Post Biblical Morality
There are simple reasons to reject Biblical authority. Very simple. One above all others–the Bible assigns people to roles from which, by virtue of divine mandate, they cannot abandon. It accords thinking beings no grant to be other than what the Bible says they should be.
Now, a lot of people treat this in one of two ways. The benign way is to simply ignore these restrictions until such a point where the deviations cannot be ignored. For instance, in the case of gay marriage. There has been a sliding metric of tolerance leading up to the point past which those professing a christian character simply cannot go. They sort of make these restrictions cases of, well, in an ideal, christian world these laws would hold, but we don’t live in that world, and since we all have to get along, well, we’ll just pretend they aren’t there for the most point. Because, you see, if they took them seriously, there would be a lot of public executions.
Which leads to me to the malign way of dealing with them–extremist posturing. These rules are god’s rules and we ignore them at out peril. Such people condemn people who are different, rail against the establishment, and actually work toward putting these rules into practice, either through mainstream legal institutions or by joining cults who leave mainstream society and set up little compounds here and there. The leaders of such groups become right vicious little tyrants and a peak inside their precincts shows what would be in store for all of us were they to get their way nationally. Some go so far as to commit murders (god spoke to me and said kill the woman!), blow up private property, and generally harass anyone who disagrees with them.
Both kinds of folks feed into the periodic resurgence of religiosity that muddies our political waters and gets us all in a froth over individual rights, civil rights, and various other community issues which we ought really to have figured out and solved by now.
The question is asked how I can have the chutzpa to claim the Bible should be ignored. Good question. And I don’t say it should be ignored. There’s history there–some of it bad, some of it apocryphal, some of it outright fable–but history nevertheless. There are examples of law making, of civic institution building, of all manner of human endeavor we would do well to study, if only as counterexample. But as a moral guidebook?
Some of what Jesus said is pretty good. But it is when he is speaking about the nature of community and the worth of individuals that he’s at his best. Some of his life lessons are fascinating. As I’ve noted before, whoever Yeshua bar Joseph was, he was a pretty fair philosopher, and a lot of what he had to say was radical.
Iterestingly enough, when he made his claim about bringing a sword and pitting son against father and so on, he was right. Look around. Families often dissolve over differing interpretations of his words. His philosophy has been divisive. He wasn’t doing individuals of conscience any favors by giving them a program that would set them at odds with the society in which they lived. But to me, these were not the words of a deity telling us what he wanted, but of a savvy political thinker who knew the consequences of his philosophy. It was a warning–follow my teaching at your peril.
So most people claiming to be his followers don’t actually follow his words. They substitute belief (faith) for change. They get to go on living peaceably within their communities while feeling they have a good bead on how to get to heaven. That’s how many of them can support Bush and still claim to be good christians–because they believe, not because they’re doing anything Jesus told them to do.
My problem with the rest of the Bible, though, is twofold. One, it is based largely on the national epic of a nation that, in spite of the fact there is today a country by that name, no longer exists. Israel is not run the way it was under Saul and David, Solomon or the Macabees. The essence of that nation is long dead. At best, modern Israel is an homage. So the question I have is, what does the national epic of a country two millennia gone have to do with me? The answer is, about as much as Rome under Caesar does, or Babylon, or Thebes under the Seven, or the Mogul Empire. What we are today is part of the long, twisted road of history, but I am not a Roman, a Mogul, a Hittite, a Celt…or an eighth century B.C.E. Hebrew.
The other reason is that the human program advocated throughout most of the Bible is, to my mind, unethical and immoral. Slavery is a given throughout. Even Paul supports it, going so far as to tell slaves to be good and make no trouble. Women are chattel. People are stoned for personal insult (a son or daughter who disrespects their parents can and ought to be put to death; my question is, what if mom and dad deserve the disrespect?). Rampant, bloody nationalism is the rule–the modern day butchers in Darfour are the natural political descendents of Joshua and his band of invaders.
In short, the worth of an individual is sublimated by ideology, and that, we have seen from Columbus to Chechnya, is a horrid, ghastly state of affairs.
