The act of sex is an instinctual desire to procreate. Social constructs are just that, protocols constructed outside of nature. Lust is that desire to have sex/procreate . This is a natural survival instinct that Religion condemns us for. And we have no control unless we castrate ourselves.
>Sexual desires are truly controllable.
When did I say they weren't? Controlling your desires is a conscious act. We agree. But the fact that the desire EXISTS in the mind is not controllable (unless you castrate yourself). And being punished for them is unjust.
> we would see sexual havoc everywhere, every day.
What does this mean?
> We can choose what we believe based on plausibility.
So if Christianity is not plausible to me, why should I be punished for not believing it?
>There clearly is, and that's the point. You get to weigh evidences, consider alternatives, and choose what to believe.
There clearly ISN'T. But if I choose not to believe Christianity, I am eternally punished. That's my point.
The immediate physical evidences are in the past, but that doesn't mean the case isn't solvable by evaluating what we do have.
It's like we are looking at hearsay testimony about a WW II soldier coming back from the dead, but the testimony was written by people in 2005. Who never knew the man, never met the man, nor witnessed the events they wrote about. And it's still supposed to be compelling enough to believe?? Plausible?
It's a very strong argument that the Gospel authors never met Jesus. Who was Mark again? He wasn't an apostle. I've had this debate before, it's quite easy to make my case. Yours rests on faith. Or "church tradition".
> his lack of godly leadership, his poor parenting, his immoral decision to offer up his daughters for rape, or his drunkenness and rape by his daughters.
and yet God spared him while destroying the others in the city for immoral behavior. I don't get why he was spared then.
>She was an economic entity in the home, able to generate income and contribute to survival. The bride price was a recognition of her economic value, not a statement of her being property.
Then why did the Father pay the husband instead of the reverse? This makes absolutely no sense and is mental gymnastics at it's worst.
> The husband wanted to make sure the offspring were his so there would be no competing claims on his estate.
Modern DNA tests now render this concern meaningless, and in doing so, undermines the reasons for forbidding premarital sex. So why , in TODAY's society should it still be banned?
You made a great speech on your support of women, but the Bible clearly does not view them as equals in value. Also being " an integral part of the family unit as far as survival and lineage." only means they're good for breeding.
Let's try again, or else I'll move on to slaves not being property, but valued as human beings with dignity in the Bible. ....
Board index ‹ Sex
35 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:19 pm
> The act of sex is an instinctual desire to procreate.
True, but it's so much more than that. Humans, as far as we know, as the only animals to have sex to bond, as a sign of affection, or in a spiritual sense (as the cult prostitutes in ancient times). So sex for us is different than for animals, as far as we know. There's far more than procreation involved, for us.
> This is a natural survival instinct that Religion condemns us for.
Religion (viz. Christianity) doesn't condemn people for sex. The Bible says God created sex and fully expects people to engage in it (Gn. 1.28).
> "Sexual desires are truly controllable." When did I say they weren't?
You implied it when you said, "How can we be punished justly for desires that we don't control?"
> "we would see sexual havoc everywhere, every day." What does this mean?
This means that if our sexual urges were truly uncontrollable, we would observe far more sexual activity in public places than we do. But since there is so much restraint, we can consider sexual urges as controllable.
> It's like we are looking at hearsay testimony about a WW II soldier coming back from the dead, but the testimony was written by people in 2005.
If this is supposed to be an analogy to the writing of the Gospels, you've missed the mark.
> It's a very strong argument that the Gospel authors never met Jesus.
It's actually quite the opposite, but that's a much longer discussion than there is room for here. We'd have to take each of the four Gospels individually to have space for the conversation. The evidence is rather strong for all four of them.
> Mark
Yeah, I've had this conversation many times myself. I don't know if you want to get into it here (we probably shouldn't), but here are a few introductory points. Mark's family lived in Jerusalem and his parents were active in the church. It's entirely possible, though there is no direct reference, that Mark may have known Jesus, and possibly even followed him around to some extent (though that's speculative).
1\. It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity. His name on it lends to its authenticity. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
2\. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly and unanimously associate Mark with the Gospel. The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all are in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author. Had the Gospels truly been anonymous, each community that received a copy would probably have attached a different title.
3\. The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with a Palestinian Jew.
4\. The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
5\. Dave Garland says, "The writing of the Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Mr. Nobody, but to a recognized teacher in the church who could appeal to an even greater authority. To think that just anyone could write a Gospel that early Christians would accept as authoritative stretches credibility. Matthew and Luke testify to Mark's authority since they allowed themselves to be guided by him when they wrote their own Gospels. Matthew confers even greater prominence to Peter in his Gospel, which reveals the authority he invests in Peter. It is not unreasonable to assume that Mark's Gospel, therefore, reflects the teaching of the apostle Peter, just as Papias reported."
Date of writing?
1\. My first evidence comes from Acts, actually. Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem, Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (AD 61), Paul (possibly 64), or Peter (probably 65), or the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on.
2\. My second evidence is also from Acts. Many of the expressions in Acts are signs of an early writing during the primitive years of Christianity.
3\. Acts deals with issues that were especially important before Jerusalem's fall (Gentile inclusion, Judaizer persecution, etc.) Mark deals with subject matter even more elemental: Jesus at war with Satan. Some of Mark's material seems to be about the controversy over the status of Gentiles (common in Paul's writings), which was a completely dead issue after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70.
4\. And since Acts is the second part of Luke's record, mostly likely Luke's Gospel was written before the early 60s. And since Luke got some of his material from Mark, that puts Mark in the 50s.
