Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[TheRocketSurgeon]

And atheist wonder why Christians have a hard time finding respect for them, insults usually draw insults, I don't care to bring any here nor do I want to waste time doing so.

GC

What? I haven't insulted anyone

He quoted my reply, so I presume he meant me. I did indeed insult many of his ideas, and questioned his sanity (where he had advocated for the idea that making a rape victim marry her attacker so she'd be provided for, instead of a "burden" on her family as an un-marriage-able non-virgin, was moral), among other related comments.

[Minimalist]

Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

[Losty]

What? I haven't insulted anyone

He quoted my reply, so I presume he meant me. I did indeed insult many of his ideas, and questioned his sanity (where he had advocated for the idea that making a rape victim marry her attacker so she'd be provided for, instead of a "burden" on her family as an un-marriage-able non-virgin, was moral), among other related comments.

Oh I just thought he meant me because he said that in reply to my post.

[Aractus]

Of coarse I know what happens at death, why ask such a silly question. I didn't say God wasn't hidden anymore, so it's not my story, it's what you want others to believe I said, when I did not. God's not hidden from anyone who wants to accept Christ as their Savior, all one needs to do is sincerely seek Him and they will find Him, come to know Him and trust Him. For those who claim God has hidden himself they are trying only to fool themselves so they want have to accept He's real. I have looked at my beliefs about God sincerely and honestly and because I have God has revealed himself to me in ways that gives me personally proof of His existence, not doubts at all. So yes I can reject all others because I know the One True God and He says there are no other gods.

How do you "know" this GC?

I didn't say we are born with sin stain, that's you twisting what I actually said, (sin nature) there's a big difference. Again if you were the scholar of the Bible you claim to be you would know it says we are punished only for our own sin, not others. I did say we are to try and abstain from sin, I also said it was impossible for us because our nature is to sin. Christ was given as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sin, and He is our gift if we decide to accept Him. This is the only way to salvation, you can't earn it as you have suggested in your previous post.

Well whether you said it or not, the Bible literally says it. It says humans were not meant to experience death, but after Adam and Eve disobeyed God he made them mortal so they would die and every generation to come.

Salvation can not be earned, you claiming to know the scriptures should know this. Paul teaches this throughout his writings and Jesus himself said that no one can come to the Father except by me. Neither claimed that one must earn salvation, if we could then Christ's death on the cross would not have been necessary. Once someone accepts Christ as their savior then they have a desire to live a life according to His teachings and many of those teachings came from the OT.

Ah the dispensationalist view point. Basically what you're saying is that the 'New Covenant'  is one that cannot be earned. However, there are plenty of conditional covenants made between Yahweh and the Israelites in the Old Testament, and they do require an obedience in order to earn the reward from "God".

The bigger problem though is that what you just said might be what Paul taught in the AD 50's, but it's not what Jesus taught in AD 29-30. So I would ask you to back up the 'Salvation Gospel' claim using the synoptic gospels if you can?

You are grasping at straws now or you're showing ignorance of the Bible. We do not have to pay a price for Adam and Eve's sin, the Bible is explicit about this, that's straw one broken. There was no magical necessity, it was a purposeful necessity, either that or hell for the sins we commit.
God murdering you, what kind of thinking is that, IMO it's absolutely ridiculous. Christ's blood has paid for all, if you do not accept the payment then you will not receive the gift. How is it someone as smart as you can't see the truth God presents through the Bible.

He might be ignorant of the Bible but I am not. I disagree with you - after Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God asserts his authority to be the judge of all mankind. Before that he wasn't going to judge anyone. So if you believe that God passes judgement on people when they die, then you effectively do believe that God's still following the Adamic covenant (that's the one where he says he will judge mankind). Genesis 3:16-19.

I didn't say we haven't done good things and you know I wasn't advocating such. As for prisoners well we have gone overboard and need to back off on somethings, but that's a discussion for another thread. The depravity I see is such as child porn and slavery, there are more children and women in slavery today than any time in the past. Homosexual marriage, people living together instead of marrying and making a commitment to each other, divorce at an all time high, kids killing each other and teachers, a country wealthy enough to feed all it's own people and many across the world yet greed keeps it from happening, I could write much more but I believe you see what I'm saying.

The problem GC isn't that those aren't valid issues - they are. The problem is that Christianity is not the solution to those issues. It's not going to solve the problem of divorce for example. And on that I would like to point out to you that the Biblical definition of adultery is someone who sleeps with a married woman. Essentially married women are only allowed to have sex with their husband. But married men in the Bible are allowed to have sex with their wives, with sex slaves, with prostitutes, and with unmarried women; and it isn't adultery.

God commands the murder of nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:7-19, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Exodus 22:19),

Deut. 13:7-19 These verses were for Israelis to punish Israelis, God wanted to keep corruption from false gods out of the people from which He would bring His Son. You left out verse 6 and part of verse 7 that states that this is meant only for disobedient, covenant breaking Israelis, they made a covenant with God not to worship false gods.

Deut. 17:2-5 These verses are also for Israelis against covenant breaking Israelis, again this pertains to the covenant they made with God not to worship false gods. You also left out the verses following verse 7 that says, you are to have two or three witnesses against the covenant breaker, one will not do. The witnesses are to cast the first stone the the rest of the village is to cast stones, this you left out was to prevent an injustice being committed against an innocent person.

