by ThomasCovenant 191 Replies latest members adult
It illustrates it nicely, no?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles/on_women/01_1c11_04.html
dissed, it definitely does. I like it. I won't ever be able to look at the Lego people the same way again.
LOL @ darth frosty! 'Now he's married to a Presbyterian."
thetrueone, I checked it out. Very good read. At one time I was interested in reading the Bible from cover to cover. I no longer have that interest.
All I have to say is that I'm glad that God is patient and merciful.
The End.
Sylvia
Now, those were some hostile responses!
Sylvia: So you will not respond to my posts because .. why exactly?
let Sylvia believe.............
personally speaking, I wish I could believe.............. but cannot.
all kinds of logic took it away, and there's times I wish I could!
maybe when I'm in my 60's I will have a bigger dilemma
DaCheech: I see your point, the thing is that i found some of the things Sylvia said about rape victims (in particular it would be a wise idea to let the rapist live with the women he raped, thus providing him more oppertunity to violate her) quite offensive, especially when it was supported by such an obvious example of special pleading.
snowbird: Lets not talk about who is right or wrong. Instead i want to ask you if you will agree that when you eg. write:
I firmly believe - and I could be wrong, of course - that God made those laws to deal with situations that existed at that particular time.
You are basically just hoping or thinking it was thus, and you are really using the logical fallacy called "Special Pleading"? If not, can you give me an example you do consider to be special pleading?
Oh, forgive me, Bohm.
Based on God's benevolence toward His chosen people, I wouldn't call it special pleading to say that I believe those laws He gave the nation of Israel were beneficial for them during that particular time in their history.
Since you're into logical fallacies, I'm curious as to why you haven't called any of the other posters out for making unwarranted assumptions and arguments from silence.
Just sayin.'
Sylvia
Based on God's benevolence toward His chosen nation, I dont consider it a case of special pleading to say the laws He gave them were for their benefit during that paricular period of their history.
Since you're into logical fallacies, I'm curious as to why you haven't called some of the other posters out for making unwarranted assumptions.
Just sayin.'
Sylvia
So... this is my first time posting, and in fact, it was this specific thread that prompted me to join this site. I don't usually like to post, because most people- in my experience- refuse to accept anything other than what they already believe to begin with. But here goes...
Jesus did say that the Hebrews were given laws that were not in accordance with what God wanted, simply because their hearts were hard at the time. Matthew 19:7-8... "Why then," they(Pharisees) asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away(for any and every reason)?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way form the beginning..."
It seems to be a very clear sentence to me. Were the Hebrews of those times capable of or willing to understand better? According to this, no, not at that time. I believe they also misunderstood things, as in the case of sacrifices...
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Jesus reminded them often of this 'mercy, not sacrifice...'
And also, Isaiah 58:6-8 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
The God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. Only our understanding of Him has changed, or it should have, thanks to Jesus Christ.
Sylvia: No indeed. If we ASSUME God is good and want the best for us, then it is logical to assume his laws are good to. but thats not what i talked about. We are trying to establish if the law that a raped virgin should be married to her rapist is a good law.
So thats quite a complicated judgement, and one where i argue that it would suck for the woman to be raped again and again, and you argue that that situation is somehow bad for the rapist to. Interesting positions, but lets not get carried away by needless details.
Where i think your reasoning fails is that you try to argue the laws were good because you 'believe ... situations existed at that time' that somehow made them okay. The key word here is believe. I think i am right if i assume you really know nothing about the situation that existed at that time, and you cant point to anything particular that would justify the law - you just *believe* it. Thats where special pleading come in.
If i were to tell you that the people of Soviet Russia had to be ruled by a hard hand and that justified Stalins genoside, because otherwise i 'believed' they would revolt and that would have been far worse, i think you would suspect i was just saying this stuff because my world view was build around Communism being good and anything that conflicted that must have some flaw or explanation, even if i cannot point to it.Thats what i call special pleading.
So now i ask you again: Will you agree that your rationalization of this law is just an example of special pleading and if not, where do i misunderstand you? Where does the parallel with my example fail? What IS a good example of special pleading to you?
Tec, Welcome to the board, but I have a question about what you posted.
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Jesus reminded them often of this 'mercy, not sacrifice...'
God was exacting sacrifices at the outset, in fact showed favor to Abel over Cain. So when did he change his mind? Christ himself was a sacrifice.
r.
Most of these critical comments are based on very anachronistic views.
The world of that time was very different from our modern world.
In our world, this law would be a curse. In that world, it was a provision to protect the woman.
Marriage in the Law existed as an institution to protect women. The prohibition of divorce existed to prevent an older woman from being abandoned by her husband once her beauty had faded. What other protection did she have?
This was an age when women were held in a very low place. A widowed woman for example, was a charity case. Anyone remember Ruth? She had to go glean the leftovers of the field, a provision prescribed by the Law as a protection for the poor, until a man took her in as his wife. Noemi told her to go back to her people. In Ruth's case it was Boaz that married her.
Before the Law, a disgraced virgin was a disgrace to her family, and might even be cast out to protect family honor.
Anyone remember what happened to Hagar when Sarah ran her off?
She went into the desert with nothing but the Lord's promise to shield her.
A disgraced virgin, or a lone woman, was as good as dead without a man to take her in.
This law was designed to protect a violated virgin and guarantee her protection. The man that took her would now have to support her the rest of his days. She would be able bear children within the pale of the marriage, and guarantee herself a share in the family wealth, and children to care of her in her old age (this is the original Social Security for the elderly).
BTS
