On Deuteronomy 22

[Opti]

Trevor, it was their reasoning. I don't really care whether its true or not.

[thyme4change]

One thing I will say about Chic-Fil-A, they are consistent. The fact that they are still (to this day) closed on Sundays and have no problem saying exactly why, I respect that. I disagree with the Baptist tennants, but I can respect that Truett Cathy is sticking to them. I respect that a million times more than people who rail on one thing that has no effect on them, and then disregard another when there is money to be made. If you are willing to stand up and take the downside of your belief, then at least your opinion has merit.

That said - let the gays marry. Let's outlaw actors and actresses from getting married. If there is anyone who sucks at marriage, it is that crowd. If we actually care about the sanctity of marriage - let's exclude the people who are statistically worst at it.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 24, 2012 8:13:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

A widow was as good as dead in biblical times, Ms. Weltz. None of our social institutions existed. Life was agrarian, with hard, backbreaking farm labour the norm. Starving to death was common.

God is laying out in Deuteronomy that if a man's wife was widowed, his family (specifically his brother) was not to leave her to die. And if a woman was raped, the victim was not to be left to die. It would be a shotgun wedding. The rapist was to pay the father an enormous sum of money and care for the woman as a husband all her days. Given that "Dad" would undoubtedly have lived five minutes away, he'd have made sure of it.

These are laws for impossible decisions being made in merciless times, a part of the Law of Moses. The spirit of the law, as I say, is that a woman is not to be left to die. There is a moral obligation for somebody to take care of her.

If you believe that this law is not being fulfilled in other ways today—that a widow or a rape victim will starve to death—then I agree the literal law must still be in effect.

As for what Deuteronomy and countless other books say on the matter of homosexuality, I needn't tell you that both the spirit and the ad litteram are crystal clear.

Sorry Virgil, but I find it astoundingly hypocrital. When there's bits in the bible people don't agree with, they harrumph and sputter "Well, that was back then. Times have changed." It always happens, except when it comes to gays. Then they trot out Leviticus and say "See? Gays are an abomination!" Makes me sick, frankly.

[Reckless Roselia]

A widow was as good as dead in biblical times, Ms. Weltz.

That is still the case in some parts of the world, Vigil. For example in the rural areas in India.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 11:35:17 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jul 24, 2012 8:13:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

A widow was as good as dead in biblical times, Ms. Weltz. None of our social institutions existed. Life was agrarian, with hard, backbreaking farm labour the norm. Starving to death was common.

God is laying out in Deuteronomy that if a man's wife was widowed, his family (specifically his brother) was not to leave her to die. And if a woman was raped, the victim was not to be left to die. It would be a shotgun wedding. The rapist was to pay the father an enormous sum of money and care for the woman as a husband all her days. Given that "Dad" would undoubtedly have lived five minutes away, he'd have made sure of it.

These are laws for impossible decisions being made in merciless times, a part of the Law of Moses. The spirit of the law, as I say, is that a woman is not to be left to die. There is a moral obligation for somebody to take care of her.

If you believe that this law is not being fulfilled in other ways today—that a widow or a rape victim will starve to death—then I agree the literal law must still be in effect.

As for what Deuteronomy and countless other books say on the matter of homosexuality, I needn't tell you that both the spirit and the ad litteram are crystal clear.

Sorry Virgil, but I find it astoundingly hypocrital. When there's bits in the bible people don't agree with, they harrumph and sputter "Well, that was back then. Times have changed." It always happens, except when it comes to gays. Then they trot out Leviticus and say "See? Gays are an abomination!" Makes me sick, frankly.

Good point, Welts.

[weltschmerz]

Good point, Welts.
------------------
It NEVER fails.
I'm willing to concede that maybe, maybe, back then it was considered an abomination because they needed more people in the various tribes. But times HAVE changed, and we certainly don't need more people now. However, gays will never get the same consideration that people use to shield the unpalatable bits in the bible.

[Virgil Showlion]

The sacrifices were discontinued when the Temple fell in ad 70.

I stand better informed.

That is still the case in some parts of the world, Vigil. For example in the rural areas in India.

Indeed.