Exodus 22:19 God wanted to protect His people who were chosen to bring His Son into the world from perversions and sexual immoralities, this type of perversion would be dangerous on many levels, one would be to protect the people from sexual diseases.

Do you really want to go down this route?

God instructs the Israelites that when they invade cities they are to kill all the men and keep the women and children as the spoils of war (Deut 20:10-14). But if they want to make peace, instead of killing all the men they are simply to enslave everyone and put them to work doing forced manual labour.

Deut 20:10-14: “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when Yahweh your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which Yahweh your God has given you.”

Why does Yahweh think women are property?

The Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbour’s property: Ex 20:17 “Do not covet your neighbor’s house. Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Sexual immorality is not discussed in Genesis or Exodus, and it's barely touched on Deuteronomy. It's not until Leviticus 18 that God decides to tell the Israelites what sex acts and behaviours are deplorable to him.

In any case there are three versions of what to do in the New Testament. The first is what Jesus says, and he himself says to follow the sacred Scriptures to the letter (Matt 5:18). The next is what James decides at the Jerusalem Council 20 years later, and he says that Greek Christians shouldn't have to follow the whole of the Law of Moses or the custom of circumcision but they should abstain from meat offered to idols, meat that was strangled, meat containing blood, and sexual immorality (Acts 15)

Acts 15:20 “write to them to abstain foods offered to idols, sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled and from blood”

And then there's the third version - what Paul says. Paul, on his own authority, disobeys the council ruling and sends out his own letters within just 2 or 3 years of it telling churches outside of Jerusalem and the Jewish territories that they can eat whatever is sold at the markets and not to question it (1Cor 8, 1 Cor 10).

[Mister Agenda]

I don't know how you had the energy to read that huge wall of garbage. Let alone respond to it.

And atheist wonder why Christians have a hard time finding respect for them, insults usually draw insults, I don't care to bring any here nor do I want to waste time doing so.

GC

Shouldn't Christians respond to insults by turning the other cheek? And Christians wonder why atheists have a hard time finding respect for them when they don't even attempt to live up to their own teachings.

And there was an insult within your reply where you claimed you weren't going to waste time doing so. Christians give at least as good as they get with the insults around here. If they didn't, that might be worth paying attention to, but fat chance of that ever becoming a trend. It's not like there's any supernatural force that can help them live up to the standards they believe have been set for them.

[Godscreated]

And atheist wonder why Christians have a hard time finding respect for them, insults usually draw insults, I don't care to bring any here nor do I want to waste time doing so.

GC

Shouldn't Christians respond to insults by turning the other cheek? And Christians wonder why atheists have a hard time finding respect for them when they don't even attempt to live up to their own teachings.

And there was an insult within your reply where you claimed you weren't going to waste time doing so. Christians give at least as good as they get with the insults around here. If they didn't, that might be worth paying attention to, but fat chance of that ever becoming a trend. It's not like there's any supernatural force that can help them live up to the standards they believe have been set for them.

There was no insult intended, I said I wasn't wasting time for two reasons the first is because Christians have tried and the second is because atheist don't listen and keep gouging until they get a response they consider an insult. So if I answered I would have been wasting my time , just as I have now.

GC

[Lemonvariable72]

Ambiguities and varied interpretations don't bother me -- it comes with the written word.

The big problem with the bible are the internal contradictions and flat-out errors written therein.

Another problem is the lack of any evidence for its major claims.

In short, the problem isn't interpretation, it's that the bible is horseshit.

This to be a bit more robust approach to criticizing the Bible. Level 2. Kudos.

That being said, very few claims of contradictions and errors actually hold up under scrutiny. 

Many skeptics study the issue just enough to support their conclusions and then ignore everything else. Then they blow the apparent discrepancy totally out of proportion.

But on the flipside, are the inerrantists who hold the Bible to be the literal, physical, magical word of God. Can't have two more ignorant groups of people go at it than these two.

Really? Because god says in Deuteronomy that a son should not pay for his fathers sins, pretty reasonable command, but in exodus he kills the pharoahs young son,

[abaris]

There was no insult intended, I said I wasn't wasting time for two reasons the first is because Christians have tried and the second is because atheist don't listen and keep gouging until they get a response they consider an insult. So if I answered I would have been wasting my time , just as I have now.

GC

That would be because your crowd usually does the tap dance, once forced to deviate from the particular user manual of what is supposed to be right and wrong. The gouging part is to get a comprehensive answer, not an insult. You fail to give that, since forced away from bible verses and into your own mind, you're usually at a loss.

[Godscreated]

@ TheRocketSurgeon

Godschild

---

There are no word games, what I'm saying is from scripture and you know this if you've studied scripture as you say you have. There's no threat either and you know this also if you are the scholar of the scriptures you say you are. As we have discussed, we are born with a sin nature meaning we are going to sin and man himself created this situation not God. This being so means we are bound for an eternal punishment, unless we find a way out of it. God provided a gift, His Son, to save us from this eternal punishment, this is justice and a gift from God. Please do not come back with a robber threatening someone with their lives, it's old and tiring. The person being threatened in that analogy wasn't in that situation from birth and might not have ever been, it took a decision from someone else to put them in a threatened situation.

---

 

"From scripture" is something that the Christians with whom you would fiercely disagree also claim to base their theology upon. It's disingenuous of you to claim that you have the only solid understanding of the scriptures when I, after having this discussion with you, will be unlikely to go a week before having another discussion with a Christian who holds an entirely different POV on what "from scripture" means.