5\. Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew and Luke don't.
6\. Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was still alive. Papias said Mark wrote what Peter taught him, Justin Martyr and Eusebius suggest Peter was in Rome from AD 54-65. (Irenaeus says Mark wrote after Peter's death.)
There has been an intriguing discovery, but yet to be completely verified. It at least gives us pause. I'll just quote it here, because it's more efficient to cut and paste: "Papyrologist José O’Callaghan has identified 7Q5 as a fragment of Mk. 6.52-53; 7Q6, 1 as 4.28; 7Q7 as 12.17, and 7Q15 as possibly 6.48, and says that they date to AD 50. The claim is based on a study of infrared and normal photographs of fragments of papyrus from Cave 7 at Qumran." It has yet to be substantiated by peer review.
> "Lot." And yet God spared him while destroying the others in the city for immoral behavior. I don't get why he was spared then.
He was spared because he was a relative of Abraham's, that's all. When Abraham was asked to leave his country and go to Canaan, he took his Sarah and Lot with him (Gn. 12.4). Implied in that is that God would take care of them all. And so despite Lot's failures, sins, and compromises, God stays true to his word and spares him. That's all. Lot didn't deserve any of it.
> Ex. 22.16-17: "Then why did the Father pay the husband instead of the reverse?"
Hmm. You're backwards. The "husband" has to pay the father. The groom’s household paid the bride price as part of the marriage agreement.
> Modern DNA tests now render this concern meaningless, and in doing so, undermines the reasons for forbidding premarital sex. So why, in TODAY's society should it still be banned?
The NT tightened the rules of the OT. Polygamy was out, and the teachings on sex outside of marriage become more clear. I've already covered this ground in speaking of purity, righteousness, morality, separation and holiness, so there's no reason for me to retrace those steps.
> You made a great speech on your support of women, but the Bible clearly does not view them as equals in value.
This is a tough thing for you to claim. Gn. 1-2 clearly view them as equals in value. Once sin enters the world there are power struggles, controlling social structures, and hierarchical abuses, but the Bible by and large does not enter into those. The rules it gives for women in the Law treat them as full human beings entitled to dignity. Though the societies are patriarchal, misogyny was not part of the biblical picture. Carol Meyers writes, "While there were certain activities in the household that the women exclusively did, such as the grinding of grain into flour, anthropologists note that most household activities were not performed exclusively by one gender. ...
"Anthropological studies can also elucidate women’s relationships with other members of their families, especially their husbands. Were women really as subordinate in Biblical times as many people think? Anthropological studies from societies similar to ancient Israel provide useful analogies. Interactions between household members are an example. Because women often have critical roles in maintaining household life, the senior woman in an extended family is often in a position of parity and interdependence, not subordination, with her husband for most aspects of household life. This is an especially significant observation for ancient Israel because the household was the major unity of society for most Israelites. ...
"The negative images of Eve that persist until today can be traced to ancient sources beginning in the Greco-Roman world. Those images were influenced by ideas about women that were current in Greco-Roman times but not in Iron Age Israel. ...
"Social scientists alert us to what they call 'presentism,' the phenomenon in which perspectives and ideas that we take for granted in today's world affect how we understand the past. We tend to read the present into the past anachronistically, which can lead us to misunderstanding the past. It is surely true that human beings have much in common throughout time, but there are also sometimes basic differences, and these must be taken into account. For example, today cooking and cleaning and caring for young children are often seen as unpaid housework. These chores may be undervalued, even trivialized. But in a pre-modern peasant society without supermarkets and day-care centers, these tasks have significant economic value. They are essential for household survival, and they earn women positive regard.
"Similarly, 'presentism' can affect how we view the division between work and family, between what is public and what is private. How these divisions are understood may be very different between a post-industrial capitalist society, on the one hand, and a pre-modern agrarian society on the other. In the latter, the household is the workplace for both women and men, and household activities for both women and men were connected to larger community and kinship structures.
"Consider the concept of patriarchy. Typically this concept has been taken to imply near total male domination in families and in other social institutions. But anthropologists, classicists, feminist theorists, theologians and others who have more recently studied the concept have shown that this understanding of patriarchy does not take into account that women often had considerable agency in certain aspects of household life and that women’s groups and institutions had their own hierarchies. ...
"To get a balanced view of Israelite society in the Iron Age, the broader picture must be considered. Patriarchy is a term that was invented millennia after the Iron Age and is probably unsuitable for characterizing ancient Israel."
Maybe that will help. It's just not true that the biblical perspective is that "they're ]only] good for breeding."
True, but it's so much more than that. Humans, as far as we know, as the only animals to have sex to bond, as a sign of affection, or in a spiritual sense (as the cult prostitutes in ancient times). So sex for us is different than for animals, as far as we know. There's far more than procreation involved, for us.
> This is a natural survival instinct that Religion condemns us for.
Religion (viz. Christianity) doesn't condemn people for sex. The Bible says God created sex and fully expects people to engage in it (Gn. 1.28).
> "Sexual desires are truly controllable." When did I say they weren't?
You implied it when you said, "How can we be punished justly for desires that we don't control?"
> "we would see sexual havoc everywhere, every day." What does this mean?
This means that if our sexual urges were truly uncontrollable, we would observe far more sexual activity in public places than we do. But since there is so much restraint, we can consider sexual urges as controllable.
> It's like we are looking at hearsay testimony about a WW II soldier coming back from the dead, but the testimony was written by people in 2005.
