Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

 
  Sigh....







 Jim

    Sighing?  We're talking about what you call 'God's Word' here, Jim!
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    ...double sigh, Richard why are you so bitter?

    Moi?  Bitter??  Nay, nay, sir!  You have the wrong man, sir.  I have
    the peace of Jesus in my heart.  You may be confusing truth with what
    might sound like bitterness.
    
    Now, what say ye of the Scripture which is the focus of this string?
    
    Is this an avoidance technique?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    
    ..tis not avoidance but rather an observation of you at length.
    
    
    

    The observation is a false one, David.  I am joyful, not bitter.
    Honest.  When I scutinize Scripture, it is not because I have any
    negative feelings towards the Bible or anyone who exalts the Bible.
    
    Six entries into the string and I've yet to see any relevant entries.
    
    Am I to suppose there is nothing further to be said about the Scripture?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

  I think the emphasis is not as much as the woman as property but the
value of sexual purity.




Jim

    Imagine the decline of STDs if a man were to pay for the price of a
    virgin????
    
    Why does this seem so outrageous to you?  I believe this scripture
    places a woman above a man's desire.  Her virtue is more valuable then
    his desire.  Plain, simple and would that we had such laws today.
    
    Nancy

.5

>  I think the emphasis is not as much as the woman as property but the
>value of sexual purity.

I might be more persuaded of the truth of your assertion if sexual purity
was legislated in both sexes in Mosaic Law, but it isn't.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
     I wish I could say things the way I felt them. I see you as always
    tossing it into the Christians face " Hey, you read this and then
    tell me if you still think it's innerant " ..
    
    
    David    p.s. If I am wrong I apologize..

    .10
    
    I am a Christian.  Therefore, I am also tossing things in my own face,
    am I not?
    
    I do not accept the across-the-board "inerrancy" doctrine.
    
    You may state whatever your thoughts are about the verses.  You are
    free to share, question, challenge and defend.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    
    > please note there in no corresponding law for woman
    
    Ah nothing like politically correct biblical perspective
    
    
    
    David

    .12  Is that your *best* shot, David?  Is that your most *reasonable*
    argument?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    > is that your *best* shot, David? Is that your most *reasonable*
    > arguement?
    
     Are you saying you disagree? Are you saying that your observations
    on the scripture you quoted  were not of a politically correct nature.
    If so I would be glad to exert a few more brain cells on this topic.
    Otherwise I shall simply end it with what Mr Henderson said....
    
    
    
    
    
    Sigh,
    David

re Note 814.10 by COMET::DYBEN:

>      I wish I could say things the way I felt them. I see you as always
>     tossing it into the Christians face " Hey, you read this and then
>     tell me if you still think it's innerant " ..

        David,

        How come conservative Christians are so fond of telling
        people to "search the Scriptures" and "test the Scriptures"
        but when a non-conservative does so they are lambasted?

        (This to me is a clear example of how "political correctness"
        exists in all ideological corners:  there are certain
        questions which conservative Christians just do not ask of
        Scripture, and which cause them to criticize those who do ask
        them.)

        Bob

    
    
    > are so fond of telling
    
    
     I do not believe Richard asks questions to learn, but rather to teach
    people the message that he believes which is " If you are REALLY wanna
    those people that believe this to be innerant, then what about this
    scripture"..
    
    
    David

.16

>     I do not believe Richard asks questions to learn, but rather to teach
>    people the message that he believes which is "If you are REALLY one of
>    those people that believe this to be innerant, then what about this
>    scripture"..

Well, David!  When I ask about verses such as that which appears in .0,
of course I expect to hear the inerrantist perspective on the particular
Scripture.  Why shouldn't I?

But if the best one can do is to insult the question and discredit the
questioner, then understandably the argument is not going to be very
persuasive.  Nor should it be.

Or is it that you think the posing of questions is invalid?  That questions
should be posed solely for purposes of learning?

I believe questions are more versatile than that, myself.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    May I point you to .8 of this string, which is directed towards the
    scripture in question?
    
    Nancy

Wasn't the origin of the bride's price to show the financial worth of the
suitor and prospective head of household and father of the grandchildren?

In our culture, the bride's price is zero, and fathers rarely have much say
over their daughter's choice of husband.

Given these facts, see if the rest of it is something that would improve
our world if observed.

    .19  So, the value of a female virgin now is approximately the
    value placed of a male virgin then -- Am I reading you correctly?
    
    Richard
    

    Perhaps I should ask the question ��to you Richard, do you value
    chastity before marriage?
    
    Quite frankly I think the *value* is on both male and female being
    virgins.  A man's virginity is hard to prove, where a female's is not
    so hard.  When a man married during old testament times, the
    bedcloth of the honeymoon was his proof of virginity, due to the
    bleeding incurred from the breaking of the hymen and stretching of the
    vagina.
    