You may run into another Christian with some different interpretation of the scriptures, but unless it's a Mormon or Jehovah Witness I will have no fierce disagreement with them. My stand is with God and His revelations to me, could I be wrong on some issues because I didn't listen, yes, just like many others. Some use the Bible for selfish reasons, like the wealth and health preached by those who love money and self, not God. Actually there are plenty of new age Christian churches that look for selfish reasons in scriptures to circle their beliefs around, so I guess I would have to disagree with them also.
Like I said, I stand with the God I know through His revelations and His Word. You act as if I'm trying to defend the Bible, well if this is so you're wrong, I explain
what it says when people try and abuse the meanings within the scriptures.

As to our "sin nature", man did not create "the situation" alone. According to your story, God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil "in the midst" of the Garden, where it would be a certain temptation to mankind. Regardless of what Adam and Eve did, in any case, it is ridiculous to claim that there is justice for me to serve prison time for something my grandfather did. It is an infinite amount worse to say that I have a debt that can result in an infinite punishment for something my grandfathers's great great gr.........great grandfather did.

 

Sure man created it, man was the one who chose to disobey God, it was man who decided to separate himself from God, this brought to man the desire to look outside of God's will for their satisfaction. God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden so man would have a chose. Surely you're not telling me that being a robot for God would be your desire, that's exactly what would have been if He had not put that Tree in the Garden, I know it's not mine, I like living in a relationship with Him and being able to choose. I now desire to choose the right things instead of the wrong things though I do not always do, it's why I'm grateful for Christ. 
Again scripture tells us we pay for our own sins, not those of others, so you're not going to pay for any but your own. So, you can forget what your Grandfather did, just be concerned about yourself at this point and time. Just trying to be honest here, not condemning.

 

---

Of coarse I know what happens at death, why ask such a silly question. I didn't say God wasn't hidden anymore, so it's not my story, it's what you want others to believe I said, when I did not. God's not hidden from anyone who wants to accept Christ as their Savior, all one needs to do is sincerely seek Him and they will find Him, come to know Him and trust Him. For those who claim God has hidden himself they are trying only to fool themselves so they want have to accept He's real. I have looked at my beliefs about God sincerely and honestly and because I have God has revealed himself to me in ways that gives me personally proof of His existence, not doubts at all. So yes I can reject all others because I know the One True God and He says there are no other gods.

---

Again with the "accept first" stuff. You're saying "become a believer, then you'll see if becoming a believer is a reasonable thing to do". That is the peak of insanity, in any other context. Why hide at all? My point was that the Salvation Plan you speak of is unavailable after death, when actual, unquestionable proof  is finally available... prior to that, I must simply accept your word (and that of the writers of the Bible which you follow) that any of this is not like all the other cults on earth. It is especially the case, since I can see in your Holy Book a great many things that are absolutely contrary to logic, reason, and scientifically-verifiable fact.

I'm not asking you to accept stuff anymore than you teachers did about certain sciences that have no absolute proof, I says sciences because I do not want to derail this tread because of specific sciences, so let's leave it at that.
Now to the question why hide at all, if God were to reveal himself you would see Him as Moses did and have no choice but to believe. Is this what you want, no choice? Christianity is unlike any other religion, no other religion offers forgiveness without doing a thing other than accepting what Christ did for us. Of coarse God is contrary to man's logic, reason and scientific facts, He doesn't relay on man to know the truth, He has always been around to see things as they were and are.

I apologize for the condescending tone, but truly it is very hard for me to have a serious conversation with someone who doesn't understand evolution, since that is what I did professionally for the first decade of my adult life. You're trying to tell me that after all my work at understanding population genetics, cellular biochemistry and chemical genetics, zoology, physics, etc, that I should throw all that out the window...

I understand how evolution's suppose to work, I just do not accept that it's possible and it can't be proven to be possible because we haven't enough time to live to verify an animals complete change into another species, like T-Rex to a chicken. I'm not saying that you should give up or dismiss what you have learned from your education, I am saying you could use those things to look at the creation and learn what God has done. Many atheist scientist have decided to look at what God has done and many of these men and women are good scientist, they've chosen a different path in science to understand how things work.

 

---

I didn't say we are born with sin stain, that's you twisting what I actually said, (sin nature) there's a big difference. Again if you were the scholar of the Bible you claim to be you would know it says we are punished only for our own sin, not others. I did say we are to try and abstain from sin, I also said it was impossible for us because our nature is to sin. Christ was given as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sin, and He is our gift if we decide to accept Him. This is the only way to salvation, you can't earn it as you have suggested in your previous post.

---

I deliberately used the term to indicate the permanence of the condition "inherited" from Adam, and also to break out of the cycle of rhetoric you don't seem to realize you're using. New terminology to describe old concepts helps us both to look at the idea fresh. And many, many Christians do believe that our sin nature is a taint that was acquired from Adam, meaning that we are flawed from before our birth.

I agree that our "sin nature" is a permanence inherited from Adam and Eve, I've stated this before, it became a part of them and then it was passed down generation after generation until today and beyond. If you will, it became part of their DNA that no one has ever escaped, not even Jesus. He was born with out His heavenly or any powers and He lived a life free of sin, why, to prove it was possible and to be the perfect sinless sacrifice. We are therefore not tainted until we sin.

