Can we make this biblical value a ballot measure too?

Clearly "traditional" only means "as of 1950", unfortunately.

Not to mention going to hell if you eat a nice plate of mussels or a cheeseburger. Oh, and that execution--stoning.

Come on people, Christians always cherry pick which bible verses they want to use. And you know there is that one passage in the bible in one of the books that allows us to do that. Sadly, no one can ever remember which verse that is. But someone in the bible clearly said: "You shall pick whatever words you would like to so that you may suit your own petty goals" It's something like that.

Unless the girl and her mother are willing to come forward, @3, your comment has to be regarded as an anonymous smear, and we're yanking it for that reason—as well as being off topic.

@6 Thanks, Dan! I agree. It's completely unsubstantiated bullshit until proven otherwise, and good luck doing that @3. Anything that begins with the storyteller being three degrees removed from it is usually bullshit.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/as…

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/

@6 I'm glad to see that you guys actually pay attention and delete FOAF crap like that.

i'm not opposed to using the bible against the beliefs of christians... but what translation is that? the problem is, this makes no impact on your average christian because that's not really what the standard texts say. first off, there is a huge ellipse in there (13-21). secondly, that it doesn't say the marriage is invalid. it says that if the father and the bride lie and say she's a virgin when she's not, then the husband can bring the matter up (where if guilty the bride will be stoned) if he wants, or not. it actually never says the marriage is invalid, nor automatically imposes an execution.

it is completely barbaric BUT it doesn't say what that sign purports it to say.

Homer: Your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong. Even though they say it's okay in the bible.

Lisa: Really? Where?

Homer: Uh ... Somewhere in the back.

Don't give them any ideas. Christ on a cracker.

My favorite Bible Quote to throw in the faces of the homobigots is from the New Testament [Mark 7:15]:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

Now, Jesus may have been talking about kosher laws at the time. However, he was a cryptic user of parables. He may not have been talking about shellfish. He may have been talking about another man.

Caveat... Tops: You may be in some trouble when it comes time to ejaculate.

Atheists these days are become worse ignorant blowhards than fundamentalists. What's causing that?

Yeah, and some Christians like to cherry-pick the verses about Jesus being all lovey and stuff, but then there's Matthew 10:34-36, where he says:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Which I guess is justification for parents kicking out and disowning their gay kids.

"Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

Santorum?

10, Stoning a non virgin is not presented as an option:

Deuteronomy 22

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

I'm pretty sure that stoning a girl to death invalidates the marriage.

Another, interesting thing just before this passage:

17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If the husband lies about his wife's virginity, the husband must pay the girl's father? And the girl must remained married to this lying husband for life? Nice huh.

On my post at 17, That first line should say "Not stoning a non virgin isn't presented as and option.

This is just a tricky way to get us to read/re-read the bible. I'm agin it.

What? They drag her off to her fathers house and then the town gets her high? I'm confused.

The placard on display in the photo IS NOT the actual scripture passage. Here's the passage:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Just remember, this is a 2500 year old text. Is it any surprise it might seem a little primitive? If you've read the Bible, you'd know there is a ton of this kind of stuff in it. But only the most off-the-wall snake-charming fundamentalists would give a passage like this any credence.

I'm not sure the context of the placard-carrying photo, but obviously it's a photo of someone who's against religion and not afraid to misquote the Bible for his purposes.

Dan, I know you're not interested in being fair to religion, but out of respect for those of us who are progressive Christians it'd be great if some day you'd at least stop passing on untruths like the one on the placard.

@17 i never said it wasn't. but it is an option to bring up the issue. and the marriage isn't "invalidated" -- it's "until death do us part".

the sign says the a bride has to be a virgin or the marriage is invalid.

the verse does not say that. in fact, later in the chapter it says a woman who is raped outside of is without sin. non-virgins can marry. this is about lying and saying a woman is a virgin when they are not.

and the husband does not need to report this. once he does, then it would seem the stoning is not optional. but the text does not require it be reported.

21, That sign is accurate.

Maybe we can add it as a rider to the Protect Marriage Act of 2010 ballot measure being promoted here in California?

22, The scriptures say exactly that. Bringing the daughter to her father's door to be stoned, rather than killing her at her husbands home is giving the daughter back to the father. Not to mention a stoning the girl pretty much means the marriage is over.

This comment thread does nothing but reinforce the obvious: anyone (not just Christians) can cherry pick parts of the Bible to justify their own agenda and confirm their own bias.