Jesus, by the way, said several things that suggest he felt otherwise, but they get mixed with a latent kind of demagoguery which may or may not have been grafted onto his words later. (I have always believed that the lesson of the woman at the well is not that her adultery and fornication were so bad, but that Jesus couldn’t abide her lying about it. Novel interpretation, I know, but he also spared the prostitute from stoning, and he treated Mary and Martha with as much respect as the men. According to Bart Ehrman, Mary’s status among the disciples has been consistently weakened by later chronographers.)
But very simply, to make someone a slave and therefore less than yourself–to treat a woman as something less than a human being (the standard for human being, being a man)–to be willing to slaughter your own child because of the commands of a voice in your head, unquestioning as to how your child might regard this usurpation of his or her right to live–to sort people, even their children, by virtue of a difference in their ideas and then condemn them to death for it–this is patently immoral.
Might we not recast the Bible, then? Not as a series of examples to embrace thoughtlessly, but as a compendium of stuff that doesn’t work? That maybe, along with the supposed lessons of proper behavior, these are also examples we must reject?
Implicitly, we do. I’ve said elsewhere that we live in a Post-Levitical World, and that not even most of the most extreme fundamentalists would assent to living according to those rules. Without actually saying out loud “That’s absurd!” we have moved on from the Pentateuch.
But maybe it would be a good, healthy thing to say “You know, there’s a lot worth paying attention to in the Bible, but there’s also a lot of real garbage. I wouldn’t treat a dog that way.”
I have a standard. I see people as people first, and accord them ALL the rights and privileges I expect for myself. Everything else about them comes second, third, or not at all–whether they be women, gay, different races, nationalities, or philosophies. I don’t judge based on any of these things.
Didn’t Jesus say something about a beam in the eye…?
I see Erik, you chose to respond to the call of the Christian God and not the other way around. You exercised your free will. That makes sense. May I ask, what criteria did you use make that choice over other religions competing for your attention? Why not become a Hindu? Or a Muslim? Did you experiment with other religions before settling on this one?
• Mark Tiedemann Says:
Did you not read what I wrote, Joseph is the husband of Mary (learn a little about Eastern culture). Also, you can trace the lineage if you want to spend the time (highly recommended).
Put all the quotes on slavery in context with ALL of what the Scriptures say (you went cherry picking again). Why are they to be obedient? Who wrote Ephesians, I Timothy, Titus? The same Paul who wrote I Corinthians. In Corinthians he explains why slaves should be obedient (God is in control, He will free you at the right time, if you can be freed then accept it, also use that time to be an example for the master and share the Gospel with him). Also Paul clearly states that in Christ (Christianity there is no distinction between slave and free men). The world of the time promoted slavery and if a slave was born again his master may not have been so he was not going to let the slave go just because he was a Christian (again, you are trying to blame God for man’s sin, it just does not work).
You want to talk about homosexuality, fine. I was waiting for the whole “homosexuality” was not even a word back then. Thanks for jumping in your own trap.
God knows how people like to play with the meaning of words (liberals are the best at it) so He decided to “describe” the actions of the people of Sodom. Let us look at what IS written in Genesis.
KJV Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
NAU Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”
Look at the language and then I will give you the original Hebrew so that you can see that you have bought into the homosexual lie. KJV says “know them” this same expression is used in Genesis 4 in regard to Adam and his wife Eve
KJV Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
NAU Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”
The homosexuals of Sodom wanted to have sex with the men who were in Lot’s house. You are trying to justify homosexuality but you have made a grave error, departing from the text and listening to someone’s interpretation of the Bible instead of looking at the Bible itself.
The Hebrew word is “yada`” which means to know a person carnally and when put in context (of the passage and the entire Bible) we see that there is no other meaning but sexual relations here.
So I have disproven all of your argument by showing what the Scripture says. I know that you do not like it but that is the way that it is. You are giving your interpretations and I am giving you the Biblical interpretation (letting the Bible interpret Itself). As I have said before, you will loose every time you do battle with God and His Word, so get used to it.
