Is the biblical teaching on marriage a good thing for women?

[Rose]

I for one don't like to use 'divorce' as relating to the OT and NT, but rather like the usage of to put away. I think there's a great deal of differences among these two. To put away is to force the woman out of the house and that goes without any support. I would only think that the man would say that she was unworthy and casted her out and therefore placed a bad name upon her. This of course lead to any reason to put away their wifes. In the OT before the writting of the letter given by Moses a man put away their wife for any reason and that woman was marked and at times even her family wouldn't support her. Therefore the letter was an attempt to help the woman not to be left unsupported and allowed her to marry another for that support.

But as we can see this goes against the principle at the beginning that of a man and woman become one.

Polygamy is much different that to put away one's wife. The question that Jesus dealt with was 'Were it lawful to put away one's wife?'. Jesus addressed the Pharisees that it was'nt lawful at the beginning to just put away your wife. And if whosoever put away his wife and marry another commit adultery. Why because the marriage of man and woman as one can't be broken by man. Therefore the man if put away his wife and then went go and married another was committing adultery. Likewise the woman that has been put away commit adultery if marry another.

Now today if the widow is left unsupported and remains unmarried the church is instructed to give support. As far as I know the bible gives no instruction to the 'divorce' woman. Today if an divorce happens the woman is supported.

Nowhere in the Bible, aside from the words Jesus spoke does it say it is unlawful for a man to divorce, or put away his wife. Jesus is the one who introduced the concept of god allowing divorce because of the hardness of mans hearts. The only place in the Old Testament that it speaks of a man and woman being one flesh is in Genesis. My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.

There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives. In-fact God gave Moses laws that allowed men to put away their wives for various petty reasons such as not finding her desirable any more, or gather more wives from captives at will. So exactly where Jesus got the idea of God allowing men to put away their wives I don't know, because the Bible says God gave Moses the laws concerning divorce. The Jews were only following the laws that God gave to Moses.

All the best,
Rose

[David M]

Hello Rose

Thank you for looking up the verses I did not have time to yesterday. I think that this is fair from a human point of view and God has given His authority to men and women to be justice and give out punishment fit or the crime involving injury and death to another human being. It is God's prerogative to take back life, since God is the ONE to have created life and given life. You either agree with this or not. Can you believe in God still as the Creator even though you attribute God's word to that of men? Have you lost all belief that God exists? If God exists, you must have some belief in what you think the nature of God is, whether that comes from your own intuition or from what you have heard others say (verbally or written). It is not the right of men and women to take another person's life. To take another person's life is to deny them the life they would have had, a person who takes another person's life should expect to forfeit their own life. If you argue against this, you argue against the vast majority of the human race that would say this is fair, it is just.

Hi David,

When Jesus spoke the words "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" he began with "you have heard it said" which comes from the Old Testament.

Matt.5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Exo.21:23-24 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Lev..24:19-20 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deut. 19:19-21 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Rose

The above quotes talk about taking life and causing serious injury to another person. They say the law is blind and in carrying out the law mercy does not come into it. This is a very simple law that does not need anything thinking about. If you cut off another person's hand the, the law would say that you should have your own hand cut off. What is wrong with this? Pity does not come into this and that is why in the verse you refer to it says; "thine eye shall not pity".

Consider in the case of criminal acts that do not personal injury or death to another. In this case, restoration must take place by the one found out and in this case it is more than one for one. I have copied the verses for us to read.
Exodus 22
1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
5 If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
6 If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.
9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it:
11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.
13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

So restitution can be double or fourfold. You might think this is unfair if you are the one who has been caught stealing, but the one who was stole from would say that this is a fair and just punishment. Unless there is a punishment fit for the crime, then there would be no deterrent and it only invites a free for all. Whether you attribute such laws to God or to human law, the laws are at the center of our morals. If you agree that morals come about by social interaction, then it is humans that have developed their own justice system? Fixed penalties for committing a crime is what the law administers. We see these fixed penalties in the law of Moses.

The teaching of Jesus goes beyond the law and contrast the motives of a good person against that of an evil person. The teaching of Jesus says (in the same spirit of; "it is better to give than receive" than if someone makes a request from you, they should give the person what they ask and more. We can contrast this with a law that would say you should only give another person what they ask for or deserve.

Matthew 5:
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I will reply to what else you have said by way of your reply to my earlier post in the post to follow this.

All the best,

David

[sylvius]

My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.

Rashi has:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

I don't think NT means it different.

It strikes a blow for all bastards.

[David M]

Hello Rose

Hi David,

As I pointed out in my post, Jesus made the laws of marriage much harsher on women than the OT laws. In the OT at least women could remarry if they were divorced, but under the New Covenant laws no such option is available.

The ideal is that men and women should not need written laws. When Jesus stated that in the beginning man and woman became one flesh, that is the way it was intended to be. Many marriages are as this, but many are not and that is the problem that has to be dealt with when men and women fail to live up to that ideal. Once man and woman have become one flesh, the operation is irreversible. That is why divorce is an anathema. That is why adultery is wrong for the person who commits adultery is becoming one flesh with two or more people. They are no longer joined to one but are now divided, just as their loyalty has been divided and shattered. Was God wrong to have this as the ideal in the way He would like all men and women to be; i.e. happily married to one person?