If this is supposed to be an analogy to the writing of the Gospels, you've missed the mark.
> It's a very strong argument that the Gospel authors never met Jesus.
It's actually quite the opposite, but that's a much longer discussion than there is room for here. We'd have to take each of the four Gospels individually to have space for the conversation. The evidence is rather strong for all four of them.
> Mark
Yeah, I've had this conversation many times myself. I don't know if you want to get into it here (we probably shouldn't), but here are a few introductory points. Mark's family lived in Jerusalem and his parents were active in the church. It's entirely possible, though there is no direct reference, that Mark may have known Jesus, and possibly even followed him around to some extent (though that's speculative).
1\. It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity. His name on it lends to its authenticity. There is no reason the oldest traditions would uniformly associate Mark with Mark without some good historical reason.
2\. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly and unanimously associate Mark with the Gospel. The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all are in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author. Had the Gospels truly been anonymous, each community that received a copy would probably have attached a different title.
3\. The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with a Palestinian Jew.
4\. The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
5\. Dave Garland says, "The writing of the Gospel would not have been entrusted to a Mr. Nobody, but to a recognized teacher in the church who could appeal to an even greater authority. To think that just anyone could write a Gospel that early Christians would accept as authoritative stretches credibility. Matthew and Luke testify to Mark's authority since they allowed themselves to be guided by him when they wrote their own Gospels. Matthew confers even greater prominence to Peter in his Gospel, which reveals the authority he invests in Peter. It is not unreasonable to assume that Mark's Gospel, therefore, reflects the teaching of the apostle Peter, just as Papias reported."
Date of writing?
1\. My first evidence comes from Acts, actually. Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem, Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (AD 61), Paul (possibly 64), or Peter (probably 65), or the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on.
2\. My second evidence is also from Acts. Many of the expressions in Acts are signs of an early writing during the primitive years of Christianity.
3\. Acts deals with issues that were especially important before Jerusalem's fall (Gentile inclusion, Judaizer persecution, etc.) Mark deals with subject matter even more elemental: Jesus at war with Satan. Some of Mark's material seems to be about the controversy over the status of Gentiles (common in Paul's writings), which was a completely dead issue after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70.
4\. And since Acts is the second part of Luke's record, mostly likely Luke's Gospel was written before the early 60s. And since Luke got some of his material from Mark, that puts Mark in the 50s.
5\. Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew and Luke don't.
6\. Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was still alive. Papias said Mark wrote what Peter taught him, Justin Martyr and Eusebius suggest Peter was in Rome from AD 54-65. (Irenaeus says Mark wrote after Peter's death.)
There has been an intriguing discovery, but yet to be completely verified. It at least gives us pause. I'll just quote it here, because it's more efficient to cut and paste: "Papyrologist José O’Callaghan has identified 7Q5 as a fragment of Mk. 6.52-53; 7Q6, 1 as 4.28; 7Q7 as 12.17, and 7Q15 as possibly 6.48, and says that they date to AD 50. The claim is based on a study of infrared and normal photographs of fragments of papyrus from Cave 7 at Qumran." It has yet to be substantiated by peer review.
> "Lot." And yet God spared him while destroying the others in the city for immoral behavior. I don't get why he was spared then.
He was spared because he was a relative of Abraham's, that's all. When Abraham was asked to leave his country and go to Canaan, he took his Sarah and Lot with him (Gn. 12.4). Implied in that is that God would take care of them all. And so despite Lot's failures, sins, and compromises, God stays true to his word and spares him. That's all. Lot didn't deserve any of it.
> Ex. 22.16-17: "Then why did the Father pay the husband instead of the reverse?"
Hmm. You're backwards. The "husband" has to pay the father. The groom’s household paid the bride price as part of the marriage agreement.
> Modern DNA tests now render this concern meaningless, and in doing so, undermines the reasons for forbidding premarital sex. So why, in TODAY's society should it still be banned?
The NT tightened the rules of the OT. Polygamy was out, and the teachings on sex outside of marriage become more clear. I've already covered this ground in speaking of purity, righteousness, morality, separation and holiness, so there's no reason for me to retrace those steps.
> You made a great speech on your support of women, but the Bible clearly does not view them as equals in value.
This is a tough thing for you to claim. Gn. 1-2 clearly view them as equals in value. Once sin enters the world there are power struggles, controlling social structures, and hierarchical abuses, but the Bible by and large does not enter into those. The rules it gives for women in the Law treat them as full human beings entitled to dignity. Though the societies are patriarchal, misogyny was not part of the biblical picture. Carol Meyers writes, "While there were certain activities in the household that the women exclusively did, such as the grinding of grain into flour, anthropologists note that most household activities were not performed exclusively by one gender. ...
"Anthropological studies can also elucidate women’s relationships with other members of their families, especially their husbands. Were women really as subordinate in Biblical times as many people think? Anthropological studies from societies similar to ancient Israel provide useful analogies. Interactions between household members are an example. Because women often have critical roles in maintaining household life, the senior woman in an extended family is often in a position of parity and interdependence, not subordination, with her husband for most aspects of household life. This is an especially significant observation for ancient Israel because the household was the major unity of society for most Israelites. ...
"The negative images of Eve that persist until today can be traced to ancient sources beginning in the Greco-Roman world. Those images were influenced by ideas about women that were current in Greco-Roman times but not in Iron Age Israel. ...
