How to fix the family
Options
Replies
-
The reason why the rules exist in the OT was an effort to allow the people to be figuratively and spiritually clean in God's eyes. It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason). BUT the point was that those rules and those sacrifices are no longer needed... not just because they are barbaric but because of the ultimate blood sacrifice of Christ through his barbaric death and ultimate ressurection. What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus), or even that women are supposed to be exactly what is described in Proverbs 31 (tying back to the OP)... following these rules down to the minute details is no longer necessary to follow or have a relationship with God... that was evident by the tearing of the veil as described in scripture (which was torn from top to bottom and it wasn't some flimsy cotton curtian... it was heavy and thick) between the Holy of Holies and the rest of the temple. The fire and brimestone people misunderstand widely as well... Christ was angry at the defiling of the temple because they were essentially commericializing what was supposed to be a reverant place of worship... It would be like if there was a pitchman trying to sell OxyClean or SlapChop in the middle of a worship service, not exactly reverent or respectful. And as far as the throwing of stones, Christ made that one abundantly clear that it shouldn't be done. I think most evangelicals cherry pick in the OT because according to the NT Christ didn't come out and explicitely say "don't judge homosexuals" so they think it's ok... even though Christ did say "let those without sin cast the first stone"... the evangelicals conviently forget that they too have sin in their lives, it just may be easier to hide or it's consider (more) acceptible in today's culture.
I think the problem comes with these ministers that have a narrow view of God and the Bible is they don't take the cultural differences of the day into respect.0 -
This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.0
-
This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.
But the thing is, it isn't just about dying so that someone can sin... the sin in essence is an uncleanliness of our spirit and our body... it is something that separates us from God and having a relationship with Him. It's not about the sin per se, but the seperation of us from God. When we sin in any way, we can become filled with so many (often negative) emotions and feelings that hinder our relationship to God and to other people. Jesus died, so we wouldn't have to be encumbered with so many do's and do not's in order to have a relationship with Him (which was the case in the OT). Not so that someone can eat shell fish or have sex with someone of the same gender or even so women can work outside of the home, but to be able to focus on His work that He started.0 -
This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.
0 -
It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.
For example:It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).
I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),
And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).
So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.0 -
It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.
For example:It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).
I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),
And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).
So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.
I agree with you re. context, but think you may want to rephrase your sentence "Sodomy is essentially rape" to say that the term Sodomy, as used in the story of Lot, is meant to infer rape. Sorry if that seems persnickety, but Sodomy can be consensual, so I assume you didn't mean that it is always akin to rape, which is how I read that sentence initially.0 -
I can agree with both... I have started to read the amplified version for the same reason. Context and reference has more to do with what it says than anything else. A recent example of why I started reading that version, as opposed to the NKJV that I typically read, was at the end of the Lord's prayer it states in many versions, "and yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever, Amen." but it doesn't show up in the orginal writings nor in many translations (for that reason).
And that's a good point about the sacrifices. I knew that the priests would eat the offerings... but that makes a good point. But there was still blood that needed to be shed (as barbaric as that sounds) and it ties back to the story of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God and as a result killed a lion in order to "cover their nakedness".0 -
Realizing the thread was on marriage, I am sorry if we derailed with homosexuality...but I want to add that homosexuality wasn't open at that time in those areas. Other areas on the planet had similar or different takes depending on the culture. As :LuckyLeprechaun stated earlier with her theory on why divorce has risen ( a theory I have shared almost verbatim for some time), I also have a theory about homosexuality. I believe that a small portion of the population is truly homosexual. They have no attraction to the opposite sex and are 100% gay. But if you read any amount of history...homosexual behavior (which is slightly different) rises when a society rises to power, obtains luxury, but more importantly is no longer shackled to procreation as an only means to survival.
Rome, Egypt, Greece, The Nazis, and now America. Think of the girls at college or at spring break who end up kissing other girls or going way farther. They aren't gay, but our society has relaxed it's grip on certain morals making it ok, possible desirable for women to exhibit these behaviors in these situations. I do think that ancient middle eastern hatred of homosexual behavior stems from at least two sources.
First, and easiest to understand....when you need a lot of sons to tend the herd and pick up arms against other aggressive tribes, it is easy to see how the family patriarch would be disturbed if young Jonah isn't making babies with his bride, but fooling around with another dude.
Second, the Jews ( while not saints themselves) were in direct contact with places like Egypt and Rome, who did advocate different forms of slavery. It is a good chance in my opinion that many of the rules against homosexuality weren't really against homosexuality at all, but something they had no word for yet, pedophilia. It is easy to see how the religions of poor people whose sons had a good chance of being raped by a rich, drunken Roman might have an issue with that.0 -
It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.
For example:It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).
I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),
And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).
So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.
I agree with you re. context, but think you may want to rephrase your sentence "Sodomy is essentially rape" to say that the term Sodomy, as used in the story of Lot, is meant to infer rape. Sorry if that seems persnickety, but Sodomy can be consensual, so I assume you didn't mean that it is always akin to rape, which is how I read that sentence initially.
Language has a tendency to evolve over time. What I am saying is that the original Hebrew word for "sodomy" very well could have inferred always to be rape, and because society has seen homosexuality as a taboo, the word has evolved to infer both forcible and consensual. I think its reasonable to make that assumption given that two very different extremes have been lumped into the same category.0 -
I can agree with both... I have started to read the amplified version for the same reason. Context and reference has more to do with what it says than anything else. A recent example of why I started reading that version, as opposed to the NKJV that I typically read, was at the end of the Lord's prayer it states in many versions, "and yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever, Amen." but it doesn't show up in the orginal writings nor in many translations (for that reason).
And that's a good point about the sacrifices. I knew that the priests would eat the offerings... but that makes a good point. But there was still blood that needed to be shed (as barbaric as that sounds) and it ties back to the story of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God and as a result killed a lion in order to "cover their nakedness".
Yes, blood was used ceremonially, but this is also a primitive society that we are speaking of. My point is simply that the way "sacrifice" is used in the old testament is not necessarily how we have interpretted it. And that furthers my point that loose interpretations have distorted the way people have perceived the bible over the centuries.0 -
how can people think like that? we would be so much better off without religion.0
-
Oh I totally agree... back to the marriage part, and even topic of this thread. The word "submit"... When Paul wrote Corinthians, there wasn't the word "submit" as we today think of submit. The word he actually used (which can still be misconstrued) means "to fall under" (hupotasso) and it was a military term. Like a Sargent would fall under a Captain and a Captain would fall under a General. And while there still may be an element of "obey" in this structure, it's not exactly a forced action and the end of that phrase is "in the Lord". If Paul meant for women to "obey unconditionally" he would have stated so as he did to the slaves and children. But in order to submit in the way that Paul urges there has to be a mutual respect there otherwise it won't work.
Also, when it comes to that verse, there are people that forget that Paul urged husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, thus completing the mutual respect and honor towards each other. Submitting doesn't mean subjegating.0 -
Oh I totally agree... back to the marriage part, and even topic of this thread. The word "submit"... When Paul wrote Corinthians, there wasn't the word "submit" as we today think of submit. The word he actually used (which can still be misconstrued) means "to fall under" (hupotasso) and it was a military term. Like a Sargent would fall under a Captain and a Captain would fall under a General. And while there still may be an element of "obey" in this structure, it's not exactly a forced action and the end of that phrase is "in the Lord". If Paul meant for women to "obey unconditionally" he would have stated so as he did to the slaves and children. But in order to submit in the way that Paul urges there has to be a mutual respect there otherwise it won't work.
Also, when it comes to that verse, there are people that forget that Paul urged husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, thus completing the mutual respect and honor towards each other. Submitting doesn't mean subjegating.
Yes, and let's not forget the verse (forgive me I don't have them memorized so I can't really cite them) "The unsanctified husband is sanctified by the wife." Therefore, the wife can act outside of the husband's will so long as her actions are godly.0 -
Oh I totally agree... back to the marriage part, and even topic of this thread. The word "submit"... When Paul wrote Corinthians, there wasn't the word "submit" as we today think of submit. The word he actually used (which can still be misconstrued) means "to fall under" (hupotasso) and it was a military term. Like a Sargent would fall under a Captain and a Captain would fall under a General. And while there still may be an element of "obey" in this structure, it's not exactly a forced action and the end of that phrase is "in the Lord". If Paul meant for women to "obey unconditionally" he would have stated so as he did to the slaves and children. But in order to submit in the way that Paul urges there has to be a mutual respect there otherwise it won't work.
Also, when it comes to that verse, there are people that forget that Paul urged husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, thus completing the mutual respect and honor towards each other. Submitting doesn't mean subjegating.
Yes, and let's not forget the verse (forgive me I don't have them memorized so I can't really cite them) "The unsanctified husband is sanctified by the wife." Therefore, the wife can act outside of the husband's will so long as her actions are godly.
Had to look that one up. "14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." 1 Cor 7:14 NIV.
I knew which verse you were talking about, I just couldn't remember the reference. But to me, if women weren't on some equal footing, than we shouldn't be able to be sanctified through our marriage, while men were able to be and our children would equally be "unclean". (qoutes to acknowledge that this is theological jargon).0 -
I can agree with both... I have started to read the amplified version for the same reason. Context and reference has more to do with what it says than anything else. A recent example of why I started reading that version, as opposed to the NKJV that I typically read, was at the end of the Lord's prayer it states in many versions, "and yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever, Amen." but it doesn't show up in the orginal writings nor in many translations (for that reason).
And that's a good point about the sacrifices. I knew that the priests would eat the offerings... but that makes a good point. But there was still blood that needed to be shed (as barbaric as that sounds) and it ties back to the story of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God and as a result killed a lion in order to "cover their nakedness".
Yes, blood was used ceremonially, but this is also a primitive society that we are speaking of. My point is simply that the way "sacrifice" is used in the old testament is not necessarily how we have interpretted it. And that furthers my point that loose interpretations have distorted the way people have perceived the bible over the centuries.
How does this new, clearer and cleaner version of sacrifice jive with the whole Abraham and Isaac relationship? Also, what of the imagery of the blood streaming from the heads of the slaughtered animals used to form one of the covenants with Yahweh?0 -
How does this new, clearer and cleaner version of sacrifice jive with the whole Abraham and Isaac relationship?
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the child that him and his wife longed for all of their lives, to test Abraham's loyalty. But when Abraham proved himself, God stopped him because he really didn't want Isaac's blood. He just wanted Abraham's loyalty. So, God made a covenant with Abraham to love and protect all of his descendants until the end of time. Jesus is actually the pinnacle fulfillment of that covenant. As Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God, in turn, willingly sacrificed His own so that the sins of all of Abraham's descendants could be forgiven.Also, what of the imagery of the blood streaming from the heads of the slaughtered animals used to form one of the covenants with Yahweh?
Of this, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you cite a particular verse that describes this and I will look it up when I get home and get back to you on that?0 -
How does this new, clearer and cleaner version of sacrifice jive with the whole Abraham and Isaac relationship?
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the child that him and his wife longed for all of their lives, to test Abraham's loyalty. But when Abraham proved himself, God stopped him because he really didn't want Isaac's blood. He just wanted Abraham's loyalty. So, God made a covenant with Abraham to love and protect all of his descendants until the end of time. Jesus is actually the pinnacle fulfillment of that covenant. As Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God, in turn, willingly sacrificed His own so that the sins of all of Abraham's descendants could be forgiven.Also, what of the imagery of the blood streaming from the heads of the slaughtered animals used to form one of the covenants with Yahweh?
Of this, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you cite a particular verse that describes this and I will look it up when I get home and get back to you on that?
Asking someone to kill their own child doesn't sound very moral to me, whether he meant it or not.0 -
How does this new, clearer and cleaner version of sacrifice jive with the whole Abraham and Isaac relationship?
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the child that him and his wife longed for all of their lives, to test Abraham's loyalty. But when Abraham proved himself, God stopped him because he really didn't want Isaac's blood. He just wanted Abraham's loyalty. So, God made a covenant with Abraham to love and protect all of his descendants until the end of time. Jesus is actually the pinnacle fulfillment of that covenant. As Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God, in turn, willingly sacrificed His own so that the sins of all of Abraham's descendants could be forgiven.Also, what of the imagery of the blood streaming from the heads of the slaughtered animals used to form one of the covenants with Yahweh?
Of this, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you cite a particular verse that describes this and I will look it up when I get home and get back to you on that?
Asking someone to kill their own child doesn't sound very moral to me, whether he meant it or not.
Ah, but there again, it was no different than what the people that worshipped the other gods of the time were doing. At least God didn't expect him to follow through.0 -
How does this new, clearer and cleaner version of sacrifice jive with the whole Abraham and Isaac relationship?
God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the child that him and his wife longed for all of their lives, to test Abraham's loyalty. But when Abraham proved himself, God stopped him because he really didn't want Isaac's blood. He just wanted Abraham's loyalty. So, God made a covenant with Abraham to love and protect all of his descendants until the end of time. Jesus is actually the pinnacle fulfillment of that covenant. As Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, God, in turn, willingly sacrificed His own so that the sins of all of Abraham's descendants could be forgiven.Also, what of the imagery of the blood streaming from the heads of the slaughtered animals used to form one of the covenants with Yahweh?
Of this, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you cite a particular verse that describes this and I will look it up when I get home and get back to you on that?
Asking someone to kill their own child doesn't sound very moral to me, whether he meant it or not.
Ah, but there again, it was no different than what the people that worshipped the other gods of the time were doing. At least God didn't expect him to follow through.
Comparing him to the other gods at the time really doesn't speak to the validity of his existence or morality. And not making him follow through in this instance doesn't explain letting the devil kill Job's family for sport or slaughtering all the first born of Egypt for the sins of their fathers or about a hundred other things from the OT that modern man must cringe at or do mental back flips to try to justify.0 -
Actually, feel free to disregard my last post. I feel as if we are going to derail even further from the OP.0