The problem we have and the problem God anticipated and it was all proved by the test He gave Adam and Eve. It stems from freedom to choose. God gave Adam and Eve a test. They had a choice, and they were free to choose. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit. The moment God said; "thou shalt not" was to deny them something but it was their choice to obey that command or not. This is at the root of all human problems and why I keep saying "blame man and not God". Have men and women come up with any better laws than God gave man? God gave men and women laws that either they would not have come up with or would have taken them centuries to develop. The period before the Great Flood proved that man left to his own devices showed that he did not have laws governing his actions and "everyone did that which was right in their own eyes". Surely, God has put these things on record so we learn the lesson. As it is written in the Book of Jeremiah; "it is not in man to direct his steps". God knew this and that is why the law was produced in the time of Moses. Later that law was surpassed when Jesus not only fulfilled the law, he exceeded it. Truly, God's law was written in the heart (mind) of Jesus which is exactly the same mind that Paul exhorts us to have; "let this mind be in you, as it was in Christ Jesus". Can you think of anything better than this. Have you mind the mind of Christ in you or have you abandoned that in rejection of the Bible as a work of fiction by man?

Why are you so adamant on giving a murderer the death penalty? Is it that you hold to the OT "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishment system? What is wrong with life in prison? Statistics show that it ends up costing almost as much to execute someone as it does to keep them in prison for life.

We have dealt with this in part in our other post dealing with "eye for eye" etc..
Prison for murderers is wrong for some reasons I stated in another reply in this or another thread, but let's examine some of the problems caused by locking people up.
First of all, may I suggest that since you want to lock up murderers you should be a prison warden guarding those prisoners. If you are already, that is good. Someone has to look after them, and it might be a paid job, but it is not a job that I want to do. Working inside a prison all day (or night) is like serving a prison sentence but with more freedom that the people locked up. This goes to show that we can all slaves and prisoners to our "jobs". We are slaves and prisoners to sin whether we agree with that or not; that is the way it appears to God.

Locking murderers up in prison, I do not agree to for the following reasons;
1. They should have forfeited their life for taking deliberately another person's life denying their victim of having life.
2. The expense of keeping them in prison without future life outside is wasting money and food that would be better spent on the poor and needy.
3. There is the possibility the prisoner could escape and get their freedom back (all be it they are on the run from the authorities)
4. The justice system does not always keep murderers in prison for life and so (as has been experienced) murderers who have been released, go on to commit the same act of murder again.
5. Prison does not rehabilitate the person to make them fit to live in society and they often re-offend when released.
6. The murderer while in prison does not make any form of restitution to the relatives of their victims.
7. Imprisonment is no deterrent to others to prevent them from committing the same crime. (Prison can be seen to be a luxury compared to the conditions endured by starving and homeless people).

Ask yourself this question, what if a murderer who was locked up in prison escaped or was released into the community again only to commit the same crime again and maybe this time they killed one of your own sons; would you be so forgiving to see them locked up in prison again?

How can it cost the same to execute a murderer than keep them in prison. Keeping a murderer on death row for example does not count as the cost of executing them. Where there is absolutely no doubt involved, death by whatever means you say is acceptable should be soon and not prolonged. I cannot see that this should be more expensive. Ask the relatives of the victims to do it who I guess will kill the murderer for free.

David was spared the death penalty for murder and adultery, and instead his son was sentence to death while he was allowed to marry Bathsheba! You call that justice? Why is it that you defend the death penalty for murderers, but because David repented he got off. How many murderers on death row would gladly repent if they knew it would buy them freedom?

I admire the work of those who go into prisons and save people's souls. Even then, a person who is saved is not let out or prison or if they are, they have been rehabilitated if they have genuinely accepted Jesus as their saviour. Prisoners who are converted are not taught that they are not guilty of their punishment. I have heard of a case where a man killed his wife and then in prison became a "brother in Christ". He accepts that he has to serve his sentence. I expect if and when he is released, he is a converted person.
The answer to our question as to how many would repent to buy their freedom is probably "none". Most would feign their repentance. That is why it is essential to be able to read a person's heart and know their motives and know that the person is genuine; Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. (3) For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
The vast majority of so called born-again-Christians who convert at evangelical meetings have been shown by surveys conducted to have given up within months of their conversion. Very few remain converted after 12 months. This calls into question the quality of that conversion. It is not enough to say; "I repent" or "I am born again". Even baptism as an outward sign to witnesses of a person's inward faith is not a guarantee that a person's motives were right in the first place. People in general are fickle. I find no reason to change my beliefs that have got stronger over time and which having to answer for on this forum has had the same effect to make my belief stronger. I am growing stronger in faith, not weaker.