Erik,
You haven’t disproven shit. The FACT is that you are INTERPRETING the meaning of the divergent genealogies, I don’t care how you spin it. The FACT is, in neither one is there mention of Mary, the line is traced to Joseph’s father—NOT MARY’S FATHER—and if you look at the two of them, they are different people. Period.
As for what Paul said, I would hope you would agree that slavery—however you contextualize it—is immoral. So why would Paul even give it lip service? (It was, in fact, illegal in Temple Judaism, btw, so Paul wasn’t even being a good Jew, much less a christian.)
When you use only what is in the Bible to justify the Bible, you employ tautology. When you do that, you lose credibility. You have lost it. My translation is the New Jerusalem and it translates the term as “abuse them”—now, we have three different takes. Which is right? All of them or none of them? You have a choice. Just as you pretty much lost your debate with Erich over fear, the same applies here.
But it doesn’t matter, because it is implausible to paint a whole city full of people with the same brush, as is done in this story.
There is, btw, a historical context having to do with waves of invaders and the Five Cities of the Plain, but you’d have to look at other sources for it, which I don’t think you do.
I’m not doing battle with either god or his word—I’m doing battle with you, and you are neither. You lose over the genealogy—your “take” on that is an interpretation, and if you admit that one may do that, then the entire book is open to interpretation, which means it is not something that is unambiguous or clear. So you stepped in your own trap (why are you so big on traps?). If you can take a particular viewpoint of one part, then the rest of us may take differing viewpoints on the other parts, and none of us will be wrong.
But that may be just a bit too much for your filters.
Now that you’ve actually gone and made a fool of yourself, I am done with you. Have a nice life.
Erik:
Much against my better judgement, I’m going to try to engage on the verses in Deutoronomy about consensual sex and rape.
This time, pretend you are a judge in ancient Israel, charged with enforcing these laws. Let’s say a 14 year old girl, a city dweller, and engaged to be married to a man in another city turns up pregnant. Her fiancee cannot be the father, he wasn’t anywhere around in the time period in question. The girl says “My stepfather did it. I didn’t scream or resist, because he said that if I did, he would say I seduced him, and also he would just do it to my little sister instead. I didn’t want that to happen, so I let him.” Stepfather says “I never touched the little slut. It must have been the boy next door, I caught him talking to her several times.” Boy next door says he did talk to the girl, but didn’t have sex with her. Mom backs up stepfather. Younger sister is too frightened to say anything coherent.This is not at all a far-fetched scenario, ask any social worker.
My question to you: do you feel that the law as given in the OT gives you enough to go on to make a decision in this case? Remember that immorality must not go unpunished, the law demands that at least one person in this scenario must die a slow, painful death. Do you feel you have enough to work with in OT law to make the right decision here? Does this scenario cause you to wonder why such a draconian sentence was demanded in cases that, absent technology for forensic investigation, must depend on personal testimony and hearsay?
In our society, of course, claiming that the girl consented to sex would not be an out for stepdad - if DNA testing shows he’s the father, he’s guilty of statutory rape. Do you consider modern statutory rape laws an advance for morality, or immorality?
• Mark Tiedemann
Here we go again with the vulgar language. I would advise you to attempt to expand your vocabulary (show some education). By the way, I once cussed like a sailor and could not stop for the life of me. After I repented and became a follower of Jesus Christ I received the ability to control my tongue (James chapter 3 teaches all about that).
I was hoping that you would try that argument about Mary. Do you know anything about Eastern culture, especially during the time of Jesus Christ?
KJV Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
NAU Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
Read carefully, Mary’s father was Heli, as written in the books of the day.
You could have looked it up yourself it you would have been living during the times that the Gospels were written. When a woman marries in the East (especially in Muslim countries) her name is registered in her husband’s passport (today Muslims claim that a wife is property of the man, not the case in the Bible), the family registers in the husbands name, at first glance of a genealogy it seems as a man has 2 fathers but one quickly realizes that one of the fathers is the father of the husband and the other father is the father of the wife, who was given to the husband in marriage.
