Why is one good and the other bad?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

Matthew 7:12 wrote:[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 wrote:If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 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,' [...]
if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 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.
Why is it that one of these Biblical teachings is considered a good moral teaching but the other one is not?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #2

Post by Metacrock »

McCulloch wrote:
Matthew 7:12 wrote:[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 wrote:If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 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,' [...]
if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 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.
Why is it that one of these Biblical teachings is considered a good moral teaching but the other one is not?


these teachings are made about a thousand years apart. Humanity prgessed. the latter is the result of a barbarous culture where women were property. the former is by the revelation of God to humanity who is speaking clearly and prefectly about moral motions and we can see from our evolutionary path that this teaching represents an advance over the other.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #3

Post by Confused »

McCulloch wrote:
Matthew 7:12 wrote:[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 wrote:If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 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,' [...]
if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 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.
Why is it that one of these Biblical teachings is considered a good moral teaching but the other one is not?
You know, I just had about 10 minutes worth of typing in response to your question before it dawned on me. I was no longer sure what I was responding to.

In Matthew, we aren't promoting violence in response to anything. In Deuteronomy we are promoting punishment for a lie (either the mans or womans). Are either of the messages bad moral teachings, no. I think the distinguishing factor for me is the degree of punishment being used that makes it a bad moral teaching.

Metacrock:
While they are written however long apart, are the laws of God not still the laws of God? Or did they change just because society changed? Is it not better to cut off a hand rather than steal, cut out your tongue rather than lie, etc..... The NT doesn't address punishments for crimes as the OT does. So it may say cut off your hand rather than steal, but it doesn't say what to do if you do steal and get caught. The OT addresses this.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #4

Post by Cathar1950 »

How did he know she wasn't a virgin?

A hyman can be broken many ways. I wonder how many girls (they were usually 12 and 13) were killed because of an accident or maybe incest and rape?

But even the Hebrew scriptures and other said to treat others like yourself before Jesus.
It is not unique to Jesus.
Both ideas are found in the "barbarous culture".
Just like Christians killing witches and Gnostics after 1000 years of revelation where "Humanity prgessed" ( progressed?)

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #5

Post by Metacrock »

Confused wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
Matthew 7:12 wrote:[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 wrote:If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 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,' [...]
if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 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.
Why is it that one of these Biblical teachings is considered a good moral teaching but the other one is not?
You know, I just had about 10 minutes worth of typing in response to your question before it dawned on me. I was no longer sure what I was responding to.

lol I know the feeling 8-)

Meta:In Matthew, we aren't promoting violence in response to anything. In Deuteronomy we are promoting punishment for a lie (either the mans or womans). Are either of the messages bad moral teachings, no. I think the distinguishing factor for me is the degree of punishment being used that makes it a bad moral teaching.

Metacrock:
While they are written however long apart, are the laws of God not still the laws of God? Or did they change just because society changed? Is it not better to cut off a hand rather than steal, cut out your tongue rather than lie, etc.....


Yes, I am arguing for the idea that God uses social evolution. God is bringing society along and not moving faster than they are capble of evolving at the moment.


Here's a link to a sort blog peice:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2006/04/g ... ution.html

The NT doesn't address punishments for crimes as the OT does. So it may say cut off your hand rather than steal, but it doesn't say what to do if you do steal and get caught. The OT addresses this.

why should it? In OT they were running a country. The OT morality is partly civil and partly ehtical. But NT is not about a civil code. It's not a law book, its' not handed down from on high to give a list of rules. It gives us priciples to follow. we have to understand how to apply them.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #6

Post by McCulloch »