David bore the consequences of his sins. His sons acted in defiance of him. David had lost authority within his family. If Rose you repent of your lack of faith in God of the Bible, would you not want God to forgive you should you realize the error of your ways. I think we all would want a second chance. I accept God's mercy and grace. Since men and women are liars even when they say to your face that they are not a liar, I accept that God is the best judge of people. God tells us that He knows what is in each person's heart, He knows our motives and so if He knew what was in David's heart, I accept that. As David said; "I delight in the law of God, it is my meditation all the day" and David truly repented in what he had done, I accept God's judgement on David. As we say; "there but for the Grace of God, go I". Without God's forgiveness and mercy, then none of us would have any hope of life now or of eternal life to come.

If your biblegod is real there would be infinite possibilities for meting out true justice, yet for some reason he chose the method of a barbaric tribal war god! Kill the babies and children and save the virgins to be raped!

How can you say there are "infinite possibilities for meting out true justice". This is an assumption on your part; dropping the word "infinite" for the word "many" is a more reasonable thing to say. You must show me how your justice is "true". I believe God's justice is true. You must prove to me that man's justice is better than God's. The fact that you disagree with mass destruction in the way that God ordered it, does not prove you are right. God could have killed all the Canaanites Himself, but he ordered the Israelite nation to do it as another test of their faith and obedience to Him. Once again they failed. That is on record for us to learn by. The Children of Israel brought upon themselves the consequences God was avoiding by having them kill the Canaanites completely. It was not a long term solution to the problem brought about by human nature. Whatever we think God could have done better, we are not in a position to prove. Why did God not make us all perfect to begin with? God hates wicked and evil people, yet for all the wickedness in the world there are a few by comparison who are almost perfect and who are certainly acceptable to God. Like the potter and the clay, the potter knows that some of his vessels will get cracked in the firing of them. As such those vessels that get cracked are thrown away. That is what God is doing. God is giving us the opportunity to show that we are not cracked vessels to be dis-guarded. Praise God that He has given us the way to appear perfect before Him. That would be impossible without the Lord Jesus who proved to God and you and me that it is possible for a human to lead an obedient and perfect life. Once you can do that, I will begin to believe you. Until then, I will believe in the Creator who has revealed Himself in the Bible (His inspired word).

All I would say is that I cannot limit God's grace and mercy. The number of times God can show mercy is determined by the number of people who have ever lived which is not infinite. The fact is that there are people living or who have lived, who God does not have to show mercy to. God has already given up on them. Those He gave up on, like the Canaanites, He destroyed and that should be a warning to the world today, but the world will not listen and it goes its own way. It will not surprise me when God's judgement comes on the world again and reprobates will once again destroyed in large numbers. I am given the assurance that all those who are worthy will be saved and that is where I have to put my trust in God. God has given us the assurance of eternal life in that he has raised Jesus from the dead. It was God who raised Jesus from the dead; Jesus did not raise himself.

I have given you some questions to answer Rose, so it will be good to hear your answers to those questions.

All the best,

David

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Are you using "soon" in the Biblical sense of "2000 years"? If so, we've got nothing to worry about!

I think your religion causes you to worry too much. Folks were all worried 50 years ago that the US government was going to be taken over by the antichrist and that the American social security cards would become the "mark of the beast." I'm glad I didn't waste those precious years of my life in vain worry about things that never happened.

It also shows how self-centered American Christians can be. They made the USA the center of their whole end-time panic party.

At the rate computer technology is progressing, it won't take 2,000 years to track every person on earth, probably less than 100 years. Currently, there are technology that can see what people are seeing, the images are blurr but it is still in the infancy stage,...just imagine how the technology will be like in 100 years time. Soon we will be able to watch TV without the television set but in our brains and with our eyes closed.

Actually, it shows how religious dogmas make healthy normal people feel bad for simply being human. Now that I'm free from the dogma of sin, I don't experience any of the internal conflicts caused by false doctrines of "sin" being imposed upon me. And that's how I should have felt when I was a Christian if Christianity were true, because Christianity is supposed to set you free from the law. But judging by what you and other Christians write, I would have to say that you are still in bondage to the law of sin.

So you are the perfect man with no sin, since you are free from the law. Brilliant!

You are confused. Opium is entirely different than Marijuana. It is addictive, marijuana is not. What's it like in China? Do many folks smoke pot?

I am not from China but I do know that there are still some cases of opium smoking and pots. But the main problem now facing the Chinese is from cigarette smoking. If I am a terrorist, I will bomb all cigarettes companies, manufacturing plants and tobacco farms....And death sentence to those who sold cigarettes. Am I morally right to do so in order to save millions and millions of people in this world? Marijuana can be addictive same as nicotine.

Your implication that everyone who smokes pot is "hallucinating" is false and it shows that you know nothing of which you speak.

And why didn't you address any of the points I made? The prohibition of marijuana is not good for society. It makes criminals out of otherwise good citizens. It costs LOTS of money to chase down the "criminals" and prosecute them and put them in prison. And we lose money again because we have removed a productive tax-paying citizen from the work force. It's utterly absurd. We should have learned our lesson with the prohibition of alcohol. Would you support that? We tried it in the USA and discovered that it helped create organized crime. Is that what you want? Do you not understand that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol? You should inform yourself on these issues.