Also the word son can mean father or grandfather or great-grandfather. While reading Daniel it seems as if the kings come one after the other because it says “king” son of “king” but you soon realize that the second mentioned king is actually the grandson of the first mentioned king. Study up on the subject before you just regurgitate what someone else has already written incorrectly. The point is, Jesus is the grandson (son) of Heli (the father of Mary, who was married to Joseph, the SON-in-law of Heli). By the way, I call my father-in-law father and he calls me son although we both know very well that he is not my father.
Listen to your argument. Paul was not writing to Jews he was writing to Gentile Christians who had been converted during the rule of the Roman Empire (where slavery was practiced and encouraged). I do not agree with slavery and neither does God or Paul. Paul knew the culture of the day and the fact that the Romans were not going to free their slaves because they became Christians so he was explaining to the slaves how to deal with the situation that would honor God (allow Him to be in control, be a good witness/example to your masters). Do not overlook the fact that Paul says if you have a chance to become free then take it and if you are free then do not become a slave (you so easily overlook that part).
I have not used only the Bible to explain the Bible first of all. I have used real historical points of reference outside of the Bible to explain what the Bible says so do not even go there. I am glad that you are using the New Jerusalem translation (notice, translation of the original, I used the original). By the way, the word “abuse” in many languages is a direct indication to rape/sex but I have already made my point with the original language. If you have ever done any translating then you would know that when there is a debate over translation then you must go back to the original language (sorry, your argument fails again). By the way, the older men in the city taught the younger men how to be homosexual (same tactic that homosexuals use today when they try to get into public elementary schools). More than one city was destroyed by the way (because all of them were infected with the plague of immorality).
I am sharing what God’s Word says and you are trying to argue against His Word. If I were sharing my own ideas then you would be battling against me. Every book is open to interpretation (the wrong one or the right one). You have chosen the wrong one. Be honest, have you researched the genealogy yourself or have you just run to someone’s idea about the genealogy and grabbed his idea? I have done the work myself and it is clear that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see what I wrote earlier in this piece). Again, you tried to set a trap for me and then stepped in it yourself and are fighting tooth and nail to get out.
• Vicki Baker
Couple of things I would like to point out. If the people are following God then there will not be many step-fathers in the picture (on occasion because of the death of a husband). Secondly, the family was all together in protecting the daughter’s virginity (read the text). You seem to have left these two key elements out of your scenario. I know that you do not consider them major but they are crucial.
Secondly, these scenarios happen all to often today because of the fact that divorce is rampant (leading to numerous step-father’s) and people are not taught to value God’s opinion on virginity (but I will not get off topic).
I appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to think through what the Bible actually says (more than most I am dealing with here).
Thirdly, in God’s eyes rape equals murder and the only thing that can repay for murder is death. Rape should be a capitol offense but since it is not the innocent victims are punished twice (once by being raped, twice because the rapist does not loose his life). What makes it worse is the fact that many (if not most) rapists repeat their crimes even after serving time in prison, so more innocent victims are put at risk.
Back to our scenario, if the step-father knew that rape was a capitol offense then he would probably be less likely to carry out the crime. Preventative measures are always the best. Also, in the scenario, if the girl is in the city and cannot cry out or no one helps her then she is not guilty but the rapist is to be punished.
On a side note, during the time of Leviticus no one had DNA testing so that really could not be applied here. Of course you have to prove things. In OT law people had to have at least 2 witnesses to put someone to death. Some rapes do go unpunished because the rapist is not caught. So, there would have to be a trial and investigation of the events to see who was guilty.
Erik wrote:—”I was hoping that you would try that argument about Mary. Do you know anything about Eastern culture, especially during the time of Jesus Christ?”
You know what—that’s a fatuous argument. Very elitist. Most of the people you would like to convince know nothing about Eastern Culture, therefore those two genealogies would continue to puzzle them. It ought to be CLEAR, even to those not gifted with an education like yours. If one must be an expert in something they would have no normal reason (and, I would have to wonder, not much opportunity in most times and places) to be, then what good is the “divine revelation”? That is, in fact, the time-honored justification for priests and priesthoods.