@23 rob - the original verses are outdated and unlikable. but how is that sign accurate? the original text does not say what the sign claims it does.

and if you want to get all biblical: people continue to forget that the old testament laws were basically rendered invalid come the new testament - except a those that were reiterated. most food restrictions, for instance, were done away with. so was stoning a woman for adultery, which is very similar to the OT "law" depicted on this sign. so the stoning and shellfish arguments may sound clever to anyone who doesn't "believe" in the bible, they are basically without weight to someone who does believe.

@21 I don't see your point.

Christians love to cherry pick phrases from the bible and put them on signs to prove whatever ludicrous political point they are trying to make. Maybe you should talk to them and not Dan about who is respecting moderate christians.

to refute the idea that a non-virgin should be executed: joseph (of joseph and mary) found out mary was pregnant after marrying her but BEFORE an angel appeared to him. he was going to divorce her quietly EVEN THOUGH he thought she lied about being a virgin.

in other words: under old testament law you did not have to execute a woman who lied about being a virgin. but you could under certain circumstances if you wanted to do so.

33, I repeat, the sign is accurate. It reflects exactly what the scripture says.

From the NT. Jesus speaking of OT laws:

Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Plus, it's silly to think that a perfect God would ever need to change his laws. It's saying he didn't get them right in the first place.

Since Jews don't believe in the NT, should they be allowed to stone non-virgins?

rob -

who is the sign trying to convince? you? i don't think so. it's trying to convince a fundamentalist. i can continue if you like, but the sign will not convince a fundamentalist. it won't even convince an evangelical.

35, Again, the scripture referenced by that sign says the stoning must happen.

I will concede that the Bible is full of contradictions, but that doesn't change what the scripture in question says.

There's one little problem with that sign: plenty of Christianists would be perfectly happy to execute (female) non-virgins.

Countering Christian ignorance of the Bible with your own ignorance of the Bible doesn't really prove anything. In-frequent is the one who actually knows what he's talking about here. If you're not going to make an informed, effective argument, what's the point of making an argument in the first place?

your supporting verse has little to do with what the original sign says. the original sign states that a marriage is invalid if the woman is not a virgin. the OT does not give this rule at any point, and certainly not in the verse selected.

women who were once married and widowed could marry. this verse does not say they should be stoned. mary was pregnant and wasn't going to be stoned. bathsheeba was not stoned. there are many examples.

in fact, bathsheba married david as a non-virgin.

Bible schmible.

37, You are right. Christians cherry pick to find what they can use to attack people they hate, and follow only the scriptures that are convenient to them. They just ignore what they don't want to follow.

@35, joseph found out mary was pregnant after they were betrothed, but *before* he married her. he was going to "divorce" her ('put her away queity' IIRC) because the breaking of the betrothal contract required futher legal action. but they were not yet married.

and @22, it says a woman who is raped outside as in out in a field is without sin. it also says that a woman who is raped in a town should have screamed louder, and is guilty.

@37: You miss the point of the sign entirely.

The sign maker is saying that you can quote and contort the bible to basically make it say what you want it to say. We can chatter on and on about what the real message is or whether or not it's a direct or indirect quote, but the truth remains absolute fact: people take the bible toward their own context for nefarious purposes all the time.

Trying to validate or invalidate the content of his sign means you guys are simply missing the idea.

41, The sign is accurate to what the scripture it references says.

Rob, non virgin women could be given in marriage in Isreal, and their marriages were valid under the law. In Jesus's geneology three non virgins are mentioned, Rahab the prositute from Jerico, Ruth from Moab, and Bathsheba mother of King Solomon. Not to mention that the law demanded, that a man marry his brother's widow and provide an heir for the dead brother, in the instance that the deceased brother had not produced his own heir.

The issue in the Deut. passage has to do with divorce. Infidelity was the only valid reason under patriarchal Jewish law. If a man wanted to get rid of his wife he had two options, prove she was unfaithful or prove she was a liar with regard to her virginity. The burden of proof was on her. If the issue was adultry, she was taken to the priest, if she claimed innocence she was forced to drink a concoction that would render her infertile and yet to appear pregnant-like (enlarged abdomen and thin spindly thighs). If her physical appearance remained the same, she was "vindicated". If the issue was her lack of virginity, then the procedure outlined in Deut. was followed.