Metacrock wrote:These teachings are made about a thousand years apart. Humanity progressed. The latter is the result of a barbarous culture where women were property. The former is by the revelation of God to humanity who is speaking clearly and perfectly about moral motions and we can see from our evolutionary path that this teaching represents an advance over the other.
According to the Christians, both of these teachings came from the perfect unchanging loving just and merciful God. If you now admit contrary to what the Christians teach that the first teaching is not from God but from "a barbarous culture" we are in agreement that the Bible is not inspired nor inerrant.
Metacrock wrote:Yes, I am arguing for the idea that God uses social evolution. God is bringing society along and not moving faster than they are capable of evolving at the moment.
I would hate to imagine the kind of society that God's chosen people had prior to this so that this rule represented a kind of improvement.
Metacrock wrote:In OT they were running a country. The OT morality is partly civil and partly ethical. But NT is not about a civil code. It's not a law book, its' not handed down from on high to give a list of rules. It gives us principles to follow. we have to understand how to apply them.
So this is the kind of rule that Christians should be adopting when faced with running a civil authority?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Why is one good and the other bad?

Post #7

Post by Metacrock »

McCulloch wrote:
Metacrock wrote:These teachings are made about a thousand years apart. Humanity progressed. The latter is the result of a barbarous culture where women were property. The former is by the revelation of God to humanity who is speaking clearly and perfectly about moral motions and we can see from our evolutionary path that this teaching represents an advance over the other.
According to the Christians, both of these teachings came from the perfect unchanging loving just and merciful God. If you now admit contrary to what the Christians teach that the first teaching is not from God but from "a barbarous culture" we are in agreement that the Bible is not inspired nor inerrant.
Metacrock wrote:Yes, I am arguing for the idea that God uses social evolution. God is bringing society along and not moving faster than they are capable of evolving at the moment.
I would hate to imagine the kind of society that God's chosen people had prior to this so that this rule represented a kind of improvement.


what's the difference then? an atheist socieity would be the same.


Metacrock wrote:In OT they were running a country. The OT morality is partly civil and partly ethical. But NT is not about a civil code. It's not a law book, its' not handed down from on high to give a list of rules. It gives us principles to follow. we have to understand how to apply them.
So this is the kind of rule that Christians should be adopting when faced with running a civil authority?

Christians shouldn't run civil authority as christisans. it's not a poitical party. atheist shouldn't either.

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #8

Post by Confused »

Metacrock:
Christians shouldn't run civil authority as christisans. it's not a poitical party. atheist shouldn't either.
Civil authority is to be run by those qualified to run it, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #9

Post by McCulloch »

Metacrock wrote:Christians shouldn't run civil authority as Christians. It's not a political party. Atheist shouldn't either.
I'll take it that you mean Atheists should not run civil authority as atheists not that atheists should not run civil authority.
Confused wrote:Civil authority is to be run by those qualified to run it, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
:yes: and that those in civil authority must keep themselves strictly neutral with regard to issues of religion. That is the foundational idea behind secular government.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #10

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Hi Confused
Confused wrote:In Matthew, we aren't promoting violence in response to anything. In Deuteronomy we are promoting punishment for a lie (either the mans or womans). Are either of the messages bad moral teachings, no. I think the distinguishing factor for me is the degree of punishment being used that makes it a bad moral teaching.
The quote from Deuteronomy strikes me as a tad harsh on the poor girl. If the punishment for not being a virgin bride is a stoning then I guess she is going to try and blag her way passed that one - and who could blame her. However as I read the quote she is being punished for the folly of being a harlot. That she is evil or has acted in an evil way because she is not a virgin bride. To be blunt: she's had evil sex. Sex made evil because it is outside of marriage.

Or if hubby is lying when charging her with a shameful deed, he knows that he can do that, because there seems to be a general agreement that sex outside/before marriage is evil.

O boy I'm in trouble! :yikes:

As I explained to Biker in another thread 51% of children in the UK are now born out of wedlock. This is no longer the moral issue it once was. I don't have a daughter, but if I did I'd think it a bit odd if she married still a virgin. I do have a son (born out of wedlock) who is at the stage where he is beginning to take responsibility for his own life. But the same point applies.

Rather than a moral issue the whole Deuteronomy scenario comes across as one of social control and patriarchy

Post Reply