"Social scientists alert us to what they call 'presentism,' the phenomenon in which perspectives and ideas that we take for granted in today's world affect how we understand the past. We tend to read the present into the past anachronistically, which can lead us to misunderstanding the past. It is surely true that human beings have much in common throughout time, but there are also sometimes basic differences, and these must be taken into account. For example, today cooking and cleaning and caring for young children are often seen as unpaid housework. These chores may be undervalued, even trivialized. But in a pre-modern peasant society without supermarkets and day-care centers, these tasks have significant economic value. They are essential for household survival, and they earn women positive regard.
"Similarly, 'presentism' can affect how we view the division between work and family, between what is public and what is private. How these divisions are understood may be very different between a post-industrial capitalist society, on the one hand, and a pre-modern agrarian society on the other. In the latter, the household is the workplace for both women and men, and household activities for both women and men were connected to larger community and kinship structures.
"Consider the concept of patriarchy. Typically this concept has been taken to imply near total male domination in families and in other social institutions. But anthropologists, classicists, feminist theorists, theologians and others who have more recently studied the concept have shown that this understanding of patriarchy does not take into account that women often had considerable agency in certain aspects of household life and that women’s groups and institutions had their own hierarchies. ...
"To get a balanced view of Israelite society in the Iron Age, the broader picture must be considered. Patriarchy is a term that was invented millennia after the Iron Age and is probably unsuitable for characterizing ancient Israel."
Maybe that will help. It's just not true that the biblical perspective is that "they're ]only] good for breeding."
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by Ostrich » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:48 pm
> We also have sex to procreate, for pleasure, and it doesn't have to be some "bonding or spiritual" experience.
Christianity condemns people for every type of sex but ONE, marriage-sex.
> desires that we don't control.
What I meant was having the desire is out of our control. Acting on it is within our control.
> This means that if our sexual urges were truly uncontrollable, we would observe far more sexual activity in public places than we do.
So let's try and clear this point up. You're claiming that people naturally have urges to have sex in public, but we are able to control those urges. Which I agree with. But the problem is, I can't control the fact that I have the urge or desire in the first place. yet we are punished for that.
> If this is supposed to be an analogy to the writing of the Gospels, you've missed the mark.
Where did I miss? The gospels were written by men who never witnessed any of the events and 60-100 years AFTER the events supposedly took place.
>If you want to talk about this, we would have to do so in a separate conversation. But I have strong disagreement with you that (1) the Gospels were written 70 years after Jesus, (2) they were not written by eyewitnesses, and (3) they were not written by Mt. Mk, Lk, and Jn. No room to deal with it here.
If we could still make the conversation public for others to read, then I'd love to have this discussion.
> And so despite Lot's failures, sins, and compromises, God stays true to his word and spares him.
This is apologetics at its worst. Nepotism? Geeze I wish I was related to Abraham so that I could sin without judgment. Again, just another instance of God not treating everyone justly.
> The groom’s household paid the bride price as part of the marriage agreement.
Wasn't that just for cases when a man raped a virgin as in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 ?
Do you support this practice today?
> Polygamy was out...
So who changed their mind here, God or man?
> The rules it gives for women in the Law treat them as full human beings entitled to dignity and protection.
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)
A father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women. Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of compassion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.
Christianity condemns people for every type of sex but ONE, marriage-sex.
> desires that we don't control.
What I meant was having the desire is out of our control. Acting on it is within our control.
> This means that if our sexual urges were truly uncontrollable, we would observe far more sexual activity in public places than we do.
So let's try and clear this point up. You're claiming that people naturally have urges to have sex in public, but we are able to control those urges. Which I agree with. But the problem is, I can't control the fact that I have the urge or desire in the first place. yet we are punished for that.
> If this is supposed to be an analogy to the writing of the Gospels, you've missed the mark.
Where did I miss? The gospels were written by men who never witnessed any of the events and 60-100 years AFTER the events supposedly took place.
>If you want to talk about this, we would have to do so in a separate conversation. But I have strong disagreement with you that (1) the Gospels were written 70 years after Jesus, (2) they were not written by eyewitnesses, and (3) they were not written by Mt. Mk, Lk, and Jn. No room to deal with it here.
If we could still make the conversation public for others to read, then I'd love to have this discussion.
> And so despite Lot's failures, sins, and compromises, God stays true to his word and spares him.
This is apologetics at its worst. Nepotism? Geeze I wish I was related to Abraham so that I could sin without judgment. Again, just another instance of God not treating everyone justly.
> The groom’s household paid the bride price as part of the marriage agreement.
Wasn't that just for cases when a man raped a virgin as in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 ?
Do you support this practice today?
> Polygamy was out...
So who changed their mind here, God or man?
> The rules it gives for women in the Law treat them as full human beings entitled to dignity and protection.
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)
How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)
A father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women. Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of compassion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.
The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.
Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.
Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)
Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.
- Ostrich
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:18 pm
Wow, lots to talk about here. I'm going to run out of space again. The conversation is branching out beyond the scope of the forum format.
> Christianity condemns people for every type of sex but ONE, marriage-sex.
This is true, but what you said was, "This is a natural survival instinct that Religion condemns us for," which is not true. And you're no doubt aware that the perpetuation of the species can happen quite adequately through a man/woman relationship in the context of marriage, so the Bible's approval is concordant with the survival of the species.
> But the problem is, I can't control the fact that I have the urge or desire in the first place. yet we are punished for that.
You are not punished for having the urge, but for indulging it either with inappropriate subsequent thoughts or inappropriate subsequent action. What is expected is self-control of the desires that come to you.
> The gospels were written by men who never witnessed any of the events and 60-100 years AFTER the events supposedly took place.