But, your right the law sucked, and if she was found innocent in both cases she was stuck with a real "winner" for a husband. That's what life was like then, she was property, either her husband's or her father's, and she had no legal rights of her own.

48, Yes, Kim the Bible is full of contradiction, but this sign is referencing one scripture. It is accurate.

@45 i think you are right about that; good catch. i'm not sure that changes the idea, though, that non-virgins could marry under OT law, including deut 22.

@46 maybe you are right and i am missing the point. if the point is that you can contort old passages to say things they don't really say, then perhaps it is succeeding. (except that i didn't get it on a first pass.) but who are they trying to convince? still the fundie? i think it would just make me mad were i (still) a fundie. i would say things like this: "Why do they have to lie to get people to vote for their issue?"

Hernandez and Baconcat are correct. Any person can take an eight second sound bite and twist it to say what they want, the Bible is no different.

If the sign encourages critical thinking, than it has achieved the goal for which it was created.

@32,
I still thought yours was funny.

Nevertheless... for coming in second place, that's a paddlin'

Is there ever a case where a girl lying about her virginity should be stoned? This verse says it must happen. Sure Christian's like to play the NT card, even though the NT quotes Jesus as saying the OT laws are in effect until Heaven and Earth disappear., and the fact that only a flawed God would need to change his rules.) What about Jews, since they don't believe in the NT, should they be allowed to stone a girl under these circumstances?

Also.

Where does it say the person holding the sign is gay?

I contend it used to be atheists would choose their words carefully and wouldn't pop off with utter nonsense; they'd take the time to check their facts. Now it's like: eh, that's truthy enough for me. I'll hold up a sign with some words on it even if I don't know what I'm talking about.

Religion always sounds like mental illness to me.

The law indeed stunk big time.
To me the real winner of" Fighter for women’s rights and their psychological health" is :

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed,
and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)"

Lets just force a girl to marry her rapist and live happily ever after... There are people who dare call themselves christians that now, today seriously think that rule SHOULD BE enforced, let alone wanting to deny gays their rights... (Sweet Lord thank you for not giving LC any daughters! :)

Sad, but here is the clear difference between dead religion that Jesus rebuked and Living Faith that treats all people equally and with love.
(highfives Kim)

Can we all just agree that the Bible is totally meaningless at this point?

Um, 57, that "dead religion" of which you speak is what some like to call Judaism.

@50: It's meant to convince people that bible verses can be contorted, nothing more. It's for the reader to make up his own mind. The fundamentalists will say "that's wrong, here's why" and land himself in a rhetorical pitfall because he's done work to backup his opposition while still contorting biblical verses. The pro-family/pro-equality side will say "oh, see, I agree", and some will perhaps stop focusing on the empty arguments made on those signs the fundamentalists carry because, well, they're empty.

The bible has always been about personal guidance, not blindly quoting for convenience. If you take parts and not the whole, you're really just destroying the purpose of it as a religious text and rendering your argument invalid because you are showing a blatant disregard for both context and personal interpretation. Which is why the bible should be read, not quoted on a sign or bumper sticker.

Well, at least i am happy to report, Rob, that I have friends who are adherents of Judaism, bother Reformed as well as Messianic, any nobody believes in stoning a non-virgin anymore.

But why go far, there are many dead religionists among Christians as well :))

Rob, you're as frustrating as LC, both of you pull things completely from it's context. Without context quotes means nothing, they are just words twisted to say what you want. This is true with the Bible as well, no single scripture stands on its own, and is not understandable without the context its found in. It appears beyond both of you to understand that sometimes rules and laws existed (and presently exist) because of the circumstances in which the people found themselves living in, and later those laws were removed because they were no longer necessary. This is true now (example the HIV travel ban, and the effort to overturn it now), just as it was true throughout history. Therefore, some of the rules, laws, and standard of conduct that were necessary for the twelve tribes of Israel to survive in the OT were not required in the NT. Hence, why the mass slaughtering of bulls, goats, lambs, and doves is no longer practiced today. Hence, why most of the rules, laws, and standard of conduct found in Leviticus are outdated (some 600+ aren't practiced by Christians, and practicing Jews don't follow every single one either). I wish I could, but I can't help either of you, you both are so very certain you know everything.

It's my poverty, but I'm unwilling to dance in circles with you today, you're a smart man, but your unwilling to accept that in this instance you don't have the complete picture.

Points to you for trolling me, but now I'm out of here.

62, They don't stone virgins because they choose to ignore that passage. There's plenty of scripture in the NT that most Christians ignore as well.