So God makes the problem (by having a will in the form of a set of behavior-commandments which can be defied, to our eternal detriment in the form of torturous hellfire), and then offers the solution, which you claim we are free to accept as a gift... only it's not free, since it's to our eternal torturous detriment not to do so. That's called a protection racket, in any other context.

How many times do you need to be told God didn't make the problem, man did through selfish disobedience. God's laws are His nature something He can't and wouldn't change. God said He was unchanging and He is, Christians have come to understand this because we see what God was doing in the OT and carried into the NT. God doesn't torture, no where in scripture will you find the word torture or anything that resembles torture,also, I do not believe in an eternal fire as punishment, what I do believe conforms to what the scriptures say. You do understand that your definitions such as "protection racket" and ect. are only your simple opinions that mean nothing as far as the reality of God and His Word.

Accepting Christ is the process of 'earning' this salvation of which you speak. I'm not claiming works. I'm claiming that the acceptance of the religious teachings of Paul and the Apostles (or whomever the writers of the Gospels actually were, since different Christian theologians and historians differ on this point; don't bother, I already know what you fundamentalists think about the authorship question) as to who Jesus of Nazareth was, and what I must do to "accept his 'free' gift of salvation", is the price. What you call "a desire to live a life according...", I call giving up my own free will. That is the price, and it is the most expensive thing that can be asked of anyone.

Accepting Jesus is not earning salvation, accepting Jesus is putting yourself in His hands to be forgiven and to learn about our God. Even if acceptance was a price it would be good because we get to learn about our God, something I believe is priceless and something no one could afford, so yes it's a free gift since it can't be bought.
As for your free will, the only freedom you have is choice of Christ or to stay in the condition you're in now. Outside that choice God can do with you as He desires, though by grace He does allow us to make choices everyday. You'll never know when God uses you unless you're a Christian and then as Christians God will use us and we want know it, but for me that's okay because I know it's a good work.

---

I don't have to tell you there's a debt to be paid, you know there is, it's the guilt that's being suppressed in your heart that creeps out on occasion to haunt you. You make the debt, why do you think you don't believe you need to repay it. You try that with a bank and you end up in trouble, right, same with God.


You are grasping at straws now or you're showing ignorance of the Bible. We do not have to pay a price for Adam and Eve's sin, the Bible is explicit about this, that's straw one broken. There was no magical necessity, it was a purposeful necessity, either that or hell for the sins we commit.
God murdering you, what kind of thinking is that, IMO it's absolutely ridiculous. Christ's blood has paid for all, if you do not accept the payment then you will not receive the gift. How is it someone as smart as you can't see the truth God presents through the Bible.

---

---

I left the above intact, as I think the exchange is worth noting. It's interesting that you keep saying I'm showing ignorance of the Bible, because I can't think of a single thing I've said wrong, it's only phrasing one mine that you seem to take issue with. I've already addressed that other Christians have a different view of Adam & Eve's "original sin" than you have, but fine I'll go with your version for the sake of this argument, while noting that those other Christians would say it is you  who lack the understanding of the Bible. That's the problem with arguing with you types; it's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall! Anyway, on to your point:

---

What does Christ's blood pay for, according to your version of this story? My sins. Why do my sins matter? Because God will torture me (or allow me to be tortured, if you prefer) in the place that He created for those who don't receive atonement, if I don't confess that I am a sinner and accept the payment that was made in blood, the only source of blood that is considered good enough for this atonement-- the coin of the realm being the product of his own preconditions.

You answered your own question, but I believe you know you did, so why ask? Your sin matters because God wants you to live forever with Him and you can't as long as you carry your sin around, God loves you, that's why it matters. God neither tortures you nor allows you to be tortured, you make the decision yourself, you chose and make your own punishment and God gives you what you choose. 
The only precondition is what we do, unless we can live a sinless life and not accept Christ we are bound for hell by our choice, in actuality we do not have to do anything, we'll go to hell. There is a reason Christ's blood was "good enough", as I stated earlier He lived a sinless life and He did it depending on the Father, His Father.

I "know" no such thing as having a debt to be paid. .... It is plain to me that I am a vertebrate mammal, a bipedal Great Ape, and that I live and die according to the same rules of physics/chemistry that operate on every other animal on this planet. So I hear your story and all I can see is the basic principles of a Mafia shakedown, and I've seen nothing in your reply that remotely suggests otherwise.

The reason I used the word debt is because you or Christ has to pay for your sin, if you accept His payment then you'll be free of the sin, if not then you'll have to pay yourself. Yes your body will die like all other animals, but it will be resurrected into eternal life, where you spend it will be what you chose in this life. No shakedown, your own free choice will be what either sets you free or binds you to the punishment you make for in your life. Don't get angry with me please, I'm stating what the Bible says, I think you know this is what the Bible says. Many here will believe I'm judging you, I'm not, I've tried to show that everyone who chooses not to accept Christ will be judged by God the Father and then will suffer the punishment they made for themselves in this life.

I didn't say sin was more powerful than God, He will destroy sin forever once it runs it's coarse. Sin is chaos and has no rules, sin goes against who God is, talk about lies, you've thrown out several so far, an intelligent person shouldn't have to resort to such tactics. What child's play tells me, you have found or developed a hate for God to benefit your desires, you have fallen short of His will for your life and put your own self in jeopardy of eternal punishment.