    Now the value being that the man has committed fornication and thus
    is now paying for that fornication as well.  So he is being penalized
    for his behavior.  While virginity is not the issue, promiscuity
    certainly is.
    
    

    Sorry but I gave up on reading this string after the first 12 replies
    so I don't know much what's been said. I will address the base note.

    My take on this is that the Bible here is dealing with cultural
    realities. I do not interpret the Bible here as saying that the woman
    should be the property of the father. Rather I see a recognition that
    that's the way it is/was in that culture. Because that is the reality,
    or was at that time, a man who bedded a virgin was in fact "taking
    something" that he was not entitled to. An other man lost something
    and this loss should be compensated. We can debate the idea that a 
    woman does or does not belong to a man all day long but I think that
    debate would be irrelevant to the discussion of the verses in question.

    		Alfred

    re Note 814.21 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    >> ...do you value chastity before marriage?

    The Scripture in .0 doesn't say that one must be chaste before
    marriage, only that you've got to marry the person you were "unchaste"
    with... and only then if it was a virgin.  Judging solely from this
    verse (admittedly not a very wise thing to do) there are no penalties
    for getting lucky with an unmarried non-virgin.

    Eric

    RE 814.22
    
    Alfred,
    
    Your answer to this question is in my opinion the only truly honest
    answer.  The bible is in fact reflecting on culture as it was.  Women
    were in that society identified as property.  The rape of the women in
    the passage is not the issue, but the issue is that a fair price be
    paid(money) for the taking of property that did not belong to the man.
    
    So a women is forced to marry the man who rapes her.  Alfred's answer
    recognizes that scripture is culturally conditioned.  That means taking
    any piece of scripture and trying to apply it to situations that are
    different is risky and at best must be done with great caution.
    
    To assume that scripture is culturally conditioned and then also that
    revelation is closed is equally illogical.  That denies God's
    revelation in a time and circumstance radically different than
    Classical Rome, or Israel.
    
    Some "Christians" make the statement that all scripture is God breathed
    and therefore binding for all times.  These Christians in my opinion
    have no option other than to agree that this is God's prescription
    regarding how to handle a raper and a rape victim.  Such an argument is
    totally illogical, insupportable, and wrong.
    
    Patricia

    
    RE: .24 I would argue that the "rule" quoted in .0 has some merit
    today in cultures that still have the dowry system. Though I do
    not believe that that verse specifically encourages such a system.

    I think that the verse still has some merit today BTW. It's yet an
    other example that improper taking still requires compensation. It
    could be used to argue, for example, that a copyright holder is 
    entitled to compensation from someone who illegally copies software.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    But if your daughter were raped, would you force her to marry the
    rapist?
    
    Collis, how about you?
    
    or would you accept a monetary payment to make amends for the act?
    
                              Patricia
    

    Patricia,
    
    The verse in .0 refers to seducing a virgin, not raping a virgin. Do
    you see seduction and rape as interchangable terms? 
    
    Eric

    RE: .27
    
    Good point!
    
    Marc H.

    Patricia,
    
    Because the world has gotten further away from God in our *culture*
    doesn't negate God's law.  
    
    I agree .27 on the rape issue.
    
    Nancy

   >Some "Christians" make the statement that all scripture is God breathed
   >and therefore binding for all times.  These Christians in my opinion
   >have no option other than to agree that this is God's prescription
   >regarding how to handle a raper and a rape victim.  Such an argument is
   >totally illogical, insupportable, and wrong.

You either misunderstand conservative Christians or you are dealing
with ultra-conservative Christians whom are not represented in
this notes conference.  Would you be more specific?

Collis

    Patrica, What does .26 have to do with .0 or any of my replies?
    
    			Alfred

    Richard you still haven't answered .21.
    
    Nancy

.22  Thanks for introducing the concept that the Bible needs to be viewed
within a historical context, Alfred.

There may be an important underlying message to these verses, but at face
value they say that a woman's virginity is a commodity, owned not by a
woman, but by her father until she marries.  According to the verses, a
man's virginity has no value.

Peace,
Richard

  >According to the verses, a man's virginity has no value.

Feel free to point to exactly where this is said.  By the way,
don't feel constrained simply to these verses.  Use the entire
Bible if you like.

Collis

 I wonder where the criteria for homosexual conduct is discussed?





 Jim

Note 814.34

>>According to the verses, a man's virginity has no value.

>Feel free to point to exactly where this is said.  By the way,
>don't feel constrained simply to these verses.  Use the entire
>Bible if you like.