Sorry Virgil, but I find it astoundingly hypocrital. When there's bits in the bible people don't agree with, they harrumph and sputter "Well, that was back then. Times have changed." It always happens, except when it comes to gays. Then they trot out Leviticus and say "See? Gays are an abomination!" Makes me sick, frankly.

My explanation is what it is, Ms. Weltz. :-\

I can address specific objections to Replies #2, #11, and #28, and I'm sure Trevor will address any issues re #21, but that's as much effort as I'm willing to invest in explaining how my views are consistent.

The topic of righteous judgment—what the Bible has to say about it—is too detailed a topic for a message board. The church I attend offers two full-semester courses exclusively on the topic, for example. There's a lot of scriptural ground to cover.

I realize that's not what you want to hear. But again, it is what it is.

However, gays will never get the same consideration that people use to shield the unpalatable bits in the bible.

Nobody has "shielded" anything in this thread.

The Law of Moses was good and sensible in its entirety. The fact that various parts of it are presently being fulfilled (honoured to the full) by institutions that void the need for some of the physical logistics doesn't change that fact. It doesn't change what is right, what is wrong, who is responsible, who is to blame, what must be valued, what should not be valued, etc., etc. These things have been (and will be) constant for all time.

The assertion "NEVER fails" in your mind because you'd sooner take a bullet than change your mind on the subject.

[weltschmerz]

The assertion "NEVER fails" in your mind because you'd sooner take a bullet than change your mind on the subject.
-----------------
It never fails because I keep hearing the same argument ad nauseum. "That was then. Times are different now." Well, times ARE different now. We don't need to further progeny for the good of the tribe and to expand land rights. I'd like to see gays given the same consideration that rapists were given in the bible, because "That was in the old days."
Gays are just ordinary people. Just like me. Just like you.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Thing is, Welts? Rapists aren't given any "consideration" in the Bible. God's very directive that the rapist marry and support his victim is proof of that. While I agree with you and would rather see a rapist condemned to death, I fully understand that would also have bee a death sentence for his victim. Obviously, God knew this also. If the rapist is dead, his victim is dead. That's just the way it was. Nobody was going to marry her and care for her - she was no longer pure. It was a death sentence for her, too. Thank Heaven's, times HAVE changed and a woman no longer needs a man to depend on for her very life. So, obviously, the "sentence" for rape spelled out in the Bible is no longer necessary.

However, homosexuality is now, was then, and will always be the same thing - sexual desire or behavior towards a persons of the same gender. Nothing has changed in that regard.

While I agree with you that there is no shortage of hypocrasy spewed by some so-called Christians, I don't agree that this is one of those instances.

[Virgil Showlion]

Gays are just ordinary people. Just like me. Just like you.

What is ordinary has nothing to do with what is moral, Ms. Weltz, and what is moral has nothing to do with what is ordinary.

I think we've come to the same impasse the last six or seven times we've butted heads on the subject. Also on the subject of what defines "right" and "wrong".

We appear to be two electrons on opposite sides of a very deep potential well, where the tunneling probability is extremely low.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 13:07:39 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Thing is, Welts? Rapists aren't given any "consideration" in the Bible. God's very directive that the rapist marry and support his victim is proof of that. While I agree with you and would rather see a rapist condemned to death, I fully understand that would also have bee a death sentence for his victim. Obviously, God knew this also. If the rapist is dead, his victim is dead. That's just the way it was. Nobody was going to marry her and care for her - she was no longer pure. It was a death sentence for her, too. Thank Heaven's, times HAVE changed and a woman no longer needs a man to depend on for her very life. So, obviously, the "sentence" for rape spelled out in the Bible is no longer necessary.

However, homosexuality is now, was then, and will always be the same thing - sexual desire or behavior towards a persons of the same gender. Nothing has changed in that regard.

While I agree with you that there is no shortage of hypocrasy spewed by some so-called Christians, I don't agree that this is one of those instances.

The problem is people pick and choose parts of the Bible and then use those parts that agree with their own ideas to strengthen their cases and rationalize away those parts that don't agree with their own ideas.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I'm not disagreeing with you, Archie. I just don't see that happening here today.