I say that sin is more powerful than God, according to your story, because most of the Christians of your obviously-fundamentalist stripe say that sin is something that God hates so much he cannot bear to be in its presence, which is why we must be banished to hell if we remain without the blood atonement. I say that makes Him pathetic, according to your story, since it means he lacks the power to wash us all clean regardless of our behavior while on the planet, and wipe our sins from us by fiat rather than by blood magic.

That statement doesn't say anything about how sin is more powerful than God, God the Father refuses to be in the presence of sin because of His Holiness and Righteousness. There is no blood magic, it was a purposeful plan to redeem us from ourselves. By the way it's not my story, from Genesis to Revelations the entire story is about Christ and us.

---

Deut. 13:7-19 These verses were for Israelis to punish Israelis, God wanted to keep corruption from false gods out of the people from which He would bring His Son. You left out verse 6 and part of verse 7 that states that this is meant only for disobedient, covenant breaking Israelis, they made a covenant with God not to worship false gods.

Deut. 17:2-5 These verses are also for Israelis against covenant breaking Israelis, again this pertains to the covenant they made with God not to worship false gods. You also left out the verses following verse 7 that says, you are to have two or three witnesses against the covenant breaker, one will not do. The witnesses are to cast the first stone the the rest of the village is to cast stones, this you left out was to prevent an injustice being committed against an innocent person.

Exodus 22:19 God wanted to protect His people who were chosen to bring His Son into the world from perversions and sexual immoralities, this type of perversion would be dangerous on many levels, one would be to protect the people from sexual diseases.

---

 

So, rather than seeing this as being instructions by God to destroy people of "wrong" faiths, you see it as (what was the term?) corruption prevention? It's genocide in the name of ideological purity. It's religious intolerance on a scale unimaginable in the modern age, but totally normal in the Bronze Age. It's Bronze Age tribalism written down by priests as being justified commands of God.

Why would God want to completely wipe out the nation He formed to bring His Messiah into the world, He would have had to start all over, so genocide has no place in this discussion. God punished His people to bring them back to Him, they were a people with a purpose in His plan and He wanted them to be a holy people. Many of those priest you speak of were guilty of worshiping others gods and leading God's people astray.
You must have forgotten Hitler and Stalin and now Isis against there own kind and Christians.

As for the "dangerous on many levels"... really? Is that why there are no Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, etc., today? Because they all got wiped out by perversions and sexual diseases?

Also... what  sexual diseases? Are you familiar with a dangerous Bronze Age STD heretofore unknown to science and history?

I didn't say sexual diseases would wipe out a nation, and I certainly didn't mention any nation other than the Israelites. I used sexual diseases because I figured it was something you might relate to, you weren't going to accept that God hated sexual sin. By the way there has never be a Palestinian nation, there has never been a people known as the Palestinians until modern times, they are mostly peoples of other Arab nations living in and around Jerusalem.

---

Lev. 20:10-16 I've added verses here, these verses show how much God hates sexual impurity and wants to save His chosen people from something that could destroy them, also this is a way of transmitting sexual diseases, they had no cure for them then, sexual purity was the only sure preventative.

---

They didn't have modern STDs of that sort. Look it up. Let's deal in facts, not speculation. Most likely the prohibitions against "sexual immorality" had more to do with establishing Patriarchal rule, maintaining wealth in family lineages, and breeding lots of warriors and sheepherders.

 

You're right I was assuming, haven't checked it out yet, will try when I'm not so busy. I disagree with your conclusion though. God wanted a righteous nation through which to bring His Son. There are other reasons God wanted His people to be righteous but let's leave that to another time, this thing is really getting long and I too have cut down on this conversation.

---

Deut. 22:20-21 Again God hates sexual immorality and if the daughter disgraces her father by an act of sexual immorality she is put to death. This is to protect the family name and more so the name of Israel before the nations around them. You also left out the verses preceding verse 20, they are about the man accusing a fathers daughter of not being a virgin because the man hates her or whatever the accusation may be. If the daughter was a virgin then the man must pay the father and remain the daughters husband for the rest of their lives. God wants His people to live honest and just lives to honor Him before the other nations.

---

See, now we're talking truth. Except it wasn't God who had the issue, here, it was the men who had control of the women in their society, and who placed great value on "the family name" (and of course, the wealth that went along with it). It's no surprise to me to find these verses in there about sexual and other behavioral control of the population. That you attribute the "Creator of the Universe and Its Hundreds of Billions of Galaxies Each with Hundreds of Billions of Stars" as having the same concerns over where we put our penises/vaginas that the men who ran those desert tribes would have... let's just call it "curious coincidence", from my point of view. To put it as nicely as I can.

See, I disagree with you as far as Israel is concerned, I can see that with the nations around them, they were still on the desert journey they hadn't even established themselves yet. Wealth was land, animals and large farm plots, they had none of those, well some animals to move their belongs around but they wouldn't have had much to move per family. So, yes this was of God completely.

---

Deut. 13:15 You've already brought this up, it was the very first one but I want to add something I left out in my earlier answer. God said the people had to be certain that men of a town lead the town astray to worship false gods. He also said to destroy the people and the town and everything in it, they were not allowed to keep anything from that town, it was to all be burnt. God wanted to keep His people pure to keep out the corruption of false gods because this was the people chosen to bring His Son into the world.