Marijuana is evil:
Obviously, this guy is high:




Marijuana is not that innocent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...arijuana_x.htm

And what's wrong with a "hippie mentality"? I think it's pretty cool. A lot more interesting than sitting around moaning and groaning about all the evil in the world and praying for God to forgive me for being human.

I am not against Hippies, only their negative influence...free sex, drug abuse, free religion, alcoholism, punk music.... better to spent their time doing more constructive things. So you admit you are a hippie?

There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.

I am not talking about Christ but you and everybody. Let's be honest, were we ever been tempted and sin? I am not just talking about sexual sin but sin of all kinds...stealing, lying, fighting, greed etc. Who never sin?

Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.

I think you are equally confused...what is love? God is love; you will never experience true love unless you experience the love of God in you. God is love which is why He told us to Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love others as yourself. Do these things and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

God is Love, Amen.

[Beck]

Nowhere in the Bible, aside from the words Jesus spoke does it say it is unlawful for a man to divorce, or put away his wife. Jesus is the one who introduced the concept of god allowing divorce because of the hardness of mans hearts. The only place in the Old Testament that it speaks of a man and woman being one flesh is in Genesis. My point about polygamy is that a man an woman cannot be of one flesh if the man has many wives, so the idea of the unity of marriage that Jesus spoke of was never realized except maybe with Adam and Eve, because God allowed men to have multiple wives.

Rose,

To put away their wifes is departing from the orginal principle of Adam and Eve of them two becoming one. This oneness is by the man going and laying with the woman and to place his seed in her. To which is the consummation of this marriage of oneness. Therefore I believe it was written in Malachi that God hates putting away after one has laid seed to the woman.(Malachi 2:16) Were as Malachi seem to have a metaphorical meaning it can also be seen in the Jewish people relationship of husband and wife.

I can see how Polygamy would be in that time. If a man married (consummated the union by laying seed) with an bethrothed woman and without putting her away he might marry (lay seed) another woman as his second wife, etc. Where he wasn't putting away any of his wifes. This presumably wasn't very common, but only in cases where the man was very wealthy and could support many wifes. As noted the 'oneness' is the laying of seed. The reason why some men took other wives is due to producing a son to carry on the man's name. The problem came up when a man went after another man's wife this is what the commandment of Adultery was forbiding.

There is not one incident of God frowning upon multiple marriages for men, or of men putting away their wives. In-fact God gave Moses laws that allowed men to put away their wives for various petty reasons such as not finding her desirable any more, or gather more wives from captives at will. So exactly where Jesus got the idea of God allowing men to put away their wives I don't know, because the Bible says God gave Moses the laws concerning divorce. The Jews were only following the laws that God gave to Moses.

All the best,
Rose

Would you say that Malachi was mistaken? In the case of a young woman that is betrothed unto an husband and is found in adultery then both shall be stoned, so to put away evil from among them. Instead of this type of death penalty to put away the woman that is found unclean is simply by the letter of divorcement put out of the husbands house and allowed to make a union with another man. Jesus is reinstating the first covenant that it is still adultery only unless the young woman which has been betrothed is found upon the consummation unclean 'forincation'. The husband is thus allowed to put her away.

[Rose]

Hello Rose


The ideal is that men and women should not need written laws. When Jesus stated that in the beginning man and woman became one flesh, that is the way it was intended to be. Many marriages are as this, but many are not and that is the problem that has to be dealt with when men and women fail to live up to that ideal. Once man and woman have become one flesh, the operation is irreversible. That is why divorce is an anathema. That is why adultery is wrong for the person who commits adultery is becoming one flesh with two or more people. They are no longer joined to one but are now divided, just as their loyalty has been divided and shattered. Was God wrong to have this as the ideal in the way He would like all men and women to be; i.e. happily married to one person?

Good morning David,

As I said to Beck in another post, the idea of one man, one woman equals one flesh only happened with Adam and Eve; all through the rest of the Old Testament polygamy is approved of. The twelve tribes were born of the four wives of Jacob, so there is not much unity going on with multiple wives who many times are quarreling amongst themselves. If Divorce is so anathama, why did God give Moses laws concerning divorce? Giving laws is far different from just allowing something to happen.

The problem we have and the problem God anticipated and it was all proved by the test He gave Adam and Eve. It stems from freedom to choose. God gave Adam and Eve a test. They had a choice, and they were free to choose. They did not have to eat of the forbidden fruit. The moment God said; "thou shalt not" was to deny them something but it was their choice to obey that command or not. This is at the root of all human problems and why I keep saying "blame man and not God". Have men and women come up with any better laws than God gave man? God gave men and women laws that either they would not have come up with or would have taken them centuries to develop. The period before the Great Flood proved that man left to his own devices showed that he did not have laws governing his actions and "everyone did that which was right in their own eyes". Surely, God has put these things on record so we learn the lesson. As it is written in the Book of Jeremiah; "it is not in man to direct his steps". God knew this and that is why the law was produced in the time of Moses. Later that law was surpassed when Jesus not only fulfilled the law, he exceeded it. Truly, God's law was written in the heart (mind) of Jesus which is exactly the same mind that Paul exhorts us to have; "let this mind be in you, as it was in Christ Jesus". Can you think of anything better than this. Have you mind the mind of Christ in you or have you abandoned that in rejection of the Bible as a work of fiction by man?

