[QUOTE="greenprince"][QUOTE="JML897"][QUOTE="redban2"][QUOTE="JML897"] So, those Catholic Priests that did stuff with little boys...they're great citizens?
xaos
If a priest molested a toddler, then do they do they really have deep faith in their religion? No, there're in disguise..just a masquerade . Those priests do not have true faith in their religion.
Alright, fair enough.
In the Bible, 1.it says it's okay to kill a disobedient child. Also, it says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery.
So, let's say some guy tries to 2. prostitute his daughter. But, she refuses -- so, the father kills her. Would he be alright? I mean, nothing he did went against the Bible. In fact, the Bible supports him.
1.curseth The term {yekallel} signifies not only to curse, but to speak contemptuously, disrespectfully, or to make light of a person: so that all speeches which have a tendency to lessen our parents in the eyes of others, or to render their judgment, piety, etc., suspected or contemptible, is her included; though the act of cursing, or of treating the parent with injurious or opprobrious language, is what is particularly intended. He who conscientiously keeps the {fifth} commandment, can be in no danger of the judgment here denounced2. if a man sell his daughter-Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted. Usually this was the case that people usually sold their daughters because they were in debt or in some form of trouble.
Surely you aren't forming apologia for these principles? While I'm sure they were just swell for the period in which they were devised, they are absolutely reprehensible by any contemporary ethical standard.Of course not, I'm a Liberal Christian ( check it out in the Internet ) And despite that the Authors were inspired by God, they were still humans and thus act accordly on their basic instincts of what they believed in was right. I do not just read the English version but I look for other resources and the original texts to see if these unusual cruel acts or verses that go against science were really taken as literal or because of wrong translations or because it was metaphorical.Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code, which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, "Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of sanitation had been invented." (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.
Log in to comment