Deut. 18:20-22 Again you're leaving out verses relative to the ones you posted. This is a prophecy in itself about the Son of God and that the people shall know this prophet by his truths, truths from the Father. Then God says that the false prophet or prophet from a false god is lying to them and they should not be afraid of him because what he says can bring no fear to them. God also says that prophet shall die, He gives no command for him to be killed nor does He say how the false prophet will die.

Zech. 13:3 Verse 1 is about the second coming of the Messiah, this is prophecy, God the Father is saying He will cleans the earth and there will be no use for prophets again. God says if any man prophecies during this time he is a liar and his father and mother will tell him he will not live for what he has done and will pierce him through. God is cleaning up the world and will not allow such things to go on to corrupt others.

Lev. 24:10-16 Once again this is law for Israelis against Israelis, they are a chosen people (actually a nation made by God) for the purpose of bring into the world God's Son. God asked for respect from this people and they made a covenant with God not to do these things you complain about, things that apply to only the Israelis, why because they know Him personally.

Ezekiel 9:1-7 This is a prophecy, a vision given Ezekiel by God, this is what God shows Ezekiel will happen when the Persian Empire puts Jerusalem under siege. God shows Ezekiel that the unrighteous will die and God will save the ones He sees as righteous for a remnant to preserve Israel. To put it simply, God was showing Ezekiel what was going to happen to Israel by the Persians and that He would save a righteous remnant of Israelis to preserve the nation. If you had wanted to know what was actually happening in that chapter, you would have read the chapter after chapter 9 and discovered God told Ezekiel what would happen to other nations when the Persians came rolling through.

Exodus 31:12-15  Keeping the Sabbath in these verses was given specifically to the Israelis, nothing to do with the NFL, or any other sport played on any day. Since Christ we have worshiped on Sundays they were worshiping on the last day of the week, so tell me which is the seventh day, by the calendar Saturday is, we worship a God who is eternal and keeps no real calendar.

---

To answer your concern, God wanted His people to be holy as He is holy and keep His commandments to show the world who He is and to have a good nation to bring His Son into the world, this is a day intended for God and His people to have fellowship in a more personal way.[/hide]

 It's amazing to me that you think any of that is justification for jack shit. I am an American, one who values deeply our nation's commitment to religious pluralism, the notion that government shall not establish one religion over another. Regardless of the reasons why "God" (as you put it) and "priests and kings of the Hebrews" (as I would put it) wanted them to be "ideologically pure", it defies everything I consider moral and decent, and looks entirely like religious tribalism and barbarity. Justifying it in the name of a "coming soon Messiah" is just silly. You're telling me that God had to command the murder of how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people, just so conditions could be right in one tiny patch of earth in one particular year for him to send down the Salvation Sacrifice Plan?

REALLY!?! 

Only two of those verses came after Israel was established in it's land promised by God, so priest and especially kings had nothing to do with this. Like I said earlier the priest at times led the people astray and also some of the kings, they were not always looking after the best interest of the people within God's will. God never commanded murders, He set laws all Israelits were aware of, they had no excuses. These people had even seen God in the smoke during the day and fire at night, saw god destroy an entire army in the Red Sea. Feed them every day, bring water from a rock, they had all the evidence you say you would accept, yet they left God and chose other gods, so what makes you believe if God had given you or any of the people on this site this kind of evidence you would accept Him. They had their selfish reasons, why wouldn't you, from what I've read from your posts that's what you've done. Not condemning just noticing what's written. Humanity in the persons of Hitler and Stalin did what you're accusing God of, they were just men, God's the creator.

---

Lev. 25:44-46 Since you seem to pick verses out of the middle of several verses meant for an understanding of what God wants for His people, I'm having to show how what you're doing here is wrong. The beginning of this teaching starts at Lev. 25:35 and this teaching is about how Israelis are to treat each other. They are not to take advantage of those Israelis who are down in life, they are to help each other without taking advantage of them in any way. This is also how the teaching ends in Lev. 25:46. The verses you have pulled from the teaching is to show how the Israelis are to treat each other in contrast to how the world treats other people and even their own people. God gave them permission to have slaves from other nations for many reasons, but I believe the one that's foremost here, is that before the nation of Israel was ever established the world was using slaves everywhere. God was working through the history of man. Nevertheless the teaching here is how Israelis are to help each other.

Exodus 21:20-21 In these verses God calls for the slave owner to be punished if the slave dies, if the slave lives the slave owner is not to be punished. This continues in Exodus 21:26 if that same slave suffers the loss of an eye or tooth the slave is to be freed, seems to me God didn't want slaves mistreated. In Exodus 21:21 the word translated survives literally means stands, which to mean would actually indicate the slave lives. I know you will take it as you desire but the possibility is there that the slave lives.

---

I didn't "pick them out of the middle", I mentioned only the ones that are relevant. The version prior to 25:44-46 are about Israelite "indentured servitude", and the verses 44-46 are about "inheritable, permanent-property racial-based slavery", as I said. Trying to deflect onto the prior verses about what the system was for fellow Hebrews is deceitful.

The same is true for verses endorsing just how hard you can beat your slaves. Just because there were limits and regulations doesn't make it okay! God could just has easily have called slavery a forbidden abomination, not "regulated" it. Again, we see here the hand of man, not the words of a God.

Please don't minimize my Biblical intelligence I understand that the verses you ignored and are still ignoring are very much part of the teachings, you want nothing more than to make an issue out of something greater than the small parts you pull out. As far as the people outside of the nation of Israel being slaves, God was still punishing these nations for a multitude of things, again something for another time. Ever think in God's foreknowledge He knew Israel would take slaves and thus He set rules for the way they would be treated. 