Collis,

Feel free to point out Scripture which contradicts my assertion.  Use
the entire Bible if you like.

Richard

    RE; .27
    
    Good point Eric.  Rape and seduction are different.  Rape is often
    called seduction.  Seduction is sometime called rape.
    
    But I can ask the same question to Alfred and Collis who both avoided
    the question.  If your daughter were seduced by a character who was an
    awful choice would you expect her to marry him?  Would you accept the
    bride price for her virginity?  Does this passage have any relationship
    to sexual morality today?
    
    There are many passages in the Bible supporting that a woman is suppose
    to be a virgin before marriage and have sex only with one husband after
    marriage.  Except when it appears acceptable for the husband or father
    to give her to another such as lot's daughters, Sarah, etc.  There is
    no mention of the expectation that men are suppose to be virgins and
    faithful to one women.  Many examples where this is not expected i.e.
    David, Solomen etc.    The old testament clearly and unequivocably
    views women as property to be done with whatever the father or husband
    desires.
    
                                  Patricia

    >But if her father refuses to let him marry
    >her, he must pay the father a sum of money equal to the bride price for
    >a virgin." (TEV)
    
    The Bible has already answered your question Patricia.
    
    Nancy

    David's sin with Bathsheba was not unrewarded.  He lost a son.
    
    When you look at the promiscuousness of men, your logic fails in one
    regard.  If it's wrong for women, and God's word teaches
    heterosexuality, it is most definitely wrong for men too.  Men have sex
    with women ... and the penalty is on the man.  The focus on this verse
    is all wrong.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    You are interpreting the bible not reading the meaning in it.  David
    and Solomen both had many wifes and concubines.  Was it David's Son of
    Solomen's son that got the women in hot water for raiding the pantry?
    No where does the Bible treat male sexuality and female sexuality
    exactly the same.  The NT is better than the old though.

    So you believe the system of more then one *WIFE* is mistreating women. 
    Well, I disagree with that.  I believe that more then one wife is
    actually a better system in which we currently are bound by law to
    follow.
    
    Nancy

    re Note 814.35 by CSLALL::HENDERSON 

    >> I wonder where the criteria for homosexual conduct is discussed?

    What in the world does this have to do with the discussion of male vs
    female virginity? Sure, it has something to do with sexual relations in
    general, but to me the relevance to this discussion seems rather obtuse.
    
    Eric

Note 814.39

>    David's sin with Bathsheba was not unrewarded.  He lost a son.
 
Neither David nor Bathsheba were virgins.  You're off the topic.  Bringing
up irrelevancies is called throwing out a "red herring."

If this sounds like a slap in the face, I'm sorry.  But you keep doing it.

Richard

    .43
    
    Doesn't sound like a slap in the face, the topic strayed a while back
    into sexual sin being equal between men and women at least it seemed
    that way when Solomon was brought up.  Seemed logical to go right into
    David.  But you go right ahead bring it up as it makes you feel better.
    
    Nancy

Re:  .36

  >Feel free to point out Scripture which contradicts my assertion.  Use
  >the entire Bible if you like.

Thank you, Richard, for your well-reasoned (NOT) explanation of
why the Bible makes a claim that you pulled out of the air.

I have discovered that those who refuse to accept many of the 
straight-forward claims of the Bible will often argue strongly
that innuendo and assumption are convincing arguments when it
supports what they choose to believe.  This, I think, is a
fine example of such.

Collis

I'm happy to answer your question, Patricia.  I was just
dealing with one issue at a time.

Many of the laws that were given at that time were for a
specific people in a specific culture.  They were all morally
correct (God is not immoral or amoral) and the priciples of
all the laws given at the time applied then, apply now and
will apply always.

However, the specific laws were not necessarily meant for
the U.S.A in the 20th century.  How do we determine what is
still meant for us today?  Careful study and interpretation.
We know that the principles behind the laws are meant for us.
Is the law simply a moral principle (e.g., you shall not
steal)?  Or does it explain a particular procedure for
handling a situation morally (when other procedures may be
more appropriate today)?  This, in my belief, is clearly the
latter category for U.S.A. in the 20th century.

Of course, none of this means that the laws were wrong or
inappropriate.  What is inappropriate is applying a law intended
for one situation in a different situation.  It is exactly this
principle that homosexuals use to attempt to explain why their
sexual acts are not only acceptable, but good.  The principle is
correct, but their application of it is all wrong.  (I brought
this up just to make it clear that both conservatives and liberals
agree on this principle of interpretation - not to steer the
discussion toward homosexuality).

Collis

    RE: .46
    
    I think that this is really the heart of the issue. Good answer!
    
    Marc H.

    .45  My own mileage varies from yours.
    