Men and women have most definitely come up with better laws than those that are given by God in the Old Testament. Slaves have been freed and women are beginning to share in equal human rights, something that they were denied under the laws of Moses given by God in the Bible.

We have dealt with this in part in our other post dealing with "eye for eye" etc..
Prison for murderers is wrong for some reasons I stated in another reply in this or another thread, but let's examine some of the problems caused by locking people up.
First of all, may I suggest that since you want to lock up murderers you should be a prison warden guarding those prisoners. If you are already, that is good. Someone has to look after them, and it might be a paid job, but it is not a job that I want to do. Working inside a prison all day (or night) is like serving a prison sentence but with more freedom that the people locked up. This goes to show that we can all slaves and prisoners to our "jobs". We are slaves and prisoners to sin whether we agree with that or not; that is the way it appears to God.

Your reasoning makes no sense...

Locking murderers up in prison, I do not agree to for the following reasons;
1. They should have forfeited their life for taking deliberately another person's life denying their victim of having life.
2. The expense of keeping them in prison without future life outside is wasting money and food that would be better spent on the poor and needy.
3. There is the possibility the prisoner could escape and get their freedom back (all be it they are on the run from the authorities)
4. The justice system does not always keep murderers in prison for life and so (as has been experienced) murderers who have been released, go on to commit the same act of murder again.
5. Prison does not rehabilitate the person to make them fit to live in society and they often re-offend when released.
6. The murderer while in prison does not make any form of restitution to the relatives of their victims.
7. Imprisonment is no deterrent to others to prevent them from committing the same crime. (Prison can be seen to be a luxury compared to the conditions endured by starving and homeless people).

Ask yourself this question, what if a murderer who was locked up in prison escaped or was released into the community again only to commit the same crime again and maybe this time they killed one of your own sons; would you be so forgiving to see them locked up in prison again?

How can it cost the same to execute a murderer than keep them in prison. Keeping a murderer on death row for example does not count as the cost of executing them. Where there is absolutely no doubt involved, death by whatever means you say is acceptable should be soon and not prolonged. I cannot see that this should be more expensive. Ask the relatives of the victims to do it who I guess will kill the murderer for free.

Of course the cost of death row is included as part of the whole cost, they would not be on death row if they weren't going to be executed.

All your reasons for believing in capital punishment avoid the point that I see as being relevant. Throughout the Old Testament capital punishment in never meted out fairly, many people deserving of death according to the laws given by God are let off while some poor guy picking up sticks is stoned to death! This is called God's justice!

I admire the work of those who go into prisons and save people's souls. Even then, a person who is saved is not let out or prison or if they are, they have been rehabilitated if they have genuinely accepted Jesus as their saviour. Prisoners who are converted are not taught that they are not guilty of their punishment. I have heard of a case where a man killed his wife and then in prison became a "brother in Christ". He accepts that he has to serve his sentence. I expect if and when he is released, he is a converted person.
The answer to our question as to how many would repent to buy their freedom is probably "none". Most would feign their repentance. That is why it is essential to be able to read a person's heart and know their motives and know that the person is genuine; Psalm 26:2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. (3) For thy lovingkindness is before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.
The vast majority of so called born-again-Christians who convert at evangelical meetings have been shown by surveys conducted to have given up within months of their conversion. Very few remain converted after 12 months. This calls into question the quality of that conversion. It is not enough to say; "I repent" or "I am born again". Even baptism as an outward sign to witnesses of a person's inward faith is not a guarantee that a person's motives were right in the first place. People in general are fickle. I find no reason to change my beliefs that have got stronger over time and which having to answer for on this forum has had the same effect to make my belief stronger. I am growing stronger in faith, not weaker.

David bore the consequences of his sins. His sons acted in defiance of him. David had lost authority within his family. If Rose you repent of your lack of faith in God of the Bible, would you not want God to forgive you should you realize the error of your ways. I think we all would want a second chance. I accept God's mercy and grace. Since men and women are liars even when they say to your face that they are not a liar, I accept that God is the best judge of people. God tells us that He knows what is in each person's heart, He knows our motives and so if He knew what was in David's heart, I accept that. As David said; "I delight in the law of God, it is my meditation all the day" and David truly repented in what he had done, I accept God's judgement on David. As we say; "there but for the Grace of God, go I". Without God's forgiveness and mercy, then none of us would have any hope of life now or of eternal life to come.

Of course I would want to be forgiven if I repent on any wrong that I have done; the problem I have Old Testament justice is it's capriciousness. Letting murderers off while killing their innocent children, killing people for picking up sticks, or not being a virgin on their wedding night, then letting men rape women with no consequences...all done I might add by God's command or approval.

