Marriage is between man and woman

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Deut 22.13-19: 13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's fathe ...[text shortened]... atory procedures circumvented the most severe punishments from always being the result of a sin.

" The man was not LESS punished just because he was a man "
if a man accuses his wife for not being a virgin and is proven to be lying, he pays a fine. how is this the same thing as being stoned?

Originally posted by vivify
Here's the problem: not all women bleed the first time they have sex. Look it up.
And since the only acceptable 'proof'' of virginity is the 'cloth' (used to clean up the blood) any virgin who doesn't bleed during penetration is in danger (or doomed) to getting stoned.

" I don't assume every husband wanting to get rid of his wife wanted to have her s ...[text shortened]... e a law where the life of a virgin who fails to bleed during sex is at the mercy of her husband.

Those were laws for Israel that Moses set because of the hardness of the peoples hearts according to Jesus. The purpose of these harsh laws by moses is an attempt to produce a pure people to represent the Lord to the nations. This is just an example of what might happen and it does not say that the "cloth" is the only way to prove innocence.

I doubt if even the Jews would follow such rules today and there is no evidence that they ever did. Maybe, Muslims would, but they claim the Holy Bible is corrupt.

As Christians we are set free of the law of sin and death by Moses, because we are under a new covenant of liberty by Jesus.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Those were laws for Israel that Moses set because of the hardness of the peoples hearts according to Jesus. The purpose of these harsh laws by moses is an attempt to produce a pure people to represent the Lord to the nations. This is just an example of what might happen and it does not say that the "cloth" is the only way to prove innocence.

I doubt if ...[text shortened]... e of the law of sin and death of Moses, because we are under a new covenant of liberty of Jesus.

"I doubt if even the Jews would follow such rules today and there is no evidence that they ever did"
god gave those laws and they are in the bible. we have numerous examples of people being stoned as those laws dictate. to say they didn't follow them is idiotic.

but nevermind that now, what you said is interesting. are you saying that it might be ok to not listen to the bible if your conscience dictates differently?

"Maybe, Muslims would, but they claim the Holy Bible is corrupt."
your hatred of muslims is well known, and disgusting. they are not in discussion here. the bible is, so please try to stay on track

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I doubt if even the Jews would follow such rules today and there is no evidence that they ever did"
god gave those laws and they are in the bible. we have numerous examples of people being stoned as those laws dictate. to say they didn't follow them is idiotic.

but nevermind that now, what you said is interesting. are you saying that it might be ok t ...[text shortened]... n, and disgusting. they are not in discussion here. the bible is, so please try to stay on track

Good luck on that one. I have basically given up trying to engage him in real discussion as he always falls back on his MO. i think you saw his response to my idea attempting to show Earth as very old and not that ridiculous 6000 year bull crap. Where I said as my own idea to show the age of Earth, the craters on the moon, where my contention was there are literally millions of craters on the moon and if they had happened in some kind of episode in those supposed first few thousand years, the surface of the moon could not possibly have gotten rid of all that heat in the next few thousand years but would have been at the very least too hot to stand on and since we know for an absolute fact humans have walked on the moon the temperature there is only the heat imparted to it by the sun and the only explanation is the moon is far older than 6000 years old. His blithe answer and I quote: "water cooled down the moon". That is mindboggling an answer on many levels as you no doubt could see. That was as close for him to an original thought that you would likely encounter but mindboggling in its misconceptions which I am sure you can think of many problems with that response.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you deny it is in the bible?

I deny you are in the Bible.

Do you know what exegesis means? You're so far from the truth your blabberings aren't worth the effort. All you're doing is twisting the truth into some kind of grotesque monster of a lie and you know it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Those were laws for Israel that Moses set because of the hardness of the peoples hearts according to Jesus. The purpose of these harsh laws by moses is an attempt to produce a pure people to represent the Lord to the nations.

Thank you. That is a real insight.

So you agree that it was Moses that wrote this, and not God?

Originally posted by josephw
I deny you are in the Bible.