Do you believe that women shouldn't braid their hair, or wear gold. Should women remain silent in church. Should a woman never hold authority over a man?

63, I think you are getting the point of "We can quote the Bible too."

The HIV ban is a law made by man. Man as an imperfect being can make flawed laws. Biblical law is supposedly divine, and perfect, from a perfect God. A perfect law would always remain so. What changed so much that God would need to sent Jesus to throw out so much of God's previous laws? Do you really believe that a perfect, all powerful God would care about bull sacrifices? How could such sacrifices ever be needed for survival?

@55—I totally agree! I'm so grateful my parents spared me all of this nonsense, and seriously sympathetic to those who are confused/conflicted/angered/etc. by it all.

@37 I don't think the sign is trying to convince fundementalist christians that they're wrong. it's trying to convince normal humans with fully functional brains that fundementalist christians are ignorant dumbshits. And it works!

@61. i'm not so sure. maybe. rob certainly thinks that's what the text actually says sans twisting.

i can see that a person can make the argument that this is just showing how you can twist scripture, but i don't think that's what it's doing. to remove all doubt the sign might say, look we can twist scripture too. this would, in my mind, be a far more effective sign.

as is, there are no circles to jump through for the fundie to explain this away. kim explains it away fairly quickly. the text just doesn't say that, and there is no support for that contextually.

therefore, it's just not a very good example, and hence, not a very good sign. that is my opinion, so there's not much point in arguing it. if you think the sign is good and effective, i can understand that as well. my past experience and reasoning posted above just leads me to believe it will not be an effective too to convince (or even get thinking) the fundie crowd.

I remember an orthodox jew explaining to an orthodox rabbi how the OT doesn't prohibit homosexuality, just anal sex, so it was okay to be gay as long as he didn't have anal sex. I don't know anything about jewish law, but the rabbi was convinced.

The Bible is nothing more than expensively bound toilet paper.

68, You can't argue that it doesn't require a girl who lies to her husband about being a virgin to be stoned. Again I'll ask, should Jews be allowed to stone a girl if she lies about her virginity?

@64
Rob you are indeed a very smart man. and I wholeheartedly agree with majority of your posts, but here I am not sure i get your arguments, sorry.

No, to answer your question, the Bible doesnt say not to wear gold. Only, as Kim said, if you take the verses completely out of context. Then yes, you can have the Bible say anything.What it's saying - gold and hairstyling is not what makes a woman truly beautiful, and wearing it for that purpose is useless. Kindness, faith and loving heart do.

Also the Bible doesn't say that woman has to be silent in church. There are women in the Bible that organized churches in their homes, served as deaconesses, we are encouraged to bring the Gospel out. And such women are praised by the same Paul! i dont see how one can do all those things and remain quiet or not take authority over men, it would be impossible.

70, The Bible should be viewed as a record of what people believed when they wrote it. It's a work of an ancient people, trying to explain a world they didn't understand, and should be regarded as such. It's a book of ancient superstition based laws, and rituals and nothing more.

@71. rob, continuing this would be like arguing with a table. (is that the appropriate insult du jour?) the sign says the wife has be a virgin or the marriage is invalid. that is not what Duet 22 says, neither actually nor contextually, nor is it what the OT or NT says. what part about that is not clear? you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are just accidentally arguing unfairly. either way, i agree with kim, at this point it's like talking with LC.

72, Um wrong. That is you just ignoring what you don't want to follow.

1 Timothy 2
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Peter 3:3
3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

74, You know you don't have a point to argue. Funny how you're repeatedly avoided answering my question. Thanks for playing.

re: shellfish, fabric, homosexuality, and the bible.

here's the deal with OT law (experts feel free to correct me if i am wrong. i'm talking about you, kim).

the law was valid in the OT. it included things like prohibitions against eating tasty shellfish, sewing certain fabrics together, having sex outside marriage, etc. the law was used as an example of what it would take to be holy, like god (or adam and eve before the fall). the thing is that any sin makes you fail as a someone who keeps the law. since all people sin, all people feel short of the standard of god. god does not allow sinners into heaven.

but it turns out that there really isn't a law after all; there is just god's holiness. the law tried to outline what holiness could look like (with some general health regulations thrown in for good measure). the law actually existed to show people that they were unholy. anyone who follows the law would fail.

