Un-Baptism

[Sybarite]

Be that as it may – where does it say that the woman has to consent or that, if she doesn't, her decision is to be respected? Because anything less than that is rape, however you dress it up. And even if one says that this was because of the times, then we come back to a situation where the Bible stories show women as generally being of less value than men (as a slight aside, my father used to make sure that he'd lecture his wife and two daughters often on how women were made from Adam's rib and were, therefore, less important than men, since Adam was made directly by God etc etc). Now times have changed and either modern western attitudes of equality are right or the Bible is right. If it's the former, then the Bible is of its time, but not of this time. And thus we return to the question of how an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god could be involved in such a situation, because if times have changed, that suggests that we have improved on the original and, if God created the original, then we have improved on God.

Ok, I think we agree about the masterbation bit, and probably even about the traditional church's mistaken stance on this story as proof that practice is sinful. However, just because cultural traditions change, that doesn't negate the relevancy of the Bible for modern times. The principle application of this story is that God hates selfishnes..which Onan's story clearly illustrates. He used his widowed sister-in-law, but refused to help her in her plight. He didn't want to any child conceived with her to inherit any of 'his' property.

So what of Lot's story and Job's and Abraham and Issac? You haven't commented on those.

I grew up in Baptist churches, and heard it often. Even they believe children of good mind can be 'saved' at an early age. Children who are not of good mind.. are in a state of grace perpetually. Anabaptists believe that baptism is only for those who have made the decision to follow Christ..as in someone who is ABLE to make that choice..infants and small children are not accountable.

But here you're just perfectly illustrated another issue – there are as many different interpretations of the Bible and as many different theologies as there are Christian churches, denominations, sects and probably even preachers (or adherents). It's quite likely that no two people in the world believe exactly the same thing, even within a single Christian group. Who is right? They can't all be right. And why, if the god of Judeo-Christian tradition is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, did he create a situation that would create such confusion? Since god is all-seeing and all-knowing, he not only knows everything that has happened but everything that will happen. So God did what God did in the full and certain knowledge that we would be where we are today. Similarly, God created sin and set up the Eden situation, knowing what would occur. Before that (according to the Bible) God created the world – that's a world with earthquakes and volcanoes and hurricanes and tsunamis etc. In other words, God created a world that He knew would would kill millions of people, including tiny children. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then He created the world knowing that, at one point, for instance, the Asian tsunami would occur, killing hundreds of thousands of people, including tiny children. Now why would people want to worship a being who has behaved in such a way?

And that's without even asking the question on the wider scale of all religions (all of which than have the same situation of their own sub-groups).

 

[abecedarian]

And what do they say the magic water does in the eyes of the ominpotent creator of the universe? Why does he care so very much about what you squirt on your head?

It is an outward symbol of an inward act..a way of declaring to the world, "I am taking a stand with this faith." We are told to do this, but never are we told it the act of doing so 'saves' us. That is a purely a matter of faith and relationship. We are to be baptised after we believe. He cares because He wants bold children who are unashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Litany]

He cares because He wants bold children who are unashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Even though he didn't fulfil all the criteria for being the Messiah? And who is it that decided what God wanted in this case? He seems to want an awful lot of different things depending on who you ask.

 

[abecedarian]

Be that as it may – where does it say that the woman has to consent or that, if she doesn't, her decision is to be respected? Because anything less than that is rape, however you dress it up. And even if one says that this was because of the times, then we come back to a situation where the Bible stories show women as generally being of less value than men (as a slight aside, my father used to make sure that he'd lecture his wife and two daughters often on how women were made from Adam's rib and were, therefore, less important than men, since Adam was made directly by God etc etc). Now times have changed and either modern western attitudes of equality are right or the Bible is right. If it's the former, then the Bible is of its time, but not of this time. And thus we return to the question of how an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god could be involved in such a situation, because if times have changed, that suggests that we have improved on the original and, if God created the original, then we have improved on God.

I don't believe the Bible teaches the inferiority of women at all..just that we have different roles and responsibilties than men. One is not better or less than the other. I'm sorry your dad pulled that line on the women in your family. He was wrong.


So what of Lot's story and Job's and Abraham and Issac? You haven't commented on those.

Didn't know I was supposed to


But here you're just perfectly illustrated another issue – there are as many different interpretations of the Bible and as many different theologies as there are Christian churches, denominations, sects and probably even preachers (or adherents). It's quite likely that no two people in the world believe exactly the same thing, even within a single Christian group. Who is right? They can't all be right. And why, if the god of Judeo-Christian tradition is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, did he create a situation that would create such confusion? Since god is all-seeing and all-knowing, he not only knows everything that has happened but everything that will happen. So God did what God did in the full and certain knowledge that we would be where we are today. Similarly, God created sin and set up the Eden situation, knowing what would occur. Before that (according to the Bible) God created the world – that's a world with earthquakes and volcanoes and hurricanes and tsunamis etc. In other words, God created a world that He knew would would kill millions of people, including tiny children. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then He created the world knowing that, at one point, for instance, the Asian tsunami would occur, killing hundreds of thousands of people, including tiny children. Now why would people want to worship a being who has behaved in such a way?