[chiver78]

are we reading the same thread, GEL?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 13:17:13 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, Archie. I just don't see that happening here today.

The argument that times have changed so the man/wife rape/marraige thing no longer applies is exactly that.


"no, no, no, it's just this part that doesn't apply anymore...."

[weltschmerz]

The problem is people pick and choose parts of the Bible and then use those parts that agree with their own ideas to strengthen their cases and rationalize away those parts that don't agree with their own ideas.
-----------------
Yes! That's exactly my point.

[weltschmerz]

However, homosexuality is now, was then, and will always be the same thing - sexual desire or behavior towards a persons of the same gender. Nothing has changed in that regard.
--------------------
And rape was rape then, the same as it is now. However, we no longer force the rapist to marry his victim, and we should no longer denigrate gays. So they don't procreate. So what? We don't need more freaking people. Time to put that particular bit to rest, in the "That was then and times have changed" box.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 13:18:37 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

The problem is people pick and choose parts of the Bible and then use those parts that agree with their own ideas to strengthen their cases and rationalize away those parts that don't agree with their own ideas.
-----------------
Yes! That's exactly my point.

In my opinion the bible is a lot like Google.
If you look hard enough you will find what you want to back up what is ultimately YOUR opinion.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 24, 2012 13:18:34 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 24, 2012 13:17:13 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, Archie. I just don't see that happening here today.

The argument that times have changed so the man/wife rape/marraige thing no longer applies is exactly that.


"no, no, no, it's just this part that doesn't apply anymore...."

But we'll still apply the "homosexuality is an abomination" part, because after all...gay sex is icky.

[Green Eyed Lady]

The argument that times have changed so the man/wife rape/marraige thing no longer applies is exactly that.


"no, no, no, it's just this part that doesn't apply anymore...."

Of course there are parts that don't "apply" anymore. There are parts that do. Some things change. Some don't. That isn't difficult to understand, unless you just don't want to.

[thyme4change]

Of course there are parts that don't "apply" anymore. There are parts that do. Some things change. Some don't.

Does that mean God will still smite me for speaking in church and not wearing a scarf over my head?

[Green Eyed Lady]

And rape was rape then, the same as it is now. However, we no longer force the rapist to marry his victim, and we should no longer denigrate gays. So they don't procreate. So what? We don't need more freaking people. Time to put that particular bit to rest, in the "That was then and times have changed" box.

That's the whole point. Rape wasn't "rape the same as it is now". Rape is, thankfully, now not a death sentence for a woman. It was then - unless the rapist was forced to support her.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 24, 2012 13:28:18 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Of course there are parts that don't "apply" anymore. There are parts that do. Some things change. Some don't.

Does that mean God will still smite me for speaking in church and not wearing a scarf over my head?

You'll have to ask God.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 13:32:34 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

And rape was rape then, the same as it is now. However, we no longer force the rapist to marry his victim, and we should no longer denigrate gays. So they don't procreate. So what? We don't need more freaking people. Time to put that particular bit to rest, in the "That was then and times have changed" box.

That's the whole point. Rape wasn't "rape the same as it is now". Rape is, thankfully, now not a death sentence for a woman. It was then - unless the rapist was forced to support her.

And homosexuality wasn't the same then as it is now. Now all the cool people are gay.

[thyme4change]

You'll have to ask God.

Well, I asked God about gay marriage and he said "As long as they are two consenting adults who love each other, I'm glad they will commit."

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2012 13:36:32 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

You'll have to ask God.

Well, I asked God about gay marriage and he said "As long as they are two consenting adults who love each other, I'm glad they will commit."

Jesus, your gay hairdresser is not the same person as God.

[Virgil Showlion]

My friends,

The simple fact of the matter is that it is possible to apply laws ad litteram without discerning the spirit of the law. There is such a thing as a Pharisaical attitude. There is such a thing as ignoring the plank for sake of the mote. The Bible provides many examples. As I say, there are entire courses on what the Bible has to say on the subject.

You ladies and gentlemen are looking for a one-size-fits-all "yes, we must obey every last law, stature, and ordinance to the physical letter" or "no, the law has all been done away with in it's entirety". I have neither to give you.