Do you know what exegesis means? You're so far from the truth your blabberings aren't worth the effort. All you're doing is twisting the truth into some kind of grotesque monster of a lie and you know it.

is
it
in
the
bible?

Originally posted by josephw
I deny you are in the Bible.

Do you know what exegesis means? You're so far from the truth your blabberings aren't worth the effort. All you're doing is twisting the truth into some kind of grotesque monster of a lie and you know it.

You can twist and squirm all you want but the bottom line is men could have sex with whomever they pleased but if women had the same desires, they could be killed. Do you deny THAT?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can twist and squirm all you want but the bottom line is men could have sex with whomever they pleased but if women had the same desires, they could be killed. Do you deny THAT?

I deny any representation of what the Bible says, by you.

Do you know what exegesis means?

Yea. Sometimes it means "Exit Jesus!".

Originally posted by josephw
I deny any representation of what the Bible says, by you.

Ok, fair enough, I COULD be prejudiced🙂 How about this:

"If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 "But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you," (Deut. 22:13-21).

I kind of wonder what they would be presenting as to the evidence of virginity?

The thing here is, there is no such stigma placed on the man. He has no test of virginity and could have had sex with a chimpanzee for all they knew but he would have been immoral just the same but unprovable nonetheless.

The gist is the man gets away with sex while the woman doesn't.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can twist and squirm all you want but the bottom line is men could have sex with whomever they pleased but if women had the same desires, they could be killed. Do you deny THAT?

You can twist and squirm all you want but the bottom line is men could have sex with whomever they pleased but if women had the same desires, they could be killed. Do you deny THAT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I deny it.

If a man could have sex with whomever he pleased why does the Law differentiate between an incident in which only the man is executed but not the woman ?

Extending the discussion of Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:23-29:

But if in the field [i.e. where the girl does not have much chance to be heard] the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces [chazaq] her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. (vv. 25-27)

Realizing the seriousness of offenses of this kind, I think parents were extra careful in training up their children. This would be especially the case with raising up daughters, IMO.

But, that Israel was not an obedient utopia and sometime innocent blood was shed, is also indicated. These indications are usually the background to God coming to judge the nation.

Originally posted by sonship
God created the woman and the reproductive organs and their functions. He didn't come first to you and I for help to figure out how to do it.

And the version I quoted said that the accusation had to be true. I include God in the discernment work. I include God in the detection work.

I simply don't reason the matter subtracting God's involvement completely out and just think of a computer like flow chart.

You are assuming that God, the all-knowing, would be involved in figuring out if a woman is guilty or not, right?

But since no man could truly know if a woman has been promiscuous or not without actually catching her in the act, then this means that only God knows if the charge is true. Right?

Therefore, why would God involve men in the process at all, since the only thing the men could use as proof of virginity, is a bloody cloth (which doesn't prove virginity, since not all virgins bleed their first time)?

In short, this seems like some law made up by ignorant men rather than an all-knowing god. That's why this law is repugnant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were evidently unaware of the differences between a concubine and a wife? Or that Sarah was actually Abrahams half sister? Your statement was inaccurate, you have learned something, you should be happy.

A concubine is merely a lower-ranking wife. That's why a man can still have sex with his concubine without the concubine being punished for it. It's amazing how much Christians don't know about their own bible.

I knew Sarah was Abraham's half sister. It simply doesn't make any difference...unless you think it's okay to have sex with your sister because only she came from only one of your parents. Is that the case?

Originally posted by sonship
[b] You can twist and squirm all you want but the bottom line is men could have sex with whomever they pleased but if women had the same desires, they could be killed. Do you deny THAT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I deny it.

If a man could have sex with whomever he pleased why does the Law differen ...[text shortened]... also indicated. These indications are usually the background to God coming to judge the nation.[/b]

"But, that Israel was not an obedient utopia and sometime innocent blood was shed, is also indicated"

if the god is benevolent and just, innocent blood is spilled because you disobey him. not because you obey a horrible law.