How can you say there are "infinite possibilities for meting out true justice". This is an assumption on your part; dropping the word "infinite" for the word "many" is a more reasonable thing to say. You must show me how your justice is "true". I believe God's justice is true. You must prove to me that man's justice is better than God's. The fact that you disagree with mass destruction in the way that God ordered it, does not prove you are right. God could have killed all the Canaanites Himself, but he ordered the Israelite nation to do it as another test of their faith and obedience to Him. Once again they failed. That is on record for us to learn by. The Children of Israel brought upon themselves the consequences God was avoiding by having them kill the Canaanites completely. It was not a long term solution to the problem brought about by human nature. Whatever we think God could have done better, we are not in a position to prove. Why did God not make us all perfect to begin with? God hates wicked and evil people, yet for all the wickedness in the world there are a few by comparison who are almost perfect and who are certainly acceptable to God. Like the potter and the clay, the potter knows that some of his vessels will get cracked in the firing of them. As such those vessels that get cracked are thrown away. That is what God is doing. God is giving us the opportunity to show that we are not cracked vessels to be dis-guarded. Praise God that He has given us the way to appear perfect before Him. That would be impossible without the Lord Jesus who proved to God and you and me that it is possible for a human to lead an obedient and perfect life. Once you can do that, I will begin to believe you. Until then, I will believe in the Creator who has revealed Himself in the Bible (His inspired word).

All I can say is what kind of a monster would a parent be considered if they ordered their children to go an slaughter innocent women and babies as a test of their obedience! Is this the kind of behavior the biblegod requires of his "children"? I have to say your reasoning is utterly beyond my comprehension...

All I would say is that I cannot limit God's grace and mercy. The number of times God can show mercy is determined by the number of people who have ever lived which is not infinite. The fact is that there are people living or who have lived, who God does not have to show mercy to. God has already given up on them. Those He gave up on, like the Canaanites, He destroyed and that should be a warning to the world today, but the world will not listen and it goes its own way. It will not surprise me when God's judgement comes on the world again and reprobates will once again destroyed in large numbers. I am given the assurance that all those who are worthy will be saved and that is where I have to put my trust in God. God has given us the assurance of eternal life in that he has raised Jesus from the dead. It was God who raised Jesus from the dead; Jesus did not raise himself.

I have given you some questions to answer Rose, so it will be good to hear your answers to those questions.

All the best,

David

So I guess according to your reasoning no one is really assured of God's mercy, only hopeful of it. Isn't that sort of like how the Calvinists believe?

Take care my friend,
Rose

[David M]

Good morning Rose
I will try and keep this reply short.

As I said to Beck in another post, the idea of one man, one woman equals one flesh only happened with Adam and Eve; all through the rest of the Old Testament polygamy is approved of. The twelve tribes were born of the four wives of Jacob, so there is not much unity going on with multiple wives who many times are quarreling amongst themselves. If Divorce is so anathama, why did God give Moses laws concerning divorce? Giving laws is far different from just allowing something to happen.

How can you be sure that it only happened with Adam and Eve. We have record of multiple wives yes, but what proportion are these to the hundreds of thousands of men. There would not be enough wives to go round and if a man wanted more than one woman he would have to commit adultery. I think we have to accept that God as our Father lets us get away with things that is not the ideal. On all these subjects we come back to considering motives. Why did a men want more than one wife? Did men use and abuse or were women thankful for the protection and support from their husband even though they were not the only wife? Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

I read in another post of yours that you mentioned Abraham took Hagar to wife and therefore had multiple wives. You know that it was Sarah that told Abraham to go and take Sarah that she might bare him a son. This was a woman instructing her own husband to have sex with another woman that God's promise would be fulfilled. This is a case of God's promise being beyond her comprehension and so she took it on herself make God's promise come true. This example you have used to cite against men having multiple wives and you have ignored the fact that in this example it was condoned and suggested by a woman and a wife who had misinterpreted God's word and took it upon herself to do God's job for Him. I think this shows that Sarah also lacked comprehension of God's word.

Men and women have most definitely come up with better laws than those that are given by God in the Old Testament. Slaves have been freed and women are beginning to share in equal human rights, something that they were denied under the laws of Moses given by God in the Bible.

In the context of all the laws God gave to Moses and the Children of Israel, how would you better all those laws? Please give more examples instead of just this one relating to marriage. God gave laws relating to hygiene that modern-day hospitals have neglected and failed to implement.

Your reasoning makes no sense...

What is difficult with what I said which you have highlighted. Would you be a prison warden and do the job of looking after murderers? What if there is a shortage of prison wardens, would you volunteer do the job? It is not a job that I would do and it is people who want murderers locked up and kept in prison that should be their wardens. The results of voting on the death penalty is generally a close won vote in favor not having the death penalty. This means that there are many people who would like the death penalty reinstated. In most cases, it would not take a large swing in the voting to get the death penalty reinstated.

Of course the cost of death row is included as part of the whole cost, they would not be on death row if they weren't going to be executed.

Death row does not count, it is only because an appeal is lodged which means there is the element of doubt. I am talking about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever. Please answer the question in this case.

All your reasons for believing in capital punishment avoid the point that I see as being relevant. Throughout the Old Testament capital punishment in never meted out fairly, many people deserving of death according to the laws given by God are let off while some poor guy picking up sticks is stoned to death! This is called God's justice!