---

Deut. 22:28-29 Surely you know your ancient history well enough to know that a young woman was only worth to the family what would be given for her by the groom's family. If she is raped then she will become a burden to the family, she becomes someone to take care of without any means of contributing to the finances of the family. This is why this law is given among others, the family is financially satisfied and the woman gets her husband that has to take care of her for the rest of his life, this was set up as a deterrent to rape, a man might think twice about raping a women he doesn't desire to spend the rest of his life with. Unfortunately men held women in low regard then and didn't consider what they might think of the man who raped her, though she knew that he was the only one she could marry, because no other man would want her, not in that day.

---

Um... really? A "burden to her family", who is better off with her rapist? Are you insane?
I agree with your assessment of why that verse says what it says... but wow, you speak of it as if it's okay.

No, I'm not insane and I meant what I said, women during that time had little to no options, the men of the time made sure of that, not God. If the father of the daughter could not afford to feed her then she would have been put out of the home, even though God told the Israelites they were to take care of their own. No man would have her so, prostitution would most likely be he only choice, something God didn't want either. So far God doesn't agree with nor like anything that's happened, rape, the woman being a burden, the woman kicked out and on the street and her having to resort to prostitution. So what's to happen with her, you got any idea, seems no one wants her. God made laws to help and protect, the man before raping her needed to decide if he wanted to be married to her or if it would be worth the money it would cost him, I'm sure this dissuaded many men. God also saw that the woman would be better off even with her rapist than on the streets as prostitute or something worse, slave in another nation or sexual slave in same nation, being raped over and over. Remember the man who raped her would have to take care of her for the rest of her life. Seems the better option and I would think if she didn't want to marry him she didn't have to, of coarse the burden would then be on her.

You also ignore the other laws-of-rape, which say things like if she doesn't cry out "enough", then she's to be murdered too because it's assumed that she was complicit in fornication, not rape... except we know that women who are brutally attacked are often paralyzed by fear, overpowered and rendered unconscious, or have their mouths covered so they cannot cry out. These are the kinds of things a God would know, but which ignorant and woman-devaluing Patriarchal male societies would not take into consideration, even if they did know it. Not the work of a God. The work of men.

I did not ignore the laws. You say if she didn't yell out enough, that's not what the scripture says, it says cries out, in the cities of that time people were so close that someone would have heard if she cried out, "enough" has nothing to do with it. Also these are betrothed women the scriptures are speaking to, in those days in Israel that was the same as being married and the scriptures in Deut. 22:24  and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. You are the one who is not paying attention to the scriptures, your trying to apply different situations as if they were one and that's not what the scriptures you posted say. 
The above bold is mine, you make this statement and seem not to understand what you've said, she's brutally attacked, why, to keep her quite --- overpower her rendering her unconscious, why, to keep her quite --- cover her mouth, why, to keep her quite. Do you really believe that the people of that time were so stupid they could not read the evidence and determine she wasn't able to cry out, get real, and yes they would care, why, because the women raped in the open country was not subject to death, if it were just Patriarchal they would have found a way to blame that woman too. By the way there was no Patriarchs during those days in Israel, they were all long dead. So yes these are God's laws used to do what I described. You are doing this to try and disprove the word of God as writings of men, I guess you have your reasons but, why is it that an intelligent person would twist the things scripture says to do so, you are ignoring how the scriptures apply in specifics, that's dishonest at the least, especially to your own self.  

---

In Numbers 31, God was taking vengeance on the Midians and He used the Israelis to do so, God is cleaning out the land for His people, this isn't murder it's war, the same kind of war many nations waged against Israel (which you do not complain about, strange). The women who were keep were children, still virgins and nothing was said in those verses that the men could rape them, there were penalties for that behavior.

---

Holy shit, dude, did you just say "cleaning out the land"? You know there's a word for that: ethnic cleansing. Genocide. It's NOT OKAY. EVER. Why in the fuck would you think I think it's okay when others did it to Israel?!?

I said God did it through Israel, He promised them the land and He wanted it clean of the evil that would corrupt His people. For God this is a punishment brought on a people that were opposed to Him and His people.

What's the point in keeping "virgins who have not known a man" if not for sexual conquest? Indeed, there are several verses which deal specifically with the men of Israel going to capture women to "make brides of them", which in no way implies a choice or consent on the part of the women!

Wives and servants.

---

In Deut. 20:10 The Israelis were to ask for a peaceful resolution first, if the peoples agree then the people of that city became forced labor, this was a standard of wars during those days. Again there is no mention of the women being used for rape or sexual slavery (if you actually see a difference in the two).
Judges 5:28-31 This is part of a song sang to the LORD, the verses you posted said nothing about sexual slavery nor rape, sure you know the scriptures as you profess.
Zech. 14:1-2 This is a continuation of the prophecy in chapter 13, this is yet to come. The ravished women in this verse are those that the nations warring against Jerusalem will ravage, this isn't anything God is commanding, it is what He sees happening in the future it is those who are against God will do. You have given a poor account of yourself as one who claims to be the best Bible scholar on this forum. What did you really do Google this stuff up, were you just being lazy. I would expect someone who knew the scriptures as well as you've claimed would have taken in all the relevant verses before and after the verses you posted, were you even thinking when you posted this stuff.

