NearNihil Experience

WWJD? Did everyone forget this simple Christian principle?

Not to drag this into an "I have come to fulfill the law, not abolish it" Jesus argument. But don't you think Christians are a different enough from 3000 year old Jews to maybe act a little more humane, or Christlike...theologically speaking. I mean, its up to the Christian in question how he acts. But, I yhave a feeling you can make the Bible look ignorant and inhumane, especially appealing to the OT, without any further consideration to the what developed out of the OT. This is only gonna hold up against true inerrantists and Orthodox Jews.

Yes it does say in black and white to murder a rape victim underr certain circumstances. But doesn't the Constitution in plain language declare Black people 2/3 of a whole person and women mentionless...and we don't follow that, do we? Times change, cultures change. Really, trying to push a Christian into a corner on this is like someone assuming I have no freedom to choose my morals since I am an atheist\agnostic, I can have none. It just doesn't wash.

MrKrinkles

NearNihil ,

I don't think that people point these laws out to Christians in order to say that Christians believe that they should abide by them. I think they point these laws out to Christians because according to the Bible, God himself gave these laws to the Jews. These people want Christians to see how stupid the Christian god is. I mean, one would think that God, the supreme ruler of the universe, would not be issue such cruel, demented, misogynic laws. The laws should be yet another clear indication to Christians that the Christian god is nothing more than a fictional authority figure invented by primitive people to give credibility to their ridiculous laws.

Brooks

NearNihil Experience

True. And on top of all of that, people can and do warp their own beliefs to fit an emotive comfort level. You know....God didn't order this exactly, the Jews just misinterpreted it, misconstrued it, wrote it down wrong....anything to keep God good and place all the fault on humans. The ridiculaousness we see as proof of inconsistency of purpose and definition which leads to the non-existence conclusion, Christians will say He still exists, just not the way people think. And of course, their personal view is the most correct...consistent or not.

But in all, bringing up OT stuff to make God look bad just opens the door to the "Jesus changed all that" card...and the "Jews got it all wrong, so I could get it right" card.

I really have no problem with the idea of a God with either cruel ways or intentions. *fence jump* I mean if we are created in God's image, our cruel ways and means are only a mirror of our creator. Our behavior is proof of His character.*fence jump/*

Julius

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This was essentially the same as adultery. The woman cannot be excused easily if the act took place in the city; but this would be a capital offense, so she (as well as the man) would be tried under those provisions which governed capital cases. There were several provisions which made sure mercy was extended whenever possible.

Someone has mentioned, for example, a case where the lives of others were being threatened. This would be hard to imagine if there were but one rapist; but it could surely be possible where more than one person was involved in the crime. I would think Jewish judges would dismiss the case against her if this were so since they were expected to look for any reason to set aside the death penalty.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

This is far from misogynistic: On the contrary, it is almost discriminating against men. The betrothed woman may not have been raped, she may have consented--but the man is still put to death. She could be yelling, "Rape," when the witnesses show up.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Oddly, this says the woman has no sin worthy of death--but truly, she could have been consenting. The practical situation must be considered. We've two different cases, really, one where the woman is being raped and one where she has consented. Now, what do you think she's going to say, anyway? Practically speaking, most people would not claim to be guilty themselves if they can deny it; so asking a woman in this situation is fairly useless. And if anyone wants to level the charge of "misogynist," let him do so at the Jewish Law which does not accept the testimony of a woman as valid. She could not testify against this man. There would need to be two other witnesses--both men--and both of reputable character, too. The woman is simply presumed not guilty, and he is presumed guilty of rape in such a case. Both witnesses must also agree on the particulars of the crime before the death penalty can be meted out.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Again, this is not what it looks to be. Rape is not mentioned, here, although one may be tempted to think it is an extension of the previous case.

It was not a very good way to get a wife, by the way. If a man married in the usual way, he could divorce his wife for any reason at all or for no reason at all. If he didn't like the way she cooked or talked, he could simply divorce her. To be forced to marry in this manner would be a hardship, really. The woman could be as miserable as she liked and the man could not divorce her. Meanwhile, he was forced, by Jewish law, to support her and her children if they had any. Simply marrying more women would not solve this problem for him, not unless he was wealthy as Croesus and didn't care about the expense.

Ubercat

But the Christian God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. How can Christians justify a position that God suddenly grew up? If the Jews got it all wrong it's because their God tricked them. How can HE tell them that their messiah would be a conquering hero and mighty judge, and then try to pass off some meek guy riding a donkey who gets crucified like a criminal. Then he has the temerity to condemn them for unbelief. Also isn't there something in the bible about God being faithful to all generations? If making the holocaust is being faithful, I'd hate to see unfaithful.

Your right. Our behaviour IS proof of Gods character. He has no business condemning us for doing what he made us to do and I daresay HE is the only one who deserves eternal hellfire. But alas, who among us is strong enough to enact justice on him?

I hope it's clear that I'm not disagreeing with you, just expressing my amazement at how Christians can twist things around to avoid having to think. When I was one, I certainly knew how dangerous thinking was.

-Ubercat

Joan of Bark

One point about old testament books and their barbaric rules ... they fit perfectly with a God who would give us floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, polio, smallpox and malaria.

Let's face it, God is cruel and inhumane. Even if you could prove to me He exists, I would still refuse to worship him.

NearNihil Experience

:rolling:

You know, it amazes me that this place is so hostile that people have to qualify their statements with things like that. Its all good, man, even if you disagree.

I too am amazed at the mental gymnastics people, not just Christians, will use to confirm or deny what they already believe. :wave:

NearNihil Experience

Better to die on my feet then live on my knees. :thumbs:

Anat

Julius, of course under Pharisaic law most cases would end without executing anyone, since for a death sentence to go through the two (at least) witnesses would have had not only to view the act itself, but also to have warned the perpetrator beforehand that the act he is about to commit is a capital offence.

Julian

I don't know that the practical consequences are the issue as much as the underlying sentiment. It is a bit like the modern day sodomy laws. They were rarely enforced but the sentiment was still misguided.

Julian