Why is one good and the other bad?

[McCulloch]

[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

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?

[Metacrock]

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.

I said as christians. that means not ban christians as indivudals from goverment, but we dont' want a christian poitical party. We don't want people saying "vote for us or go to hell for oppossing God"

[Cogitoergosum]

[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

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?

To answer your question Mcculloch, we will be caught in circular reasoning.

I'm gonna say that the first one is good, because I (human) think it's good, while the other one I think it is bad. Them metacrock will ask me :
"well how U (human) know that the first one was good? it is because god has put this intuition in u, the difference between good and bad."
Then i will reply to him: well metacrock how do u know that GOD put that intuition in me, maybe the devil did, maybe god thinks the second is good and the first is bad.
He will reply it is impossible, definetly god thinks the first one is good.
And i'll ask again, how do u know this is what god wants?
He'll answer because he gave us the ability to discern right from wrong.
Then i'll go: how do u know it wasn't the devil.....
and it will go on for eons.
Am i close to what u meant by this thread Mcculloch?
Personnally i think in matters of right and wrong we should think in matter of human happiness.

[Confused]

Furrowed Brow:

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.

I have heard arguements that the punishment wasn't because of extramarital sex, but because it was assumed she was a virgin and the lie is what she is being punished for. While I don't know where the person who said this got the idea from (I think it was in the theology forum under the thread is premarital sex wrong) it still doesn't teach a value per se. Just a punishment.

But if sex outside of marriage is the issue, then I guess I will see you in hell? Perhaps you can be shoved down satans throat and I his nose and we can meet somewhere around the uvula

[Furrowed Brow]

Furrowed Brow:

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.

I have heard arguements that the punishment wasn't because of extramarital sex, but because it was assumed she was a virgin and the lie is what she is being punished for. While I don't know where the person who said this got the idea from (I think it was in the theology forum under the thread is premarital sex wrong) it still doesn't teach a value per se. Just a punishment.

But if sex outside of marriage is the issue, then I guess I will see you in hell? Perhaps you can be shoved down satans throat and I his nose and we can meet somewhere around the uvula

See you there. I'm relieved you didn't say his

[Confused]

Furrowed Brow:

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.

I have heard arguements that the punishment wasn't because of extramarital sex, but because it was assumed she was a virgin and the lie is what she is being punished for. While I don't know where the person who said this got the idea from (I think it was in the theology forum under the thread is premarital sex wrong) it still doesn't teach a value per se. Just a punishment.

But if sex outside of marriage is the issue, then I guess I will see you in hell? Perhaps you can be shoved down satans throat and I his nose and we can meet somewhere around the uvula

See you there. I'm relieved you didn't say his

Rolling on the floor with laughter::::

[Cathar1950]

She is a damaged good. I will take her in.
They use to cut the guy on the wedding night too.
Seems fair.

[SpikedLillac]

[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

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?

This brings about the point that obviously it was a law in the culture that women where not to have sex before marriage. If it was a law then obviously this girl knew that if she did have sex before marriage then there was a possibility that she would get caught and punished but she decided to do it anyway. Thats like saying that Timothy McVaugh killing all those people and thinking that it wasn't wrong and thinking that there wasn't a possibility that he could get caught. Well he did and look what happened. Do you think that he didn't expect that those could be his consequences? If this girl had sex before marriage, wouldn't she think that he future husband would find out. Did she know that there were consequences for her sin? Yes but she did it anyway.

[Aslan]

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.

This is a good observation. As far as the punishment of the liar. The wages of sin is death. This was made clear in the old testament laws, and because of it people took their sin MUCH more seriously that we do...that should not be, but it is true.

We are now under a new covenant. The emphasis that Christ spoke to, was one of the heart...not actions.

[Cathar1950]

This brings about the point that obviously it was a law in the culture that women where not to have sex before marriage. If it was a law then obviously this girl knew that if she did have sex before marriage then there was a possibility that she would get caught and punished but she decided to do it anyway. Thats like saying that Timothy McVaugh killing all those people and thinking that it wasn't wrong and thinking that there wasn't a possibility that he could get caught. Well he did and look what happened. Do you think that he didn't expect that those could be his consequences? If this girl had sex before marriage, wouldn't she think that he future husband would find out. Did she know that there were consequences for her sin? Yes but she did it anyway.

McVaugh wasn't created to blow up buildings even if he was trained to kill.
Now this poor girl would have been created to have sex as well as the spoiler and had hormones running thru them just in case. Every human on this planet got her for what she is getting stoned for while hardly anyone has blown up a building to have children. You would stake out a building not court it.

[Confused]

[Jesus said, ]"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

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?

This brings about the point that obviously it was a law in the culture that women where not to have sex before marriage. If it was a law then obviously this girl knew that if she did have sex before marriage then there was a possibility that she would get caught and punished but she decided to do it anyway. Thats like saying that Timothy McVaugh killing all those people and thinking that it wasn't wrong and thinking that there wasn't a possibility that he could get caught. Well he did and look what happened. Do you think that he didn't expect that those could be his consequences? If this girl had sex before marriage, wouldn't she think that he future husband would find out. Did she know that there were consequences for her sin? Yes but she did it anyway.

1) Where are these laws against premarital sex? I believe we had a thread addressing this already and couldn't find anything to support it.

2) Ok, she had sex before marriage, so we should stone her to death. Is this not overboard?

3) A man has accused her of premarital sex. Now, how hard would it be for him to prove this and how hard would it be for her to disprove this? The man, not being happy with his new brides response in bed could easily dispose of the linen with virgin blood on it and clean the woman before he made his accusation. The woman on the other hand has no way to disprove it. Think the deck was stacked against the woman?