The fact is you are focusing on a few examples that might be exceptions to the rule. It is like news on the radio and TV, unless it is out of the ordinary, we do not get to hear about it. The normal is not news.

Of course I would want to be forgiven if I repent on any wrong that I have done; the problem I have Old Testament justice is it's capriciousness. Letting murderers off while killing their innocent children, killing people for picking up sticks, or not being a virgin on their wedding night, then letting men rape women with no consequences...all done I might add by God's command or approval.

The things which you say men do with God's command or approval with no consequences is not true. Everyone will receive their just rewards whether immediately or delayed. Men will be punished for rape, but you are calling the capture of 32,000 women as rape when that is not as bad as you try to make out, so unless you are prepared to reason, we are never going to agree on this.

All I can say is what kind of a monster would a parent be considered if they ordered their children to go an slaughter innocent women and babies as a test of their obedience! Is this the kind of behavior the biblegod requires of his "children"? I have to say your reasoning is utterly beyond my comprehension...

If my reasoning is beyond your comprehension then we will have to see what others have to say. These were exceptional circumstances and if the Children of Israel had done as instructed would have resulted in less bloodshed than what followed. You are using one or two episodes to build a negative case against God and ignoring all the positive episodes to give a balanced view.

So I guess according to your reasoning no one is really assured of God's mercy, only hopeful of it. Isn't that sort of like how the Calvinists believe?

Many people are convinced of God's mercy to them now and I am not arguing against that. We have to be confident tempered with humility and not arrogance. I am not going to speak for Calvanists, I make my case from the Bible, not what other people think.

Are you happy to let a convicted murderer be released or escape to kill again and what if it was your son that was killed by this murderer? Are you so forgiving that you would not want them killed and would even be prepared to be a warden to ensure the murderer stayed locked up in prison till the end of his days?

All the best,

David

[Rose]

Good morning Rose
I will try and keep this reply short.

Thank you

How can you be sure that it only happened with Adam and Eve. We have record of multiple wives yes, but what proportion are these to the hundreds of thousands of men. There would not be enough wives to go round and if a man wanted more than one woman he would have to commit adultery. I think we have to accept that God as our Father lets us get away with things that is not the ideal. On all these subjects we come back to considering motives. Why did a men want more than one wife? Did men use and abuse or were women thankful for the protection and support from their husband even though they were not the only wife? Jesus gave the answer as to why Moses was permitted to write a bill of divorcement.

It's not whether or not there was enough wives to go around, or that God lets people get away with things. The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Old Testament does God speak against multiple wives.

I read in another post of yours that you mentioned Abraham took Hagar to wife and therefore had multiple wives. You know that it was Sarah that told Abraham to go and take Sarah that she might bare him a son. This was a woman instructing her own husband to have sex with another woman that God's promise would be fulfilled. This is a case of God's promise being beyond her comprehension and so she took it on herself make God's promise come true. This example you have used to cite against men having multiple wives and you have ignored the fact that in this example it was condoned and suggested by a woman and a wife who had misinterpreted God's word and took it upon herself to do God's job for Him. I think this shows that Sarah also lacked comprehension of God's word.

I never said that it was Abraham's idea to take Hagar as a wife. What I did say is that God never reprimanded Abraham or Sarah for taking Hagar as a second wife no matter whose idea it was, implying God had no problem with men having multiple wives.

In the context of all the laws God gave to Moses and the Children of Israel, how would you better all those laws? Please give more examples instead of just this one relating to marriage. God gave laws relating to hygiene that modern-day hospitals have neglected and failed to implement.

I did give examples other than marriage. Why didn't God make laws forbidding slavery, or laws giving women equal human rights?

What is difficult with what I said which you have highlighted. Would you be a prison warden and do the job of looking after murderers? What if there is a shortage of prison wardens, would you volunteer do the job? It is not a job that I would do and it is people who want murderers locked up and kept in prison that should be their wardens. The results of voting on the death penalty is generally a close won vote in favor not having the death penalty. This means that there are many people who would like the death penalty reinstated. In most cases, it would not take a large swing in the voting to get the death penalty reinstated.


Death row does not count, it is only because an appeal is lodged which means there is the element of doubt. I am talking about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever. Please answer the question in this case.


The fact is you are focusing on a few examples that might be exceptions to the rule. It is like news on the radio and TV, unless it is out of the ordinary, we do not get to hear about it. The normal is not news.

So, you don't want to be a prison warden, but you wouldn't mind being the executioner? You are saying that anyone who wants criminals locked up in prison should have to be their wardens? That just sounds plain crazy to me.

I have answered your question. I do not believe in the death penalty! If I had to I could be a prison warden, even though it is not a job I would choose to do.

The things which you say men do with God's command or approval with no consequences is not true. Everyone will receive their just rewards whether immediately or delayed. Men will be punished for rape, but you are calling the capture of 32,000 women as rape when that is not as bad as you try to make out, so unless you are prepared to reason, we are never going to agree on this.

Since you are not a woman and have no clue what it is like to be raped you have no grounds to say "it's not as bad as you try to make out". Rape is a violent, horrible crime perpetrated against women by insensitive cruel men, and in the case of the 32,000 virgins it was "God approved". Being given by force to a strange man without her consent is the same a being raped!

