "interpretation" button; other times, the "literal take" button; still others, he pushes the "overarching meaning" button; and, when things get very grim, he pushes the "OT/NT separation" button while pulling the "you wouldn't understand because god is incomprehensible" lever.

Yes, chipan, I have read it, and taken two years of study of it in uni. It is a conflicted, confounded, corrupted text.

Hehehe yes I am very much starting to see that. I find it hilarious all the veering off topic attempted answers he's given to my one question: Does God still think rape victims should have to marry their rapists?

Shouldn't he have a definitive answer to that he could have given from the moment I asked it? Shouldn't a religion have answers to such a question? Shouldn't God have clarified that by now? OTHERWISE that makes it an unorganized, confusing, mess...which Christianity is.

[Shell B]

Haha, you want a straightforward answer from Chip. Do you want a pony too?