As I said, there is no room for this conversation. If you start a new thread, maybe just on one of the Gospels, we can pursue this.
> This is apologetics at it's worst. Nepotism? Geeze I wish I was related to Abraham so that I could sin without judgment.
Oh, he didn't sin without judgment at all. That's an inappropriate conclusion. Physically, he lost his home, his friends, and his wife. Morally he lost his daughters. Socially he lost his dignity and integrity. Spiritually he was a monstrous screw-up that has garnered the disrespect and shame of the Jewish and Christian community for millennia. And there is every reason to believe he was judged for his actions, as God says all of us will be (2 Cor. 5.10). He paid dearly for his sins; don't envy him one bit.
> Wasn't that just for cases when a man raped a virgin as in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 ?
I think I was in Exodus 22, but you'll have to be specific if you want to talk about this specifically.
> So who changed their mind here, God or man?
The Bible is progressive revelation. Many things change in the course of the years. Things that we OK in olden days, like polygamy, are no longer OK. The Law of Moses, with its shellfish and mixed fabrics rules, we no longer follow. Stoning for adultery is no longer the punishment. It's what the Bible teaches: previous revelations get superseded by later revelations. Jesus fulfilled the entire OT.
> Leviticus 21:9
Now, these texts are where we'll run out of space. A priest has separated himself to God. He cannot serve in the temple if there is defilement. The whole deal about the tabernacle was God's presence: How to behave so God's presence remains with us. The answer was "holiness." Holiness of people, of behavior, and of places was how to retain God's presence: Sacred space, sacred times, sacred people. The daughter of a priest was of his flesh. She was holy because he was holy. If she sins, she causes desecration to the compound, to the nation, and to the presence of God.
Why are just the girls mentioned and not the sons? Milgrom says, "Dishonorable sons don’t just disgrace the father, but also cause the disqualification of his line of descent." They were punished by being cast out of the community. But a daughter who defiled the camp with prostitution was an abomination. This is misogynistic; it pertains to ritual impurity.
> Leviticus 12:5
The reason for the disparity between the sexes is unknown.
> 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9
Sarah Ruden comments, "Paul’s rule aimed toward an outrageous equality. All Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability—or of privilege so great as to allow toying with traditional appearances. The most hurtful thing about bareheaded, gorgeously coiffed wives might not have been their frivolity but rather their thoughtless flaunting of styles that meant degradation to some of their sisters—as if a suburban matron attended an inner-city mission church in hip boots, a miniskirt, and a blond wig. Perhaps the new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women, honorary wives in this setting. If the women complied—and later church tradition suggests they did—you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to service 20-30 men a day. This had never happened in any public gathering before.
This was Paul's ingenious combination of common sense and radical defiance for dealing with a very touchy set of issues. Polytheistic literature gives us a context of how disturbing, how distracting to men and stigmatizing to women, the lack of a veil could be. This context supports the idea that Paul was being protective rather than chauvinistic."
> Judges 19:24-25
This is a horrendous text about which the Bible gives NO endorsement and NO approval. God gives no endorsement or approval. This is pure out atrocity, as you've said. This is a perversion and abomination of the utmost degree, showing how far Israel had slipped during this era.
> I Timothy 2:11-14
First of all, and mainly, the context is everything. You can't just jerk this verse out into the air with smug satisfaction.
Secondly, we know that the Bible allows women to have authority over men (like Deborah in Judges 4). The Bible offers an impressive array of example of women exercising social or political authority without raising any questions to the propriety of it (Dan. 5.10-12; Neh. 2.6; the Queen of Sheba, Vashti, Candace, Athaliah, and Esther). So we know this teaching was a local thing, not a universal thing.
Third, we know that in 1 Corinthians 11.5 the women were allowed to speak, by the mandate of Paul, so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.
Some background would also help. The Ephesians (where Timothy was) were overrun by Gnostic-influenced women taking a particular twist on Genesis 2 to claim superiority, ignoring legitimate teaching and morality. He is addressing the women who refuse to be taught. The church was being overrun by false teachers, and the women were being drawn in and then rising up as the big cheeses with false teaching. It was affecting the church in the whole region, and Paul needed to put a stop to it.
Contextually, the reference is to public assemblies. He is concerned for proper teaching. These women need to listen when the truth is being taught and learn from it (v. 11).
The word in question ("to have authority over") is αὐθεντεῖν. This is the only time it appears in the Bible, and its occurrence in the ancient world is rare (only 7 times, I think). It seems to mostly carry the idea of tyrannical domineering.
It doesn't even come close to making clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
> Christianity condemns people for every type of sex but ONE, marriage-sex.
This is true, but what you said was, "This is a natural survival instinct that Religion condemns us for," which is not true. And you're no doubt aware that the perpetuation of the species can happen quite adequately through a man/woman relationship in the context of marriage, so the Bible's approval is concordant with the survival of the species.
> But the problem is, I can't control the fact that I have the urge or desire in the first place. yet we are punished for that.
You are not punished for having the urge, but for indulging it either with inappropriate subsequent thoughts or inappropriate subsequent action. What is expected is self-control of the desires that come to you.
> The gospels were written by men who never witnessed any of the events and 60-100 years AFTER the events supposedly took place.
As I said, there is no room for this conversation. If you start a new thread, maybe just on one of the Gospels, we can pursue this.
> This is apologetics at it's worst. Nepotism? Geeze I wish I was related to Abraham so that I could sin without judgment.