---

"This is a standard of wars in those days" does not mean it's something The Chosen People had to indulge. You spend all that time, above, talking about how they were special, had to behave differently than their neighbors, etc... but when it comes to justifying the most brutal, execrable crimes known to man, you say "well that's just how it was back then!"

The chosen people were obeying God... well not completely they did mess up as time went on. I was speaking of the nation of Israel being established as a land holding nation in the underlined above. The warring nation taking the land was to always give the people a chance to surrender, if they didn't then war was on. God wanted these Canaanite nations to fear Him and the power He used through Israel, He wanted them to respect what He was doing for all mankind.

The "Song of Deborah", a Judge (leader) of Israel, celebrates (in song!) a historical telling of the brutal things done to those who opposed the God-led (via the Judges) tribes of Israel, in the time before the coming of Samuel who finally granted their request for a king, instead of God's Judges. You should know the Bible better than that, instead of accusing me with such narrow straws to grasp at.

I know what the song was about and I also know that man spoke those words not God, there are many instances of man speaking in the Bible and the atheist saying God said those things, well it's just wrong and not very intelligent of those who do so, if people want to argue against God's word they should at least learn what is said within it.

I quoted Zechariah because it is a prophecy that specifically spells out what God will allow to happen to them, "in the sight of" the men of the nation, as a penalty for continued disobedience to God. Whether or not it's a direct command of God is somewhat irrelevant, at that point, don't you think?

You're right God was using this as a punishment and He set this in motion to punish to not just the Israelites but many other nations, those who warred against Israel and led them astray, God wasn't going to be deterred from His plan to redeem mankind. All these people had dishonored God and what He was doing and He was tired of it all, so He brought on a remedy, if only short lived, man is stubborn and foolish we seem to never learn, do we. 

Dead wrong. I thought I loved  others, as a Christian, just like you do. I didn't realize the amount of hurt that our views caused in others, because I was so myopic about the culture in which my faith-tradition sprang up, and what it did to those who were not a part of that in-group. It is only in looking back that I am amazed at how I used to sound, when I talked the way you talk now. You have no idea how much damage you do, in the name of what you call love. It is because I know it is unintentional on your part (and that of others like you) that I still bother to take the time to engage you on these subjects, even as you look me straight in the face (so to speak) and tell me that the reason  I talk about God with you is because I still (secretly, actually, because I talk about it but don't realize it's why) believe in your fairytale stories. You yourself said it several times, above, not realizing how condescending and ignorant such statements are. You won't listen to me now, I know, but in the name of fairness I have to keep telling you. All of you.

Sorry for offending you, I guess that we always hope there's hope, for me I know that's the case. Why would I do so, because I know for a fact that God is real, that He sent Christ to redeem us and that the promised eternity is something grander than we can begin to imagine.
The way you phrased your statement it sounded like atheism taught you real love and if you believe that then as a Christian you had to hate, there's no other way. Also, if you were as happy as you say you were as a Christian then why did you or would you look outside of Christianity, why?

And yet, the things I hear spewed out of their mouths, in defiance of almost everything I have learned since taking off the blinders I didn't even know I was wearing, back when I was one of you, are pure hatred disguised as love.

Here's another reason I say you must have had hatred as a Christian, you admit it in my bold above, you say you were one of us and then describe us in those words, that then by necessity include you. These are observations from your words not mine.

Telling atheists what we "really" think; telling gays they're "perversions" and sick and sinful; telling scientists that looking at the universe for ourselves is "prideful" and "man's knowledge". Trying to push their faith into the lives, societies, and governments of those who don't want it there. Endlessly.

I guess I do on occasion tell atheist how they feel, like I said earlier it comes from hope and what they say. Gay's are only perverted when they practice physically what they feel, same goes for anyone using sex for what it was not intended for, that would be between a man and woman who are married. Most science I see as good even great, I like science, however when it comes to the Big Bang and follows through to evolution I am in great disagreement with this type of science. Men and women who have the education you do and do not use it to look into God's creation I can't understand, now I do not want this thread derail by science so this is enough said from me. Christians have the right in this country to push their agendas and beliefs, as much so as any special interest group. I do not want gay's to have the right to marry, it's against God and nature, I say this to show you Christians have the right to fight against what they do not believe is moral, what they believe is bad for this country, bad for society. This is life in a country that brags it's a free country with free speech, as long as Christian bashing is okay all bashing is okay, now I don't see it that way I believe that freedoms have to have some limits for a country to survive, and that should be decided by the people not the court, judges are becoming extremely biased on both sides of issues and so I say give the decision to the people, we are the government after all. 

I've tried to trim down this conversation, I know it's still long, I think we have both made clear how we feel and we do not need to rehash things till they become completely boring. If there are things you feel you need or desire to say please do, thanks for the good conversation. Also pretty soon I'm going to be in my wood shop a lot, have a big project to do for mom for Christmas, this I do every year, this years is quite involved.

GC

[Godscreated]

@ Aractus

I do not want you to think I've ignored you, I've read your post, but, yes the big but, I haven't the time nor at this time the desire to engage in two long posts, I hope you can get some of the answers from my post with TheRocketSurgeon. Thanks for your response and maybe at a later date we can continue with your post. I have a furniture design running through my head, nothing new, just something I want to do and do a bit differently, though it will look much like it's predecessors.

GC