the law outlines that death is the result of sin. so, in effect, death is paying for sin. but not just any death: only sinless death. the animals sacrificed are examples of this. jesus, in short, was the perfect sacrifice because he was without sin, by the law probably, but actually by the real standard of holiness. if you believe in jesus (however you'd like to put it) and allow him to be your sacrifice, you can be considered holy, and enter god's presence in heaven.

so jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. the law is not done away with, but for "those who believe in jesus," the law is, in effect, no longer binding. this is why most christians celebrate church on a day other than the sabbath. so you can see how one can take this to mean that god didn't change his mind, but that there is a continuum, much like a parent changes the rules for their children as they grow older.

where you have any debate all at is is when certain rules are restated in the new testament. it does not take much twisting to understand what these say (in the mind of a fundie):

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NIV 1 Cor 6:9-11

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV Rom 1:27

9 We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11 that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God.
CJB 1 Tim 1:9-11

...not to mention all the sex outside of marriage is wrong stuff. note the last verse also working in the idea that the law is for the sinners idea.

(sure, you can argue that these are translation errors, or paul's opinion alone, but that won't carry much weight with a fudie either: the bible is infallible!)

this means, in short, that the "shellfish!!!" and "different fabrics!!!" arguments mean nothing to a modern christian. in fact, by default, and OT verse will likely be disregarded by habit. but since homosexuality gets a little shout out in the NT, it's still considered law by the fundies.

yes! there can be plenty of contradictions and arguable assertions in what i wrote above. but generally speaking this is what the fundie believes. that means certain "gotcha!" quips do not hold much weight. they may seem clever to the choir, but then the choir only ends up with the ineffective argument as well. (perhaps i'm too hard on the shellfish argument... perhaps that is enough to get someone thinking about why god would reintroduce some laws and not others... but even so, that is pretty much sunday school 201 faire.)

77,

Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

@76 hello table.

1. i said that under this law a wife found to have lied about her virginity could be stoned, but did not have to be. i gave plenty of examples apart from the actual words of the text. that is the answer to your question, and i answered many times above. but i'm glad you are now including that it is the lie + action (not just the action) that creates the capital offense. how have i not answered this question you teabagger?

2. this verse does not say what the sign reads, that a marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin. it flat out does not say that at all in any way or any sense, and there is no twisting or context necessary.

Fo real.

whatever rob. i can see that you are just trolling me. it makes me sad that your efforts do nothing to support what is an important cause.

i believe it is better to be equipped to talk with those who disagree with you, and it's better to know their arguments better than they do. i can see we differ on this view, and i will let that be that.

81, Why do you refuse to answer the question? Should Jews be allowed to stone a girl if she lied about being a virgin to her husband? It's what their scriptures say.

Rob, I can't stay around here, I've got too much on my plate, but I'll try over lunch. Help me here, and try and grasp that not every law, rule, etc. that existed in the OT and NT, are laws given by God. Flawed men added to the law. More importantly try and understand that the 10 commandments are the Biblical laws, that Jesus says remains and he summed them into two laws: 1)Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. 2) Love your neighbor as your yourself. Those two laws contain the entire 10 commandments, this is the divine perfect law, and it's immutable. All the rest of the laws, for lack of a better word were flexible and in some instances less permanence, i.e. they were situationally dependent.

The Bible is a love letter, that is it's primary purpose and main reason for its existence. The laws within the Bible exist for human purposes, so that humans understand that they, themselves, are not God. They exist to highlight the difference between God who is holy, just, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, good, kind, patient, loving, and humans who at their best moments are far from perfect. We believe that in order to live in relationship with God humans have to be perfect, therefore all sin and failure to keep the 10 commandments has to be punished. The OT rules of sacrifice existed to cleanse the people, the animals had to die. Jesus was the last lamb and the last scape goat, the last sacrifice. God (who is three persons in one) knew that no bull, lamb, etc. could cleanse perfectly, that no flawed human can live perfectly, but that God the Son, who is Jesus, is perfect and that his death is acceptable cleansing for all people and for all eternity. Hence, no bull sacrifices for Christians, but you will need to ask someone of Jewish faith why they don't perform the sacrifice presently.

That's the love story, that God in his perfection knew that no human could become equal in perfection on their own, made himself the punishment required to make every human perfect. The caveat is that we each have accept that Jesus bore our individual imperfections. The Good News is that the offer remains open to every single person who walks the earth.

I hope that helps. Have a good weekend.

