Godless Wonder

Isn't there one in there about requiring a woman to marry her rapist? Ok, I found it:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states, "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

edit: Tsurmon, you might find Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy helpful, in case you weren't aware of it already.

Here's some good ones:
http://members.aol.com/chas1222/bepart56.html#ref566

Of course you will likely get the response that these laws were somehow "fulfilled" (is that the word they use?) by Jesus, or for various other reasons are no longer applicable, as this google search shows, even though Jesus supposedly says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law". (Matt 5:18).

Chili

They call it "date-rape" today.

Chili

Our humanity is a condition of being that is descriptive of man's earthly nature as indicated by the prefix hu- before man. Hu- is from humi- and means earthly. This addition suggests that man without the prefix hu- is heavenly if you allow me to place heaven opposte to earth.

But I am on "ignore" now so that doesn't really matter.

Viti

Wrong. Abomination is used


Leviticus 7
18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

What's so horrible about the third day?

Leviticus 11
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Shellfish are said to be an abomination, several times just to drive the point home apparently, not merely unclean. Also Eagles and other birds (including creeping 4-legged birds whatever those are, and bats which aren't even birds) for no apparent health reasons. You CAN however eat locusts and beetles, but not 4-legged creeping things which are an abomination. Good thing there is no such thing as 4-legged insects....want to avoid abominations

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


Only thing I can figure out in the following passage is snakes. The rest makes no sense

Leviticus 11
42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Women wearing pants is an abomination too

Deuteronomy 22: 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


As are all the silly things I listed above

Nope, only the man can divorce his wife for fornication. Women cannot.

Matthew 5
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The whole point of the post was to point out Biblical laws that Christians themselves do not follow while loudly trumpeting ONE law (against homosexuality). Millions of Christians are divorced and remarried without "fornication", millions of Christian women wear pants, millions eat shellfish...Jesus never ONCE said those laws were no longer in effect and in fact adhered to them himself. He never mentioned homosexuality. If he fulfilled all those laws, and they were no longer in effect as some Christians claim, why was the homosexuality law also not fulfilled and done away with? They are cherry picking which laws to follow and which to ignore.

Clivedurdle

Lightning conductors may be an amusing example!!

Franklin

Godless Wonder

Not a law, per se, but slavery is explicitly condoned, and nowhere condemned.

Lev 25:44-46

blt to go

Tsurmon - WARNING. Most christians presume that christ did away with ALL of the requirements of Mosaic Law, and therefore anything you use from Leviticus, Numbers, Exodus or Deut. will be dismissed both verbally and in their mind.

I would recommend you start in the OT, but have some NT as well.

Here's a few:

1 Tim. 2:8 Men have to lift their hands when they pray. Always.
1 Tim 2:9 Women cannot have braided hair, nor wear pearls, gold, or costly array. (Hint: find a girl on the other side who is wearing gold. Point out the inconsistency of 1 Tim 2:9 directly to them.)

1 Cor. 11:13-15. Guys have short hair, Girls have long. Women must cover their heads when they pray.

Try this on: 1 Pet 3:1 says that "A woman must be submissive to her husband, in the same way" What does,"in the same way" mean? To answer that look at what "submission" means in the end of 1 Peter 2. That's were it talks about slaves being submissive to their masters and taking a beating, even for doing good acts.

1 Peter 3:1 says a woman should not complain if her husband beats her.

Good luck

inquisitive01

My mistake. I hadn't read these Verses in quite a while and sincerely thought only the word "unclean" was used in Leviticus 11. I was actually referring to Leviticus 11 only, but I see now that you are correct about the word "abomination" being used in Leviticus (especially Chapter 11). The word "abomination" in this sense may actually be closer in definition to the word "unclean" (possible meaning nasty/disgusting).



[QUOTE=LadyShea]Women wearing pants is an abomination too

Deuteronomy 22: 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.



Don't women have women's pants (while men have men's pants)?






Perhaps it's an implied vice-versa thing. You have to remember that views towards equality back then were quite a bit different than today, meaning laws had to be paraphrased based on the views of the time (including slavery, which was also viewed as normal at this time, and was even voluntary in some cases . . . those cases where it was not voluntary are ABUSES of slavery).






Many Christians steal, commit adultery, kill, etc., just as many non-Christians do. Many Christian and non-Christian parents will tell their children not to use profanity or drink alcohol as they do these things right in front of their children. Do you think Christians are somehow super-human (above being human) beings? All humans, whether Christian or non-Christian, are subject to engaging in hypocrisy. Thinking such as this is similar to saying something like "Well, that Christian guy Johnny just killed a person, so I guess that means it's okay if I go kill someone, too."

Viti

This was Jesus, God in the flesh, speaking. Why would he need to pander to the "views of the time"...he was supposed to setting the views, Himself, right? If he meant it for both men and women he should have said so. If he thought slavery was bad he should have said so. What kind of ineffectual deity has to act like a politician?

Then what on Earth could be "men's clothes"? There is no findamental difference betweens men's pants and women's pants. You're grasping here.



You seem to be missing the entire point of the discussion. Those same Christians will break all the Commandments and call themselves "forgiven" but condemn and persecute those who happen to break the ONE law they don't, like homosexuality.

inquisitive01

I don't feel like I'm "grasping" at anything. Perhaps He felt the ABUSE of slavery was bad (as likely did other people). Also, there IS a difference between men's clothes and women's clothes (pants included). Men don't normally wear dresses.






(Continued from last post...) Some Christians also engage in homosexuality, some commit fraud, some hold up (rob) gas stations, etc. Doesn't make it right. Again, what's your point?