    I think I reached a reasonable conclusion based on what the
    Bible says explicitly and implicitly.  You have failed to
    provide contradictory evidence.  This is not to say you don't
    have the evidence, but for reasons unbeknownst to me, you have
    failed to provide it.
    
    Richard
    

    Collis,
    
    Your explanation is helpful.  Even straying to the topic of
    homosexuality is helpful.  So if I argued that the phenomen of
    homesexuality today is significantly different than in the time of
    Leviticuss, then I can interpret that leviticuss does not apply today.
    
    If I can show that whatever the law is only applies to that particular
    culture and situation then it does not apply today.
    
    How does this technique then prevent someone from arguing that anything
    and everything is culturally conditioned.  I mean it is hard for me to
    see anything that we do today or that was done 2000 years ago  that is not
    impacted radically by the culture that one lives in.
    
    Even when we talk about Crucifixion and Ressurection and sacrificial
    systems and all that.  Isn't those ideas and theologies culturally
    conditioned.  Isn't that why agricultural rising and dying gods are
    compared with the cruxifiction.  How does one define cultural
    conditioning?  Who is responsible for the interpretation?
    
    Patricia

  >This is not to say you don't have the evidence, but for reasons
  >unbeknownst to me, you have failed to provide it.
    
I'll happily make the reasons known to you, Richard.

  1)  You made an assertion.

  2)  I asked you to back it up.

  3)  You refused (in silence) and asked me to disprove it.

Now, what kind of real communication is going to happen when
one person stops participating?  Since you chose to stop,
I agreed not to continue.  If you change your mind, I will
most likely be willing to continue.

Is that specific enough for you?

Collis

Patricia,

The questions you ask are foundational questions and really
need a lot of knowledge and studying (in my opinion) to be
answered well.

How do we differentiate one-time solutions (meant for a
particular time or particular culture) from over-riding
principles (meant for all time and all cultures)?

There are a lot of factors that go into this.  Among them:

 - common sense (we "know" that weaving two kinds of threads
   together is not a moral issue; likewise we "know" murder
   is a moral issue)
 - Setting where the law/principle was given (e.g. a specific promise
   to a specific person cannot be claimed by a different
   person in a different setting)
 - way that the issue is handled throughout the Bible
   (sexual behavior is often used as a general moral principle
   e.g. consider the usage in lists about what is "wrong" as
   well as specific behaviors that are denounced)

In essence, this comes down to the same as other interpretational
issues.  I believe that women should not be pastors because Paul
makes his argument in I Timothy 2 based on creation, not based
on the social structure of the day.  Creation has not changed,
therefore the argument is still valid.  The social structure has
changed and if the argument was based on that, then I would feel
quite differently.

Collis

    I was wondering if the bride price for a virgin was more than the bride
    price for a nonvirgin.  If so, how much more?
    
    Ruth

    100% more.
    Non Virgin females could be stoned to death if they married.

    >  -< How much for an unchased woman? >-
    
    Moot point, nobody wants her. :-) :-) :-)

>    100% more.
>    Non Virgin females could be stoned to death if they married.
    
    Are you sure?  I believe adulteresses [married promiscuous women] were
    stoned to death.  I'm not completely familiar with that particular law.
    
    However, as with the virgin price...and all the other Laws in the
    Bible, since Christ's sacrifice for our sins, we are not spiritually
    bound to the Law any longer.  
    
    Nancy

    RE: .55
    
    Nancy,
     I'm confused about your last comment about "not being spiritually
    bound".......didn't you state that the "no woman talking in church" and
    the "sex during..." were still binding on us?
    
    Our, am I confused.
    
    Marc H.

    Marc I'm confused about what you are asking... can you clarify?
    
    Nancy

    Spiritually bound meaning the penalty for sin... we no longer have to
    die spiritually as a result of sin.  We are now under Grace through
    acceptance of the gift of God... which is of course, Jesus.
    
    Does that answer?
    
    Nancy

    RE: .58
    
    Yup.....thanks.
    
    
    Marc H.

    Nancy,

    Like Mark, I too am confused. If we are not spiritually bound to
    follow, in what way are we bound to the Law. (By Law I mean the
    directions, laws, and rules of social conduct found in the OT).

    I believe that we are spiritually bound to the Law, but not literally
    bound to it. That is we must try to separate the message and intent of
    the law from specific instructions. I feel we are bound, spiritually,
    to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with what the Law intended
    to accomplish, but we are not *necessarily* bound to the specific
    procedures of the Law or to the physical punishments for not following
    the procedures.

    I think Collis was saying something similar when he described his views
    on interpreting the Law and filtering the cultural message out of the
    spiritual message. 
    
    
    	Eric