To add to my post at 82, Your argument is that virginity isn't necessary for a marriage to be Biblically valid, but that doesn't address that it calls for a girl to be killed if she lies about it. For the sake of argument let's say that you are right on the validity part. The Bible still calls for the death penalty for lying about virginity. Why do you insist on arguing on just the one issue?

We'll also stipulate that the NT outdates this rule for Christians. What about Jews? Why should they ignore this religious law requirement?

I'm sorry, I can't understand any of this. The Bible was written in Aramaic after all, and you're all going to be stoned for eating shellfish and pork.

(mostly hebrew and greek)

83, That's a lot of flowery talk, but really answers nothing. You are basically saying that nothing in the Bible can be trusted as being Gods law because man added to it, and thus we can't discern what was written by whom.

Why, even before Jesus, would an all perfect God require the slaughtering of animals to forgive sin? Why would an all powerful God care about such scarifies? Why would an omnipotent God need to create Jesus just to change God's own laws of forgiveness.

No Rob, your be obtuse. Read it again, stop being so black and white, I gave you the immutable Biblical laws. I gave you the reason for the laws, and for the creation of the sacrificial system. The animal sacrifices were symbolic and ended with Jesus sacrificing himself. God didn't create Jesus, Jesus is God.

If God wanted nothing but compliant followers, then he would not have made us in his image, he'd have made us all Labradors. It's a love story, love between God and his people. That's why we aren't compliant Labradors, we are humans. Would you really love, your lover, if he was nothing but a compliant yes man, following on your heals without thought or question?

I answered all your questions in my "flowery talk", and you didn't try to comprehend them in the three minutes you to read it and to respond.

I sincerely tried to answer your questions, but you seem to want to play games. Enjoy them. I've got better things to do. If you're ever serious we can try again.

Most Christians believe that Jesus' death "accomplished" the fulfillment of all the Law's requirements. So the OT laws were "in force" until his death and resurrection, at which point they were considered fulfilled and no longer binding. The NT says that what the Law couldn't do, God did in Jesus, and so the requirement of the law is fulfilled or accomplished (Romans 8:3-4).

What good does a bull sacrifice do God? None, really--but it wasn't mainly for God. That's the point. We don't discipline our kids just for our sake--we discipline them so they learn to live in society and not have problems down the road. God gave the rules and rituals to the people not because he needed them, but because they did.

Paul goes on in Romans to explain that God's law was not imperfect but rather that its "perfection" showed our failings. God did not have to repeal his laws because they were imperfect-rather, the fact that we failed to comply with the Law showed that we needed God's help all the more.

I am not Jewish, though I had a long friendship with a Jewish couple I worked with for several years, and I've done some reading and studying with them. They don't have the temple, so they obviously can't practice their full worship service according to the Law, so they had to make allowances for that and substitute new rituals for those they can no longer fulfill. Any Jewish readers, please feel free to correct me on that.

The early church had a meeting to decide which, if any, of the old laws needed to continue to be followed, since non-Jews were starting to come into the group. Specifically, circumcision was being touted as a requirement.

In the discussion that resulted, the early church leaders acknowledged that it had been impossible to follow the laws "which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10)

In the end, the only rules they set for the new disciples were to abstain from four things: 1-things sacrificed to idols; 2-eating blood; 3- eating animals that were strangled; and 4-fornication. (Acts 15:28-29) This made it possible for the Jewish-heritage Christians to socially interact with the Gentile-heritage Christians, since those four things were still abhorrent to the former.

I think that religions and religious texts are works of art that you can interpret in any way you please.
On the note of religious law vs. state law, I totally think they should be separate. This country was supposed to be founded on freedom of religion (or lack thereof).

Anyway, isn't that why we're supposed to be mad at the Taliban and Afghanistan, because of all their Sharia law and whatnots?

@ Kim @48:

The issue in the Deut. passage has to do with divorce. Infidelity was the only valid reason under patriarchal Jewish law.

Well, that law was not just for the Patriarchs, it's for all Christians:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18

The Catholics at least pay lip service to that law (part of the reason why Massachusetts has the nation's lowest divorce rate). Other so-called Christians, including fundamentalists, evangelicals, whatever, just ignore it, cherry-picking even the words of Jesus.

As far as modern Jews stoning lying non-virgin wives--stoning was the ancient culture's means of execution. If they were going to execute someone today, it'd probably be the gas chamber. Not sure--I'd have to check Israel's capital punishment.