Oh, he didn't sin without judgment at all. That's an inappropriate conclusion. Physically, he lost his home, his friends, and his wife. Morally he lost his daughters. Socially he lost his dignity and integrity. Spiritually he was a monstrous screw-up that has garnered the disrespect and shame of the Jewish and Christian community for millennia. And there is every reason to believe he was judged for his actions, as God says all of us will be (2 Cor. 5.10). He paid dearly for his sins; don't envy him one bit.
> Wasn't that just for cases when a man raped a virgin as in Deuteronomy 22:28–29 ?
I think I was in Exodus 22, but you'll have to be specific if you want to talk about this specifically.
> So who changed their mind here, God or man?
The Bible is progressive revelation. Many things change in the course of the years. Things that we OK in olden days, like polygamy, are no longer OK. The Law of Moses, with its shellfish and mixed fabrics rules, we no longer follow. Stoning for adultery is no longer the punishment. It's what the Bible teaches: previous revelations get superseded by later revelations. Jesus fulfilled the entire OT.
> Leviticus 21:9
Now, these texts are where we'll run out of space. A priest has separated himself to God. He cannot serve in the temple if there is defilement. The whole deal about the tabernacle was God's presence: How to behave so God's presence remains with us. The answer was "holiness." Holiness of people, of behavior, and of places was how to retain God's presence: Sacred space, sacred times, sacred people. The daughter of a priest was of his flesh. She was holy because he was holy. If she sins, she causes desecration to the compound, to the nation, and to the presence of God.
Why are just the girls mentioned and not the sons? Milgrom says, "Dishonorable sons don’t just disgrace the father, but also cause the disqualification of his line of descent." They were punished by being cast out of the community. But a daughter who defiled the camp with prostitution was an abomination. This is misogynistic; it pertains to ritual impurity.
> Leviticus 12:5
The reason for the disparity between the sexes is unknown.
> 1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9
Sarah Ruden comments, "Paul’s rule aimed toward an outrageous equality. All Christian women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth, respectability—or of privilege so great as to allow toying with traditional appearances. The most hurtful thing about bareheaded, gorgeously coiffed wives might not have been their frivolity but rather their thoughtless flaunting of styles that meant degradation to some of their sisters—as if a suburban matron attended an inner-city mission church in hip boots, a miniskirt, and a blond wig. Perhaps the new decree made independent women of uncertain status, or even slave women, honorary wives in this setting. If the women complied—and later church tradition suggests they did—you could have looked at a congregation and not necessarily been able to tell who was an honored wife and mother and who had been forced, or maybe was still being forced, to service 20-30 men a day. This had never happened in any public gathering before.
This was Paul's ingenious combination of common sense and radical defiance for dealing with a very touchy set of issues. Polytheistic literature gives us a context of how disturbing, how distracting to men and stigmatizing to women, the lack of a veil could be. This context supports the idea that Paul was being protective rather than chauvinistic."
> Judges 19:24-25
This is a horrendous text about which the Bible gives NO endorsement and NO approval. God gives no endorsement or approval. This is pure out atrocity, as you've said. This is a perversion and abomination of the utmost degree, showing how far Israel had slipped during this era.
> I Timothy 2:11-14
First of all, and mainly, the context is everything. You can't just jerk this verse out into the air with smug satisfaction.
Secondly, we know that the Bible allows women to have authority over men (like Deborah in Judges 4). The Bible offers an impressive array of example of women exercising social or political authority without raising any questions to the propriety of it (Dan. 5.10-12; Neh. 2.6; the Queen of Sheba, Vashti, Candace, Athaliah, and Esther). So we know this teaching was a local thing, not a universal thing.
Third, we know that in 1 Corinthians 11.5 the women were allowed to speak, by the mandate of Paul, so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.
Some background would also help. The Ephesians (where Timothy was) were overrun by Gnostic-influenced women taking a particular twist on Genesis 2 to claim superiority, ignoring legitimate teaching and morality. He is addressing the women who refuse to be taught. The church was being overrun by false teachers, and the women were being drawn in and then rising up as the big cheeses with false teaching. It was affecting the church in the whole region, and Paul needed to put a stop to it.
Contextually, the reference is to public assemblies. He is concerned for proper teaching. These women need to listen when the truth is being taught and learn from it (v. 11).
The word in question ("to have authority over") is αὐθεντεῖν. This is the only time it appears in the Bible, and its occurrence in the ancient world is rare (only 7 times, I think). It seems to mostly carry the idea of tyrannical domineering.
It doesn't even come close to making clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by Ostrich » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:15 pm
> so the Bible's approval is concordant with the survival of the species.
I think this is backwards in that the Bible is saying that BEFORE you perpetuate the species, get married first. But that is beside my point, which is that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage. We cannot control that. But Jesus condemns us for having the instinct itself, which we cannot control having.
> You are not punished for having the urge.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." We cannot control this lust(procreate instinct), and here we have Jesus condemning us for it.
> Jesus fulfilled the entire OT.
Then why even discuss punishment or abomination in the OT? But if the purpose of inspired Scripture is that God might reveal himself to us, then God, in his inspiration of the Old Testament authors has failed horribly.
> Polytheistic literature gives us a context of how disturbing, how distracting to men and stigmatizing to women, the lack of a veil could be. This context supports the idea that Paul was being protective rather than chauvinistic.
Sorry, but this is nothing more than victim blaming. She is saying that women are distracting and tempting to men and so THEY must change their behavior, not the men. This leads logically to Burkas.
> It doesn't even come close to making clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
Sorry, but I disagree with your twisting and apologizing.