Forgive my language. I am old and have little patience for thickness of wit or witlessness. You deploy your justifications well, but in the end I am not persuaded because I do not believe the way you do. I have been persuaded that Truth is not something set in stone, a single thing, locked in time, and mandated from heaven.
What I am finding interesting Erik, is that you will endlessly debate what I consider to be the extreme minutia of biblical references with everyone, yet you are evading or ignoring my very simple, albeit personal, questions. I can’t help but wonder why. I will repeat the last question in case you missed it…
“What criteria did you use make the choice of Christianity over other religions competing for your attention? Did you experiment with other religions before settling on this one?”
Is this not an interesting question to you? It is to me. You see, I don’t care to argue the existence or non-existence of God. That’s a non-issue to me. I’m not enough of a scholar to argue about science or the bible in depth either. What I am is a documentary filmmaker and as such I’m interested in people. Right now I’m interested in you. As I do when creating my documentaries, I’d like to know a little bit about how you got to where you are today.
If you think I have an ulterior motive, you are right. I want you to crack a little and let down the facade. Up till know we’ve only seen the “prepared” Erik. The Erik who is obviously well versed and has met all these challenges before. I’d like to go off into uncharted territory and explore the inner Erik. Are you up for that? If so, let’s try to keep it simple and brief and not rely on bible quotations. Just two guys “shootin’ the shit”, as they say.
Of course I’ll answer any return questions you wish to ask to the best of my ability, no matter how personal.
This is entertainment. The faithful attempting to argue with bible quotes. And getting trounced.
My only gripe right now is that you equate swearing with a lack of education. Swearing is a usage of the language, despite its vulgarity.
So, I say fuck your worldview. It’s skewed beyond the boundaries of normality, to the point of obnoxiousness.
By the way, Mike’s question about geographical difference is a very valid one, that you shouldn’t pass off as a loaded question. I’ve asked that to many, and have gotten many answers of admission that if they had been born in, say, Iraq, or India, or Japan, they’d be worshiping allah, vishnu, or be practicing shinto-ism.
Don’t give me that bullshit about finding the god of the desert. You’ve obviously never thought about it for longer than a second, given your readiness to consign yourself to mental slavery.
Don’t ever question anyone’s educational level, simply because they swear. I’m qualified to run an IT department for any corporation in my area, and frequently do. I swear alot? Who gives a shit, aside from you?
Erik, back to our rape case:
I think early death was a bit more common in the OT than now, so stepparents were not uncommon - more often a stepmother though because of high maternal mortality. Anyway the actual relationship is not important. For stepfather, substitute uncle, cousin, family friend, even priest - an adult male in a position of trust. You also have a higher opinion of the sexual mores of OT times than seems warranted by all the bonking of concubines, handmaidens, etc that you read about - I know you say it wasn’t authorized by God, but it’s not clearly condemned either.
As you say, forensic methods were not very advanced in OT times, so even if you had a trial what evidence would there be? So let’s day you have a trial, and the girl testifies that she had sex with this adult male several times, and he didn’t physically restrain or gag her, but simply repeated his threat about the younger sister. She has no eyewitnesses, the assaults happened weeks ago so there is no evidence of bruising, etc. The adult male produces many character witnesses who testify how responsible and upstanding he is. What do you do?
And what about your reference to needing 2 eyewitnesses in a capital case? If that applies to this case, then there is no case. This is similar to shariah law, which requires the woman to produce 4 witnesses in a a rape case. Basically, there are no successful prosecutions for rape under shariah law.
Vicki,
Laudable attempt. The trouble is, this is a case of the Procrustean Bed. The bed, in this instance, is the Law, and people must be made to fit it, regardless of circumstance. No one heard the girl scream, therefore she was a willing participant and must die.
(Yes, Erik, I know that’s a simplification, but that’s what it boils down to.)
The question that gets lost in this is still, by what right does the girl get condemned in any instance? Consensual sex…well, those were the days when women were not people, they were chattel—property. If our property disobeys or does something you don’t like, you get rid of it.
Mark, I guess I’m giving Erik the benefit of the doubt that he would be almost as horrified as you or I at the reality of Old Testament morality. I think he would not be entirely happy at forcing Elizabeth Smart (the Salt Lake City girl who was abducted from her home) to marry her molester, for example. But that is clearly what would be required by the Bible passage under discussion.
One of the points of the scenario I described is that since the time those OT rules were laid down, we’ve developed the concept of statutory rape. We consider an adult male who has sex with a 14 year old to be a sex offender, regardless of how much force he used or how the girl reacted.
I think Erik would side with modern moral reasoning on these issues rather than rules created for a much different society. However, he can’t admit it, because to admit that he is using his own judgment rather than an ancient rule book would deprive him of the stick he thinks he can beat us up with.
• Mark Tiedemann
In order to be truly informed on something one must do the ground work of study (claiming ignorance does not work with God). I studied the genealogies in context (cultural, historical, Biblical). Everybody has that same opportunity (especially today in the age of internet). The problem is most people do not want to do any work. They want to be spoon fed everything so they (like you) run to someone’s view on the topic, read it, and take it as “what the Bible says” without having the slightest clue what the Bible really says. Again, claiming ignorance does not work with God, especially in today’s age. Again, Doctor Luke (Gentile convert) was very well educated and knew how to research (he looked up the records/genealogies himself and wrote it out, allowing the readers to check his facts. For those who have not been gifted with education there are alternatives as well. There are others who have worked out the genealogy and again in the age of info it is not hard to find. Also, I am happy to help the “others” you refer to study the topic on their own. I see you are trying to shift the focus of the point once you cannot disprove what I wrote.
You have your beliefs and I respect that, even if they are wrong. Respect does not mean agreeing. I do not want to change you or try to convince you, that is God’s job. Plus, if I can talk you into Christianity then someone else can come and talk you out of it, therefore I share the message and allow God to do the convincing.
• Mike Pulcinella
As I have said, I have studied world religions. Once I began to study the Bible and became a follower of Jesus Christ I began to see the fallacies in religions. The best way to spot something fake is to study the real thing well. When I look at the core teachings of other religions I see the fake/false, man made elements that prove the religion to be false/man-made. Truth is exclusive, there is only one, so the rest cannot be right. When you look at the others compared to the Truth the mistakes become evident.
So, I am already settled on Christianity (Biblical Christianity) and while studying other religions I find that my choice was right.
I am glad that you are interested in people, so is God and so am I. I study culture (by living in the culture). I have noticed that just as the Bible says there is nothing new under the sun, people are the same everywhere you go (aspects of culture are different but the fundamentals are the same).
I do not have a façade, what you see is what you get. God wants us to be transparent and take off all of the different masks that we wear. He did that to me when I became a follower of Jesus Christ. I had a mask that I wore at school (language, actions, etc) and another mask for my parents and another for my friends and so on. I threw all of that junk away when I was born again.
I would love to discuss anything with you (that is descent of course) but I must advise you, I cannot be separated from the Bible. It is who I am (that is something that many on this site do not understand). The Bible leads every part of my daily life; the way that I think and speak, the actions that I take, the decisions that I make, the way I treat my wife and child. It is my existence. Here some would say “what would happen if we were to take away the Bible?”. Two things, It will never pass away (cease to be) and if I do not have a physical copy I have It hidden (stored) in my heart (memorized).
[Admin's note: These following portions of this comment constitute "preaching." These paragraphs are attempts to announce what "God" thinks or what "God" wants, as though there is no alternative viewpoint. In my opinion, such presentations are distracting to our discussions, which (though such comments might well be motivated by a commenter's religious beliefs) should be based on what commenter's themselves think. Such comments seem to invite an endless and unproductive back and forth focused on the authenticity of such claims. Further discussion of what is starkly presented as "God's" opinion, or any quotation to any religion's Sacred Literature to the extent that it is intended to be unquestionable on any ground, is subject to pruning pursuant to the commenting guidelines regarding "preaching"].
“so is God and so am I.”
“God wants us to be transparent and take off all of the different masks that we wear. He did that to me when I became a follower of Jesus Christ.”
• Mobius 1
The uneducated swear (spend some time with people in the real word). It is a bit of a generalization (I realize that). But for the most part, the more vulgar the language the lower the education level (get out and meet different people and you might see that).
Also, when a person cannot argue his point then he turns to personal attacks being very aggressive, ranting and raving (thanks Mobius for being an example for us in order to prove my point).
I gave an answer to the geographical location question. Sorry if you did not like the answer because it was the right one.
So now you have the power to see into my mind (interesting because God is the only One who can do that). But of course you think you know more than God anyway . . .
God speaks on the subject of words (just transmitting the message). God can change your foul mouth (He did so for me). I am glad that you are educated (why not speak like an educated person then?). Plus, it is not nice to walk out in public and have to explain to my daughter why people use such bad language or ask what does “explicit” mean Daddy? You want to swear, do it to yourself.
[Admin's note: The final two paragraphs of this comment constitute "preaching." These paragraphs are attempts to announce what "God" thinks or what "God" wants, as though there is no alternative viewpoint. In my opinion, such presentations are distracting to our discussions, which (though such comments might well be motivated by a commenter's religious beliefs) should be based on what commenter's themselves think. Such comments seem to invite an endless and unproductive back and forth focused on the authenticity of such claims. Further discussion of what is starkly presented as "God's" opinion, or any quotation to any passages from any religion's Sacred Literature, to the extent that those passages are intended to be unquestionable on any ground, are subject to pruning pursuant to the commenting guidelines regarding "preaching"].
• Vicki Baker Says:
Concubines were condemned by God. Plus it happened among the elite of society. Your average Joe did not have concubines so please do not overstate the point. Plus look at all the problems that those who had concubines experienced because of the concubines (Abraham, David, Solomon).
Sexual sin was a major issue in the world during the OT days (that is why God had to give the commands about sexual purity). Israel was a unique nation because God set them apart and gave them the Law for their protection. Generally speaking their morality was higher (until they were influenced by their immoral neighbors, so you see, promoting immorality is dangerous).
Also God lays out the boundaries for sex in the very beginning (one man and one woman in marriage).
I have more to write so do not jump the gun.
• Mark Tiedemann
Sorry Mark but it plainly reads that if no one hears her scream then she is innocent and not to be punished (you are adding what is not there).
Again you are generalizing about the times. Yes, in society as a whole, there was not equality but that does not mean that God made it that way. If you read Genesis then you will see that God created them in His image (equals before Him). When sin came into the picture man began to seek inequality. Again you try to blame God for man’s sin. Plus, the entire world treated women as property then (not that it was right but it is a fact).
[Admin's note: Part of this comment constitute "preaching." That portion is an attempt to announce what "God" thinks or what "God" wants, as though there is no alternative viewpoint as to what God "thinks" or "wants." In my opinion, such presentations are distracting to our discussions, which (though such comments might well be motivated by a commenter's religious beliefs) should be based on what commenter's themselves think. Such comments seem to invite an endless and unproductive back and forth focused on the authenticity of such claims. Further discussion of what is starkly presented as "God's" opinion, or any quotation to any passages from any religion's Sacred Literature, to the extent that those passages are intended to be unquestionable on any ground, are subject to pruning pursuant to the commenting guidelines regarding "preaching"].
Erik, thank you for your answer. I have another question. Was homosexuality one of the sins that devotion to God has helped you overcome?
Mike,
You are welcome. No, I have never had a problem with homosexuality. I did struggle with sexual sin before becoming a Christian. I still battle it today but the difference is I have victory (overcome the temptation).
Erik, I’m with ya there! I think we all battle with sex from time to time! I’m curious though, what do you define as “sexual sin”?