And that's without even asking the question on the wider scale of all religions (all of which than have the same situation of their own sub-groups).

I don't know where to start here.. too many questions at once.. but God is all knowing and soveriegn, but he his also just and compassionate. He also does not want robotic followers..so he gave us freewill and set the world in motion with natural laws in place. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Why such horrible events as the Asian Tsunami are allowed to occur is beyond my understanding. I have a limited perspective on any event I witness, but God has unlimited perspective..he can see ahead, where I can't.

 

[abecedarian]

Even though he didn't fulfil all the criteria for being the Messiah? And who is it that decided what God wanted in this case? He seems to want an awful lot of different things depending on who you ask.

He didn't? Let's see, he fulfilled some 44 prophecies about the Messiah..that's a pretty good batting average.

 

[Litany]

He didn't? Let's see, he fulfilled some 44 prophecies about the Messiah..that's a pretty good batting average.

Failing even one means he's not the Messiah, or is that one of those handy parts of the bible that don't have to be taken literally? I'd expect better of the son of God, except that's one of those niggly little things that put him out of the running isn't it? Or is God a member of the tribe of Judah?

Did he gather all the Jewish people and return them to Israel? Hmm, no. But at least he managed to sort us out some world peace. Ah, no. Maybe not.

 

[abecedarian]

Failing even one means he's not the Messiah, or is that one of those handy parts of the bible that don't have to be taken literally? I'd expect better of the son of God, except that's one of those niggly little things that put him out of the running isn't it? Or is God a member of the tribe of Judah?

Did he gather all the Jewish people and return them to Israel? Hmm, no. But at least he managed to sort us out some world peace. Ah, no. Maybe not.

Some prophesies are for when Jesus returns.. the end times. That was why some didn't follow him the first time around. They overlooked the ones about the suffering Messiah..all they wanted was a quick-fix-to be delivered from the Romans.

 

[Sybarite]

If God is compassionate and genuinely wants people to show free will, then why would God punish them if they do not make the choice that he does not like? If they know that eternal damnation is what will happen if they don't make the choice that God wants, then it's no choice and it's certainly not compassionate.

It's like the government saying: 'we're calling an election. You can choose to vote for whomsoever you wish. But if you vote the wrong way, we'll launch a military coup, take back power and kill all those who voted for the opposition'.

It's not free will and it's not compassionate.

 

[Litany]

It's not free will and it's not compassionate.

That's why they call it blind faith.

 

[Sybarite]

That's why they call it blind faith.

It also makes me think of a quote from Martin Luther: "reason is the Devil's whore, born of one stinking goat called Aristotle".

In other words – don't think. And whatever you do, don't try to apply reason to anything.

 

[Bluraven]

Sybarite, you are sadly guilty of making a common error which most non-Christians make when reading and scrutinzing Scripture: putting the words and deeds of men into God's mouth and limbs. What I mean by this is that when you recall the story of "God" telling certain peoples to take the wives left over in combat...it was never God doing the telling, but men. One example of this is in the last few chapters of the book of Judges, where after a horrible incident where a whole town of men raped a Levite's wife to death (ch.19), he sends her quartered body to the tribes of Israel to show what evil had been committed against him, and the other tribes thus take revenge upon the Benjamites (who committed the evil act) and slaughtered every Benjamite man...but wanted the line to continue anew, and so ordered the Benjamite women to be taken by the victors so that Benjamin's line would not be eradicated from Israel.

NEVER once is God mentioned as having anything to do with this grim business. He ordered no rape or prisoner taking. You see, contrary to what many unbelievers proclaim, the Bible is not just a book of Doctrine, but is a historical account of events as they happened. Many of these events are confirmed by non-Biblical accounts which correlate the events elsewhere. Lot's actions in Sodom are never said to be "just". They are simply the actions that he performed. Likewise, if you think that God never "punished" Lot's daughters for their incestuous acts, then you know little of Semitic history. The sons of their union were Moab and Ammon, which grew to become two of the biggest thorns in Israel's side and were even prohibited from entering into worship alongside of them. Again, God never commanded nor sanctioned such a union, the text merely records that it happened.

You simply cannot go putting God's hand all over events in the Bible as though God sanctioned or disapproved of things, just because they're mentioned. This is poor scholarship at best, and bad practice in general.

Oh, and for women's rights and the idea that God didn't care if they were raped, check out Deut. 22:25-29. And while I'm sure you'll have some bone to pick, the text does clearly show that God was concerned about the safety and dignity of women, and did not approve of men taking any advantage of them.