I think this is backwards in that the Bible is saying that BEFORE you perpetuate the species, get married first. But that is beside my point, which is that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage. We cannot control that. But Jesus condemns us for having the instinct itself, which we cannot control having.
> You are not punished for having the urge.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." We cannot control this lust(procreate instinct), and here we have Jesus condemning us for it.
> Jesus fulfilled the entire OT.
Then why even discuss punishment or abomination in the OT? But if the purpose of inspired Scripture is that God might reveal himself to us, then God, in his inspiration of the Old Testament authors has failed horribly.
> Polytheistic literature gives us a context of how disturbing, how distracting to men and stigmatizing to women, the lack of a veil could be. This context supports the idea that Paul was being protective rather than chauvinistic.
Sorry, but this is nothing more than victim blaming. She is saying that women are distracting and tempting to men and so THEY must change their behavior, not the men. This leads logically to Burkas.
> It doesn't even come close to making clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
Sorry, but I disagree with your twisting and apologizing.
- Ostrich
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by jimwalton » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:28 pm
> I think this is backwards in that the Bible is saying that BEFORE you perpetuate the species, get married first.
It's not backwards, it's the Bible's moral stance, that we shouldn't just sex up whomever we want whenever we want, but that there should be moral restraints, governed by self-control, for the wellbeing of humanity, so that we are moral humans rather than sexual animals.
> Which is that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage.
I agree that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage. What I also believe is that we all must exercise self-control over our instincts for the wellbeing of humanity, which we CAN control having.
> "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
As I have already written, Jesus doesn't promise punishment for having the urge. His point is that "we are unified beings, and our thoughts and attitudes matter just as much as our actions. Otherwise he would be endorsing hypocrisy. Or possibly even what some of the Greek philosophers taught, (1) that all that matters is our minds, so we can do what we want with our bodies, or (2) all that matters is our bodies, so it doesn't matter what we do with our minds. Jesus considers this kind of petty separation, well, petty and unreal. If our actions are corrupt, that comes from corrupt thoughts and corrupt attitudes. So Jesus deals with the whole person and wants equilibrium and consistency." He doesn't promise punishment for having the urge. If you want to know what the Bible says, then you can't twist what the Bible says into something it didn't say. As Paul wrote also, if the urge to breed is that strong in you, fine—get married. Be civil and responsible about it, and just following your urges as if you're uncontrollable.
> Sorry but this is nothing more than victim blaming.
Maybe you perceive it as such with your 21st-century worldview and mindset, but in the ancient world this was true. You can't impose anachronistic perspectives on the Greco-Roman world.
> This leads logically to Burkas.
On the contrary, what it logically leads to is an equality otherwise unknown in the ancient world, a freedom for women that was unparalleled.
> Sorry, but I disagree with your twisting and apologizing.
The material I gave you is thoroughly researched. The texts demand and deserve a reading deeper than 1". It's of benefit to know the ancient cultures, the context of the writings, and the terminology involved, especially in the context of its era and culture, as well as the thesis of the book as a whole. My responses were based on scholarship, but if you disagree with it, that's your prerogative. I would be pleased to see your research in reply.
It's not backwards, it's the Bible's moral stance, that we shouldn't just sex up whomever we want whenever we want, but that there should be moral restraints, governed by self-control, for the wellbeing of humanity, so that we are moral humans rather than sexual animals.
> Which is that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage.
I agree that the instinct to procreate exists outside and inside of marriage. What I also believe is that we all must exercise self-control over our instincts for the wellbeing of humanity, which we CAN control having.
> "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
As I have already written, Jesus doesn't promise punishment for having the urge. His point is that "we are unified beings, and our thoughts and attitudes matter just as much as our actions. Otherwise he would be endorsing hypocrisy. Or possibly even what some of the Greek philosophers taught, (1) that all that matters is our minds, so we can do what we want with our bodies, or (2) all that matters is our bodies, so it doesn't matter what we do with our minds. Jesus considers this kind of petty separation, well, petty and unreal. If our actions are corrupt, that comes from corrupt thoughts and corrupt attitudes. So Jesus deals with the whole person and wants equilibrium and consistency." He doesn't promise punishment for having the urge. If you want to know what the Bible says, then you can't twist what the Bible says into something it didn't say. As Paul wrote also, if the urge to breed is that strong in you, fine—get married. Be civil and responsible about it, and just following your urges as if you're uncontrollable.
> Sorry but this is nothing more than victim blaming.
Maybe you perceive it as such with your 21st-century worldview and mindset, but in the ancient world this was true. You can't impose anachronistic perspectives on the Greco-Roman world.
> This leads logically to Burkas.
On the contrary, what it logically leads to is an equality otherwise unknown in the ancient world, a freedom for women that was unparalleled.
> Sorry, but I disagree with your twisting and apologizing.
The material I gave you is thoroughly researched. The texts demand and deserve a reading deeper than 1". It's of benefit to know the ancient cultures, the context of the writings, and the terminology involved, especially in the context of its era and culture, as well as the thesis of the book as a whole. My responses were based on scholarship, but if you disagree with it, that's your prerogative. I would be pleased to see your research in reply.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by Phoenix » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:32 pm
Dude, great job man. You totally destroyed Ostrich's arguments. I really liked your analogy about the louisville baseball bat about sexual thoughts/desires. I have always had a problem with hating God for creating me with sexual desires and then punishing me for having them but you made it pretty clear to me that it is what I do with dirty thoughts that determine whether they are dirty thoughts or just thoughts. Thank You.