If my reasoning is beyond your comprehension then we will have to see what others have to say. These were exceptional circumstances and if the Children of Israel had done as instructed would have resulted in less bloodshed than what followed. You are using one or two episodes to build a negative case against God and ignoring all the positive episodes to give a balanced view.

I really don't understand you. On one hand you are adamant about the death penalty for murderers, yet when God told the Israelite's to murder the women and children of Canaan you seem to think that is perfectly fine and the only reason there was a problem is because they didn't kill everyone?

Many people are convinced of God's mercy to them now and I am not arguing against that. We have to be confident tempered with humility and not arrogance. I am not going to speak for Calvanists, I make my case from the Bible, not what other people think.

Are you happy to let a convicted murderer be released or escape to kill again and what if it was your son that was killed by this murderer? Are you so forgiving that you would not want them killed and would even be prepared to be a warden to ensure the murderer stayed locked up in prison till the end of his days?

All the best,

David

I never said anything about releasing a convicted murderer, where did you get that idea from?

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

At the rate computer technology is progressing, it won't take 2,000 years to track every person on earth, probably less than 100 years. Currently, there are technology that can see what people are seeing, the images are blurr but it is still in the infancy stage,...just imagine how the technology will be like in 100 years time. Soon we will be able to watch TV without the television set but in our brains and with our eyes closed.

Yes, the progress of technology is a most amazing thing! It is what makes modern life possible. I am very optimistic about the future, largely because of the advances of technology, as well as the advances in society such as equal rights for all.

So you are the perfect man with no sin, since you are free from the law. Brilliant!

I think your use of the word "brilliant" is anything but.

And no, I am not a "perfect man." I don't believe in perfection. But yes, I have no "sin" because no one has "sin" because I don't believe in the concept of sin. I already explained this to you, but you failed to understand. Why is that?

I am not from China but I do know that there are still some cases of opium smoking and pots. But the main problem now facing the Chinese is from cigarette smoking. If I am a terrorist, I will bomb all cigarettes companies, manufacturing plants and tobacco farms....And death sentence to those who sold cigarettes. Am I morally right to do so in order to save millions and millions of people in this world? Marijuana can be addictive same as nicotine.

Actually, the cigarette smoking in China is very interesting because the Chinese often do not suffer the same health consequences as smokers in the west. Scientists don't know why, but they think it might have something to do with all the green tea the Chinese consume. Here's one such study:

Chinese green tea ameliorates lung injury in cigarette smoke-exposed rats.

Marijuana is evil:
Obviously, this guy is high:

Ha! "Marijuana is evil." Have you ever smoked any? How do you know? Your video was meaningless. It proves nothing. You should Google cannabis oil cured my cancer - it returns about 1.95 MILLION pages. We can continue the conversation after you inform yourself with the facts.

Marijuana is not that innocent:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...arijuana_x.htm

I never said it was "innocent." It is a psychoactive drug and so should be used responsibly like any other medicine.

I am not against Hippies, only their negative influence...free sex, drug abuse, free religion, alcoholism, punk music.... better to spent their time doing more constructive things. So you admit you are a hippie?

You are so obsessed with SEX SEX SEX! Are you married, or is this a symptom of never getting any?

And where in the world did you get the lunatic idea that alcoholism has anything to do with "hippies"? In general, hippies are against alcohol. For example, at the Rainbow Gatherings - the biggest "hippie" event around - everyone is welcome and almost everything is allowed except alcohol and guns.

Are you sure? Seeing a pretty young naked woman enticing you on a bed and not feel tempted?

There is no sin in temptation. Christ was tempted, but did not sin.

I am not talking about Christ but you and everybody. Let's be honest, were we ever been tempted and sin? I am not just talking about sexual sin but sin of all kinds...stealing, lying, fighting, greed etc. Who never sin?

You missed my point. You had falsely implied that temptation was the same thing as sin. That's not true at all. On the contrary, a person who is tempted but withstands the temptation is lauded because he has not given in to sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. That's why I mentioned Christ. He experienced temptation but did not sin. This proves that temptation is not sin. Do you get it now?

Now in answer to your question - there are many times I've been tempted to do something I felt would be wrong. Sometimes I gave in to the temptation, sometimes I resisted it. I think this is the universal human experience. But now I realize that the concept of "sin" is not meaningful. That word has too much baggage. It's very strange - a lot of people have done very immoral things because they thought it would be a sin not to. In other words, the concept of sin causes people to be immoral because sin is not morality but rather religious dogma.

Your assertion that no one is free from the law is confused because you are using "law" in two different senses. When I said I am free from the law, I was talking about the law that convicts of sin, not the law of love. I never will be, nor want to be, free from that law.

I think you are equally confused...what is love? God is love; you will never experience true love unless you experience the love of God in you. God is love which is why He told us to Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love others as yourself. Do these things and you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

Your comment makes no sense. I said I was not free from the law of love. So where is the confusion? Are you asserting that only Christians know love? If not, then your comment makes no sense.