It does not mean that the law is "a matter of interpretation". It does not mean that you can cherry pick what is right and what is wrong. It means that there is a framework laid out in the Bible for how to exercise righteous judgment, and it requires diligent study. What does God call good and evil? What purpose do the statutes in the various books of the Divine Law, and the Law of Moses serve? Where are they corroborated? What is the big picture? How did the patriarchs and apostles, and Christ himself, deal with contentious matters of the Law? Why do we obey the Sabbath? What does it symbolize? Why must we not covet? Why must we not murder others? If we get our wife to murder a man, are we guiltless because the Bible doesn't explicitly say "Thou shalt not instruct thy wife to murder."?

The Law has a purpose.

If you want to take refuge in "it's a cop out; case closed; next issue", be my guest. It's Weltz' patented "NEVER fails" solution, and truly it will never fail, because I can guarantee you that anyone who claims either that the law is dead and buried or that there is no spirit of law to supersede the letter of law is just whistlin' in the breeze. If you demand that the solution be one or the other, you're out of luck. It does not change the nature of the issue.

[Deleted]

I agree with that post 100%, Virgil. I beleive the spirit of God's message is to love. And in that spirit I beleive there is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex who love eachother.

[chiver78]

Jul 24, 2012 13:32:34 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

And rape was rape then, the same as it is now. However, we no longer force the rapist to marry his victim, and we should no longer denigrate gays. So they don't procreate. So what? We don't need more freaking people. Time to put that particular bit to rest, in the "That was then and times have changed" box.

That's the whole point. Rape wasn't "rape the same as it is now". Rape is, thankfully, now not a death sentence for a woman. It was then - unless the rapist was forced to support her.

rape is still violation of a victim, male or female. that hasn't changed.

[chiver78]

Jul 24, 2012 13:39:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

My friends,

The simple fact of the matter is that it is possible to apply laws ad litteram without discerning the spirit of the law. There is such a thing as a Pharisaical attitude. There is such a thing as ignoring the plank for sake of the mote. The Bible provides many examples. As I say, there are entire courses on what the Bible has to say on the subject.

You ladies and gentlemen are looking for a one-size-fits-all "yes, we must obey every last law, stature, and ordinance to the physical letter" or "no, the law has all been done away with in it's entirety". I have neither to give you.

It does not mean that the law is "a matter of interpretation". It does not mean that you can cherry pick what is right and what is wrong. It means that there is a framework laid out in the Bible for how to exercise righteous judgment, and it requires diligent study. What does God call good and evil? What purpose do the statutes in the various books of the Divine Law, and the Law of Moses serve? Where are they corroborated? What is the big picture? How did the patriarchs and apostles, and Christ himself, deal with contentious matters of the Law? Why do we obey the Sabbath? What does it symbolize? Why must we not covet? Why must we not murder others? If we get our wife to murder a man, are we guiltless because the Bible doesn't explicitly say "Thou shalt not instruct thy wife to murder."?

The Law has a purpose.

If you want to take refuge in "it's a cop out; case closed; next issue", be my guest. It's Weltz' patented "NEVER fails" solution, and truly it will never fail, because I can guarantee you that anyone who claims either that the law is dead and buried or that there is no spirit of law to supersede the letter of law is just whistlin' in the breeze. If you demand that the solution be one or the other, you're out of luck. It does not change the nature of the issue.

and the nature of the issue is that people are choosing to hide behind a religious text in order to insist that stuff they find icky isn't going to become law. it doesn't matter that anyone else's gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with their own lives.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'll also add, for any Christians reading:

Christ not only served as our perfect sacrifice but as our perfect example. By all means, read which things he, the apostles and the first century Church considered important. What did they say? What did they do? How did they resolve issues of Law? What issues were there? What did Christ himself, Emanuel (meaning "God among us"), and his apostles say on the matters of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, licentiousness?

The New Testament isn't there "for the fun of it".

Unbelievers can throw the Bible in the trash pile without a second thought. And so fine. They have no spirit in them to believe. But for those calling themselves Christian, I beseech you to read what says and what Christ himself affirms in scripture.