 

[Litany]

You simply cannot go putting God's hand all over events in the Bible

Christians do it all the time.

 

[Motokid]

So God did not make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights flooding the Earth, and killing everything except those on Noah's Ark?

God did not send angels to kill all the first born children in what is now known as passover?

 

[Sybarite]

Sybarite, you are sadly guilty of making a common error which most non-Christians make when reading and scrutinzing Scripture...

Just a little point of background information: I grew up in a highly religious family (my father was a Methodist clergyman of the fundamentalist, evangelical wing). I was 'born again' in my early teens and spent a very long time as a believer.

...it was never God doing the telling, but men...

Ah. So the Bible isn't the word of God or divinely inspired. Fair enough. Can't imagine, therefore, why people think it's so important.

... Many of these events are confirmed by non-Biblical accounts which correlate the events elsewhere. Lot's actions in Sodom are never said to be "just". They are simply the actions that he performed...

For which this 'good man' was still allowed to escape. He was allowed to offer his virgin daughters to be raped, but he remained the 'one good man' who was saved from the city. His wife looking back committed a worse crime, in God's eyes, than Lot – hence her punishment.

...You simply cannot go putting God's hand all over events in the Bible as though God sanctioned or disapproved of things, just because they're mentioned. This is poor scholarship at best, and bad practice in general...

So I reiterate – the Bible is not God's word or divinely inspired.

... Oh, and for women's rights and the idea that God didn't care if they were raped, check out Deut. 22:25-29. And while I'm sure you'll have some bone to pick, the text does clearly show that God was concerned about the safety and dignity of women, and did not approve of men taking any advantage of them.

Let's look at another couple of things from the same chapter, shall we?

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 – if a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." Nice. So who gets to judge whether she yelled loudly enough? 'No, that was a bit too quiet', 'that was just about the right level – benefit of the doubt'? And of course, no woman would ever, ever be so shocked or scared or anything else to not cream or even be able to scream would she? Yes, I can see how people would consider this to be the commands of a kind and loving god.

Deuteronomy 22:28 – If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. Nice. Consent clearly registers highly in God's view.

In other words, this book of stories about a sadistic and cruel being has nothing whatsoever to teach a civilised and (hopefully) educated society today.

 

[SFG75]

In other words, this book of stories about a sadistic and cruel being has nothing whatsoever to teach a civilised and (hopefully) educated society today.

Not exactly-lets look again at it. Deuteronomy 22:18 tells us that the man will be "chastised." In another reference, that essentially means whipped, but not in excess of 40 lashes. The term for that was bastinado in another reference. He doesn't escape punishment by any means. As for the "forced" marraige bit, keep in mind that it meant that the rapist had to financially support his new "wife" whose right to food and "raiment" is outlined in Exodus 21:10 The "crying out" bit shouldn't be so objectionable, it's a figure of speech and the chapter clearly outlines that a trial occurs with elders presiding. Death was a peanalty for the man, equally as the woman, should cheating occur.

The penalties might appear to be extreme and strange by our 21st century standards, but remember, marriage was extremely important as it determined property rights and rights of inheritance. Those aren't small matters, especially back in that era. I'm not certain that we are any more educated or civilized. I live in a country where a doctor can partially deliver a baby, and then stab it in the back of the head, kill it, and suction the brains of the infant out. That isn't very civilized, nor is it a hallmark of a so-called educated society. However, being a baby-butchering hun doesn't raise much of an eyebrow, except when it is ignored within the selfish context of pretended "rights."

 

[Litany]

A third to a half of all fertilised eggs spontaneously abort making God the most prolific supplier of legal abortions in the known universe.

 

[SFG75]

A third to a half of all fertilised eggs spontaneously abort making God the most prolific supplier of legal abortions in the known universe.

I agree to a point, though one could argue that life begins at conception-just pointing out that we have practices today that are just barbaric and un-"civilized."

 

[Sybarite]

... The penalties might appear to be extreme and strange by our 21st century standards...

That's okay. Times have changed, in other words. That's what happens.

So again – this book is fascinating literature, but is not about how to live our lives now, in more civilised and educated times.

 

[Sybarite]

I agree to a point, though one could argue that life begins at conception-just pointing out that we have practices today that are just barbaric and un-"civilized."

I completely concur – I think that countries that ban all abortion, for instance, even when a woman is likely to die as a result of the pregnancy, are obscene and 'old fashioned' and 'uncivilised'. Let's face it, women should be forced to die if they're preggers and in danger medically, or should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even if caused by rape.

 

[SFG75]

I completely concur – I think that countries that ban all abortion, even when a woman is likely to die as a result of the pregnancy, are obscene and 'old fashioned' and 'uncivilised'. Let's face it, women should be forced top die if they're preggers and in danger.

Yep, partial-birth abortion is perfectly humane right? That was the original example.