As to whether or not they adhere to literal interpretations, you'd best talk to an Orthodox rabbi. I don't believe they'd go for the death penalty, though I do think they'd nullify the marriage. But I'm not Jewish, so I don't really know.

kk in seattle @ 91,

I'm aware, but I was specifically addressing the Deut. passage and that period of history of the twelve tribes of Israel.

My sincere apologies for the many typos in post 88.

This is well worth the 4 minutes. Punchline about half-way through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFR…

Another hilarious video has the relevant punchline about 45 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…

Oh snap!

i just want to be clear here:

using bible verses incorrectly makes you seem as stupid to anti-gay/evangelical/fundamental/etc christians as birthers/truthers/obamaishitler/etc people seem to you.

i know "incorrectly" may seem subjective.... but you must consider that for many verses there exists two things:

1) the actual words of the verse (in an accepted translation)
2) the generally understood context and meaning of that verse as defined by christians

if your sign, ad, or video disregards BOTH 1 and 2, then it will not be thought-provoking to anyone. instead, you will come off -- to the christian -- as someone who does not know what you are talking about. it does not matter how well-reasoned you think your argument is, you cannot disregard both the actual words and the generally understood context.

When our Lord Jesus Christ came to this Earth he spilled his precious blood for our sins in the crucifix, by doing so everyone who now comes to know Him and accept Him as hers or his personal Saviour is elevated to a closer relationship with the Holy Father through Him. As such, we as new creatures in Christ no longer need to communicate with our Father by submission to Torahnic Laws as the Hebrews did before Christ glorious birth, but instead it is through our acceptance, understanding and passion for his Son that we now can gain a closer relation with Him.

As it concerns this passage it is when the relationship of the man and the woman who wish to enter in holy union is sealed in the name of Christ ( through a wedding in the Church and with all their loved ones as witnesses) that the real value in the relationship starts to count. As the Bible says:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" Ephesians 5:31

That means they are no longer two, but one flesh in the eyes of the Almighty Himself. And that's whats important in the eyes of the Lord, just as any other sinner who has come to him is born a new and all his past errors are forgiven. So are those who come to him to take part in his most sacred institution on this Earth (the family). We all have stray away and we all have the capacity of being transformed by the master potter, for it is He who has the power to do so and the last word in our lives if we open up our hearts to Him.

@75 ;)
Well, if i am "ignoring" those verses then at least i am glad i in good company - there were many women mentioned in the NT that also "ignored and not followed" them.

I wonder why does Paul praise those women ? You mean to say he praises them for disobeying his own words and orders?

The fact is, Christian marriage, what it is today has only been in existence for about 500 years. Marriage what it is today was created by man, it has evolved and changed since the beginning of written history and the beginning of human existence. Marriage can and will evolve to whatever we let it become.

I believe it is time for same sex marriage.

Allowing same sex marriage will in no way threaten or destroy the institution of marriage, all these people want to do is have something to hold onto for their very own and use it to say that we are not good enough or worthy enough to marry, these people are the true evil.
How many straight right winged Christians an politicians get caught being adulterers, or being pedophiles?

Well, you can believe gay people are going to burn in hell for having butt-secks or just being gay....as well as all the people who wear cotton-poly blends, eat at Red Lobster, and enjoy bacon for breakfast.....or you can dislodge your head from your netherparts and recall the bible was written by illiterate bronze age sheperds who drank way to much wine and believed the world was flat & warts were caused by demons.

I usually like to get stoned and then eat shellfish and pork.

Seriously though, could we switch from arguing aboutthe Hebrew/Christian bible to arguing about the Edda? The Edda has as much social relevence and Thor's way cuter than Jesus.

How come no one (in most Biblical discussions like this) ever mentions that the Bible was written, then edited (and transcribed and translated over and over), by men. Men whose Biblical work reflected their culture, as well as their personal and political ambitions.

And how about all those beloved, "immutable Biblical truths" that were actually decisions made at Councils of Nicea (and the like)?

For example: Among other things, it was the guys at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that that declared Jesus was a deity (even though Jesus never said it), changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and allowed the advocates of Pauline scripture to win out politically so that only four Greek Gospels were kept in the Bible (out of the 200-something that had been circulating up to that point - which reflects how the diversity of our early Christian traditions were squashed as heretical).

This information is easy to confirm in both liberal and conservative sources. In my mind, all this suggests that everything in the Bible is suspect -- as "Gods Word" anyhow.