A Question of Christianity, Hell and Free Will.

If it means not going to hell. then you can be assured that I absolutely positively mean it. Please forgive me everything that is considered to be a sin that I might have unwittingly done, including anything where the rules may have changed without me knowing.

 

I read it. But ultimately the husband is in charge, right? If he has a problem with something the woman's done, he makes the decision. He has the authority.

Yes. And this is what it all boils down to. Man has authority over woman. They have set roles, things they have to do based only on their sex. That's what I have a problem with. If one is given authority over the other, and this is a set rule, one is superior to the other.

Women have had important roles in the Bible too, that much is apparent. But it's a rather small number of women.

And in today's society, in the west anyway, this authority of men is fading away. The set roles of who can do what are gone. Does this development go against God?

Wasn't the reason the evils of mankind, not the celestial beings or their giant offspring? Mankind had already fallen to sin. I think the bit about the sons of God is too hazy to draw a causality there - you yourself said there are only possible interpretations of what that bit means to begin with.

There's something that bugs me about explaining things away by the context. If some barbarity described in the Bible is justified by saying the other cultures around at the same time did much worse, to me that only says "the lesser of two evils."

Think of it this way. There's a guy called Tommy who likes to bust people's kneecaps for fun. You'd think he's an awful sick bastard. But you see, in the same block there lives a guy called Jimmy who likes to torture people in his dungeon for a few weeks and then eat them. Jimmy has a lot of friends who do the same. That's what they do in this neighborhood. In this context, Tommy's an alright sort of fellow. However, from my own perspective, he's definitely above Jimmy's bunch, but not an alright sort of fellow.

I can see how the ancient Israelites may have been less barbaric than some of their neighbors, but it doesn't warrant putting them on a pedestal. Acknowledging how times change makes the Bible seem more and more human and less divine. If the idea is to always be a good person compared to those around you, there's no point in having absolute rules of what you should do in concrete terms.

If you compare the Bible, with its concrete examples whose core meaning is easy to get wrong unless you dig it up through extensive research, to something like Buddhism* where the core teaching is simply something like "be happy and try to make others happy", there's a big difference. Which is easier to use as a destructive force? Or become a destructive force through misconceptions, without even having a malicious intent?

*This is just according to someone I met, so if Buddhism is not like that, sorry.

 

If the savage is told nothing, how is he supposed to know what constitutes for a "pure" life. He could be born into a society of cannibals, for example. Is he sinning then, by killing and eating other humans?

 

A lucky guess?

 

BS mate, we time after time, qouted the Bible for saying women are inferior to men, and you dodge out of it, we even have direct qoutes that says a womans promise meens nothing if her farther/husband says something else, yet you claim it dosn't actually meen that a woman is below a man.
As for science, you and the rest of christianity are mainly does who have ignored it, you made up wild ideas of creative periodes and wrong translations and so on, to try to explain stuff like earth being a tat bit older then the biblic earth and things like the Evolution theory.
every time your bible dosn't fit you, i get one out of tree standard replies from you.

"your not reading it in context"
"does rules dosn't realy apply"
"it says something else on the original language"

The last one is the worst, espacially in the case of weather or not a pig may be eaten, becouse we have a people who still today read does exact rules, handed to them from Moses, on the same language as then, and they would never eat pig. they are called the jews. this fact ou can try and let sink in, or you can try, the rules dosn't apply or wrong context. it dosn't mather, the fact that a whole religion, much older then yours get the same meaning out of that passage as I, I would say favor my way of undestanding it.

 

@HB:
If you really mean it, and you honestly believe that Jesus is real and can forgive you of your sins (i.e. He is God and has that authority),then yes, that's all there is to it. You don't have to go to church on a regular basis. It's better if you do, but you don't have to. You don't have to give to the church. It's better if you do, but you don't have to. You don't have to live a perfect life. It's better if you do, but you don't have to. If you really mean it, and honestly believe that Jesus can save your eternal soul, then you are not guaranteed of Heaven. This life isn't going to get easier, by the way, you'll just be able to handle things better if you lean on God.

@Susipaisti:

He can't reneg an agreement she made unless it was made to God. If she gives her word to do something that is legal and appropriate, her husband can't take it back.

Again, wrong. The presedent has authority over a lot of things, especially every single man and woman in the armed services. Does that make him inherrantly better than them? No, it just means he has final authority.

The two are linked. That's why they're right there next to eachother. It isn't like 1/2 a chapter and 100 years go by between this and God deciding there needed to be a flood. It's the next sentence.

Here, I'll agree with you to some extent. God's laws are given relative to the people in question, which is why He told the Jews not to eat pork, it wasn't safe for them. But the basic morality behind them doesn't change. God wanted His people to be safe, so He gave them laws to keep them safe. God didn't want His people killing without cause, so He told them not to commit murder. If you can show me the reason God told the Jews and early christians not to be homosexual, and then show me that that reason no longer applies, then I will agree with you. The problem is, He told the christians not to be homosexual in a society that was even more accepting of it than we are today, the Greeks.

There's also a big difference in the results. How many people in the world today are told to just 'be happy', whether by Buddhists or Taoists or commercials or tv or their government? How many of them are happy? How many of them look at those saying 'be happy and make others happy' and ask 'How?'. The truth is anything that is going to do more than give vague generalities has to get into the nitty-gritty and that means giving lessons in context. Would I like all Bibles to come with a simple 'here's what this means to you today and why' section? Sure, and may of them do come with things like that. But that doesn't mean the Bible is any less right.

@Chimera:
As I said before, because God reveils the basics to us all through our conscience. Everyone has some sense of right and wrong. Whether they choose to follow it or forget it is up to them.

@Equester:

No, you misinterpreted quotations and I cleared them up. If you think I'm wrong, then show me how I'm wrong, don't say I dodged an issue that I took head on. I addressed these topics and showed you that you had made mistakes, common mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless. If you think otherwise, show it.

I'll admit that the Catholic Church has a long history of disagreeing with sceince, but the Bible doesn't, and nor do I.

These aren't wild ideas any more than that Isaac Newton's 'wild theory' about gravity. For a long time it went unexplained for whatever reason, then someone came along and took a good, long, hard look at it and figured out the truth, as much as they could at least. If you think archeology is full of BS, then say so, but then who's ignoring the evidence. If you think these experts are making up stuff to try and change the meaning of the Bible, then show other experts that disagree with them. There are plenty of intelligent and/or powerful people who don't like the Bible and have tried to prove it wrong. If someone made a substantial translation error, or falsified claims about Ephesus in Paul's time, I'm sure there are experts out there crying it to high heaven. If not, then it seems pretty safe to assume that these people who have spent their lives studying history may know what they're talking about. If you want to ignore them, then admit that's just what you're doing.

They also refuse to drive cars on the Sabbath. Find me somewhere where it says windmills must be shut down on the Sabbath. Those that follow the letter of the law do so blindly, without thinking, and most of what they follow isn't even God's law, it is the religious leaders' law. Since God never told them to stop, they haven't. God told Luke, instead, and they were supposed to listen to him, but they didn't.

Then show me that you are reading it in context.

Then show me that I'm wrong.

Again, show me that I'm wrong.

In the end it comes down to this:
1.) You bring up a problem.
2.) I clear it up because you made a mistake of some kind (usually context, but not always)
3.) You say that it doesn't matter because you interpretted it this way and that's all that matters to you. You say things like, 'Context doesn't matter' when it clearly does or 'God can't change things He's set up' when clearly He can or you ignore the original language and talk of poor translations entirely. You haven't even claimed it doesn't matter.

I've refuted every single claim of problems you've made. If you think I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong. If you have other, new problems, bring them up. But don't beat a dead horse and then say I'm not allowed to refute your arguements.

[ October 13, 2006, 21:22: Message edited by: NOG (No Other Gods) ]

 

Sorry mate but you have never cleared up the places where the bible says a womans promise dosn't count if he husband/farther dosnt agree.
you still havent cleared out the bibles acceptence of slavery.

you still havent cleared out the whole issue of the old testemony, as far as i can see you get to pick and choose what rules apply and which dosnt.
thirdly how is your context better then mine, if you say you can read the bible for it words but has to interpertate whats the meaning hidden behind the words, then i fail to see what makes your interpertation better then mine.

Thirdly archeologies have only found proofs of some people from the bible have existed, not that they actually performed miracles.
Archeology is a hard science, since you are often left with very little clues and can only do guesses to what has taken place. And i think i mentioned it earlier, but in case you misted it, i study archeology with greece/rome as my speciale at the university of copenhagen.

oh and it seems you follow gods word blindly when it comes to discriminating.

 

This is only for promises before God, which would be serious and binding things. This isn't the everyday 'I'll pay you back, I promise' kind of thing. What it means is that a woman needs to consult her husband before making drastic, lifechanging decissions that will impact him as much as her.

So the Jews had stricter terms on voluntary servitude. It was the law for the nation of Israel. God never said it was sinful not to own slaves, or to condemn slavery. In fact, in the new testament, God tells slaves to do all they can to buy their freedom. This means legally, without breaking the laws they were living under at the time (Roman). This means that God approves of people voluntarily working for other people, but they have to be properly treated.

Not really. There are a few issues at hand, such as God saying it is acceptable to own slaves if you treat them justly and it is only temporary. Saying 'We don't want to own them at all' isn't disobeying God. When God tells people not to do things because they are unhealthy or unsafe, we can tell when they're applicable and when they're not. There are guidlines, and they're logical and reasonable.

It is the original one. That's how. You seem to believe that context doesn't matter, that you can read anything into anything and so long as you can make any kind of support for it, it is valid. That is just plain wrong. I fail to see how you can continue to miss this, and this frustrates me more than anything because I have said it plain as day. To claim reading something in any context is valid is to claim that the text has no real meaning in and of itself and it only means what you want it to mean. Do you apply this to other texts as well? Do you think you could translate some shorthand notes from a roman scholar to one of his students and ignore the context and it would be valid and meaningful?

I never claimed they had proven everything. If I had claimed that, I would claim I could prove it to you.

No it isn't. A hard science is one where you can test and experiment with every theory. Archeology is a big puzzle with lots of pieces missing. Every so often, and with increasing regularity, we find another piece, and we try to find some way they all fit together, but there are a lot of different possibilities. Some things can be proven rather absolutely, other things can only be guessed at. This isn't hard science.

Good, have I been wrong in any of my claims of archeology? Have I misrepresented anything?

A requirement of proof to change my mind is not blind following of the Word. Anything else would be blind following of you. What you are asking of me is blind following, what I am doing is carefully considering the evidence, some of which is stuff you can't see, but it is all evidence that needs to be considered.

 

Voluntary servitude?
So, since it is not a sin, and it is (supposedly) voluntary, and your god approves:
would you hold slaves or become a slave yourself?

 

Well, the 'slavery' talked about in the Old Testament is voluntary. A person would sell themselves into service for a certain period of time, after which they were set free.

I would not personally sell myself like that, as I don't need the money and I would hate the work, but homeless people today likely would, and many menial workers today do the same work for only a little more pay per unit time, shorter time, more rights, and no right to be housed by their employer.

I would hire some if I had the money and the need, just like I would hire servants, gardeners, and maids today if I had the money and the need.

Now the Roman form of slavery was different, though still nothing compared to what we normally think of it as. This was Roman law and Paul tells the Christians to avoid it if possible, but not break such laws. A Christian should not sell himself into (Roman) slavery, nor should he own such slaves himself, but a Christian who is already a slave should not run away, but work to buy his freedom (which was quite possible at the time).

 

Did husbands need to consult their wives before making such decisions?

What is man's authority over woman based on? Why does he have the authority, instead of her having it, or instead of them both sharing it?

Again: is the current crumbling of this authority against God's will?

How about hygiene issues and STD risks related to anal sex, that can be negated with today's methods?

According to Exodus it's okay to beat a slave up with a rod, so long as they're able to get back on their feet after a couple of days.

Also, if the slave has a family, upon his release he can either abandon his family or remain a slave forever. Those are the choices.

 

No. It is assumed here that men have better decision making processes than women, which is not entirely supported, but hardly defeated, by modern psychology. Men are more likely to choose an answer when there is no apparent 'absolutely right or best' answer, whereas women are more likely to refuse to answer at all. Men are more likely to make decisions by themselves, considering the advice of others, but making the final decision by themselves, whereas women are more likely to make decisions as a group, like in a commitee. This is important because, while a commitee is more likely to choose the best answer from multiple right ones, it is less likely to choose the only right one from a selection of wrong ones and one right. Interesting stuff, and this is just a probability analysis, it doesn't go into the decision-making process in any depth. Here we see that men are more able to isolate factors while women are more able to integrate factors. I'm not saying all women are bad decision makers, and neither is the Bible, but I am saying that there is a difference, and it is noticable.

Here you'd have to ask God, though the above on decision making processes may give some hints. The point is, though, that someone has to be given final authority for snap decisions and deadlocks. There's a reason the Apollo 11 crew had one person in commmand, even though there were 3 on the mission. The one in command was not better than the others as a whole, nor were the others relegated to menial duties. Each had numerous critical functions and abilities, but when an emergency came up, one of them needed to have final authority, and it was the one that had shown he was best able to hand it, through experience and psychology.

Then why didn't He tell them not to have anal sex? You can do that with a woman, and I don't think it is called a sin anywhere. People have repeatedly claimed that there is no significantly greater risk of these things associated with homosexual sex in general than there is with heterosexual sex.

Yes, without modern medical treatment. They believed in corporal punishment, but any serious beating would have produced lasting damage in those days and they wouldn't be back on their feet in a couple days.

Only if the family was given to him by his master, in which case the family must still be the master's property, which could occur if the slave, upon release, decided the master had been good and kind and he wanted to stay with that master. Then he could, willingly, become a slave for life and be treated pretty much like a son of the family only without the inherritance perks. In these cases, I'd guess the wife had already made such a decision and it was standard for children to stay with the mother until they were grown.

 

Exodus 21:7:
"If a man sells his daughter..."

(also kind of contradicts the women are not property part, whichever that supposedly is)

So, would you beat them with a rod? And would it be okay for other "voluntary servitude" employers to beat their slaves?

[ October 14, 2006, 21:23: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

Can parents send their children to boarding school today? Can they choose what school to enroll them in? So long as basic standards of care (legal standards) are met, don't parents have more or less absolute authority with their kids? A father selling his daughter into slavery in ancient Israel meant she did chores for someone else, got fed by someone else, and six or less years later she got sent home again. The most significant differences between this and systems of foster care or apprenticeship today and in the past is that the father got payed instead of paying and the child wasn't expected to have been taught anything in the time. So, no it doesn't contradict the 'women are not property' because they still have all the rights accorded to any hebrew slave.

I am a firm believer in corporal punishment, yes. If it was the method that most worked for that servant, then physical pain it is, though there are better tools of discipline today than the rods of the time (btw, the rod reffered to here would not break bones or cause internal injuries without massive amounts of force, this isn't a metal or hard-wood rod). Just like disciplining a child (or military cadet), they should not be abused or excessively beaten, nor should this be done without just cause. Anyone that does so is breaking the will and laws of God just as if they had refused to release the servant at the appropriate time.

 

So, a father selling an adult daughter is still right, because apparently an adult woman has the same mental capacity to decide about herself as a child?
Also, Exodus 21:7 states she is not to be let free like the male slaves would.

Great. She has the rights of a slave, except the right to decide whether she actually wishes to "volunteer" for the servitutde, but she is not property.
So, how can she be equal to a man at the same time?

[ October 15, 2006, 09:48: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

Funny how the atheists seem to have done their fair bit of research from the bible itself. Were you searching for God, or just inconsistancies/mistakes to point out?

 

Bugger. We're back to the same vicious circle again. How can I "honestly believe Jesus is real"? This is so unfair! For having a questioning mind and not just accepting everything that anyone tells me (no offence to the missionaries on these Boards - but I really don't know you from a bar of soap), I am doomed to an eternity in hell! What a ripoff! How is that a fair system?

 

Umm... How about curiousity? Or some people reading the bible before when they were Christains? That is a very strange comment. I've read the Communist Manefesto right through many times, yet that doesn't mean I'm a communist, nor that I was looking for inconsistancies/mistakes to point out. Learning.

Harbourboy, what about a rotation system? On Monday you can honestly believe Jesus is real, the next day you can swear that the Qu'ran it's God's word, then prehaps on Wednesday you can live your life according to Budist doctrine? Then if you just rotate like that, you'll have a higher chance of getting it right.

 

I'm currently reading the Qua'ran or however you spell it. Not because I'm trying to disprove it but because I'm honestly interested in learning more about what other people stand for, their ideals and opinions. When I'm in Thailand I make it a habit to ask all Buddist monks I can about their religion, their values and reasonings behind those values.