- Phoenix
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by Ostrich » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:08 am
> for the wellbeing of humanity, so that we are moral humans rather than sexual animals.
Who says the bible's morality is for the well being of humanity? And why can't WE decide what is moral then? You infer that God gets to decide what is moral or not.
> which we CAN control having
Instincts, by definition or not thoughts, they're INSTINCTS. We certainly can control them, but we cannot control the fact that we HAVE them. You're twisting bible verse. It's not clear what Jesus was saying. Was he talking about ThoughtCrime? Why should I listen to Paul's advice? 1. He never met Jesus, nor followed him, his teachings or witnessed him. 2. He was writing to ancient churches, in ancient cultures.
> You can't impose anachronistic perspectives on the Greco-Roman world.
And yet you use them to impose morality on 21st century society.
Who says the bible's morality is for the well being of humanity? And why can't WE decide what is moral then? You infer that God gets to decide what is moral or not.
> which we CAN control having
Instincts, by definition or not thoughts, they're INSTINCTS. We certainly can control them, but we cannot control the fact that we HAVE them. You're twisting bible verse. It's not clear what Jesus was saying. Was he talking about ThoughtCrime? Why should I listen to Paul's advice? 1. He never met Jesus, nor followed him, his teachings or witnessed him. 2. He was writing to ancient churches, in ancient cultures.
> You can't impose anachronistic perspectives on the Greco-Roman world.
And yet you use them to impose morality on 21st century society.
- Ostrich
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by jimwalton » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:10 am
> Who says the bible's morality is for the well being of humanity?
The Bible presents a morality based in the nature of God that is perfectly good. That's the basis of its claim.
> And why can't WE decide what is moral then?
Our selfishness, pride, and will to power compromises our ability to create a universal objective standard of good and right.
> You're twisting bible verse. It's not clear what Jesus was saying.
I'm not twisting, but you're right that we have to interpret his words. We work very hard to do this responsibly and unbiased.
> Paul never met Jesus.
He claims he did, recorded in Acts 9, 1 Corinthians 15.8, and 2 Corinthians 12.1-4.
> nor followed him
Of course he did. Phil. 3.7-14 & Gal. 2.20, among many others.
> And yet you use them to impose morality on 21st century society.
Right, because true morality is objective: what is good is what is always good.
The Bible presents a morality based in the nature of God that is perfectly good. That's the basis of its claim.
> And why can't WE decide what is moral then?
Our selfishness, pride, and will to power compromises our ability to create a universal objective standard of good and right.
> You're twisting bible verse. It's not clear what Jesus was saying.
I'm not twisting, but you're right that we have to interpret his words. We work very hard to do this responsibly and unbiased.
> Paul never met Jesus.
He claims he did, recorded in Acts 9, 1 Corinthians 15.8, and 2 Corinthians 12.1-4.
> nor followed him
Of course he did. Phil. 3.7-14 & Gal. 2.20, among many others.
> And yet you use them to impose morality on 21st century society.
Right, because true morality is objective: what is good is what is always good.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible doesn't forbid premarital sex
by Ostrich » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:49 am
1. The basis of the Bible's morality claim is flawed. Adam and Eve and the concept of sin are flawed concepts.
> Our selfishness, pride, and will to power compromises our ability to create a universal objective standard of good and right.
2.If this is universally true, then how can one claim to know the Bible is the morally "right" answer? If our ability to discern is flawed, then our judgement of the bible's morality is also flawed, as we can only view it through the lens of our "selfish pride". There is no objective way to judge the bible with that assumption.
3. Paul, in those verses, never claims to have met Jesus in the flesh. Paul was struck blind and the men around him also saw nothing. Paul heard voices, which were claimed to be Jesus. How is this even reasonable to consider?
> what is good is what is always good
4. Then God is not the creator of morality, but a messenger to tell us what is Good. Which is irrelevant if "Good is good". We don't need a god to tell us. There are acts in the past which were considered moral with are not now, and vice versa. So Morality has not always been one way or the other. EVER. NEVER.
> women under Christianity had more freedom than their contemporaries.
5. Not today.
> so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.
6. To be clear, we do not "know" this, we are reasonably assuming, given our interpretation of the facts presented. There are many other conflicting perspectives on these passages. Claiming to "know" anything for certain is problematic.
> Our selfishness, pride, and will to power compromises our ability to create a universal objective standard of good and right.
2.If this is universally true, then how can one claim to know the Bible is the morally "right" answer? If our ability to discern is flawed, then our judgement of the bible's morality is also flawed, as we can only view it through the lens of our "selfish pride". There is no objective way to judge the bible with that assumption.
3. Paul, in those verses, never claims to have met Jesus in the flesh. Paul was struck blind and the men around him also saw nothing. Paul heard voices, which were claimed to be Jesus. How is this even reasonable to consider?
> what is good is what is always good
4. Then God is not the creator of morality, but a messenger to tell us what is Good. Which is irrelevant if "Good is good". We don't need a god to tell us. There are acts in the past which were considered moral with are not now, and vice versa. So Morality has not always been one way or the other. EVER. NEVER.
> women under Christianity had more freedom than their contemporaries.
5. Not today.
> so we know this teaching in 1 Timothy is a local problem and a local mandate, not a universal one.
6. To be clear, we do not "know" this, we are reasonably assuming, given our interpretation of the facts presented. There are many other conflicting perspectives on these passages. Claiming to "know" anything for certain is problematic.
- Ostrich
35 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest