.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12772.html
ravyn.
.
Sounds good though.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception , according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. col 2:8
2 thes 2: 9-10 the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12772.html
ravyn.
Jesus -- "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go you CANNOT come." john 8:21
Jesus -- "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe I am, you will indeed die in your sins." john 8:24
Bishop Carlton Pearson -- "We've created this monster called the devil that lords it over this torture chamber. None of that is scriptural if you really look at the Bible."
Jesus -- "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." matt 25:41
Bishop Carlton Pearson -- "In the totality of [God's] vastness, there is evil."
Seraphims -- "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Hosts." Isa 6:3
Bishop Carlton Pearson --"[God is] so inclusive, it's hard to believe. He put the versions of himself back together in Christ. There's a version of God that's Hindu. There's a version of God that's Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Baha'i. It's so beautiful."
God -- "Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; ."
God -- "Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:"
God -- "Deu 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."
God -- "And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." Deu 31:18
In conclusion:
Bishop Cartlton Pearson is best described by Jude.
These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; Jude 12
wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. Jude 13
It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, Jude 14
execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. Jude 15
These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. Jude 16.
i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.
this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".
in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.
Neonmadman,
So, since premarital sex is not sinful, she’s being stoned solely for lying (fraud). How inconsistent of God to frame His laws in such a way.
A virgin having sex to one man while married to another is specifically called a sin and requires the death sentence. I have not said she dies for fraud, you said she dies for lying and premarital sex. You yourself admit neither is punishable by death.
The same reason that the girl would be stoned for not being a virgin. Because premarital sex is also sinful!
Now you contradict yourself. You say premarital sex is not punishable by death but you say it is punishable by death.
Then prove it. You certainly haven’t done so yet.
What are you denying? Are you saying that a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another is not punishable by death?
Then you’d better restate your position, because I thought the whole thrust of this discussion was that premarital sex was not a sin
If premarital sex happens where the bible prohibits it is most certainly is a sin. If a virgin woman is engaged to one man and has sex with another that is sinful premarital sex. The bible says so. There are many specific ways premarital sex is sinful. You made it sound as though I was excluding them in what you said.
and therefore could not be included in the prohibition of porneia for Christians
Those specific types of premarital sex that are called sin are most definately included in that definition.
You assume it “must have” happened that way because it fits your particular idea. But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!
What is not in the bible is someone being stoned to death just for premarital sex. In this relationship there is one precedent. That which I mentioned and it is perfectly plausible. The scenario you came up with:
The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous.
: has no biblical precedent and is pure speculation. Mine came directly from the Law code (deut. 22:23-24)
But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!
deut 22:23-24, where is your scenario in the bible?
To use the old JW analogy, why does the Bible not tell us specifically that it is a sin to dump our garbage into our neighbor’s back yard? You have made yet another assumption – that an act cannot be sinful unless the Bible spells out its sinfulness in the most specific of terms. There are many truths that must be gleaned from the study of Bible principles.
You are still not dealing with the strangeness of specifically calling so many esoteric things sins but not the one that is considered the most common.
If we just read the Bible without preconceived notions, what do we find?
We find that premarital sex is a sin under a number of conditions.
But you’ve given birth to an “idea baby,” as I heard one preacher call it. And suddenly, you’re reading the entire Bible in the light of that idea, and molding every text to make it fit.
No. The "idea baby" is that premarital sex is a sin. I dont need to change the bible to eliminate the law forbidding premarital sex. The law is not there.
This is what scholars call eisegesis, and it is not the correct way to approach the Bible.
I agree. You should really dump the "idea baby" you have created that premarital itself is a sin.
It is reading ideas into the text and seeking support for them.
Kind of like trying to prove premarital sex itself is a sin when the bible just never says it.
Its opposite is exegesis, the art and science of extracting the meaning that is already in the text.
Such as the numerous sexual sins mentioned in the bible, some that are very esoteric indeed.
And that is what we should strive for – extracting what is there, not imposing our own ideas upon the text.
Thank you for stating my position so articulately. You have saved me a lot of time.
Are you suggesting that young people in ancient times didn’t have raging hormones?
Not at all. My point is that they had no law on the books to universally supress these raging hormones as you call them. Today, we(you) pull out scriptures that talk about "porneia"(remember controversey) in order to do it. They did not have that back then. They had no law on the books telling them they couldn't do it.
What opinions? We’re not talking about opinions; we’re talking about God’s Law to Israel. The Law placed a high value on virginity of a bride. If premarital sex was not sinful, it should make no difference whatever whether she was or wasn’t a virgin.
I told you. Your entire assertion in this area was speculation and I could only address it with speculation. You were not talking about God's Laws to Israel. If you are, state what law.
Marriage was not merely a commercial transaction, even though some exchange of value may have been customary.
No. The transaction value was law. Deal with it.
Why? Why pay more for a virgin?
I already demonstrated the male obsession that exists in some places with virgin women.
hi guys, im on a time budget here.
a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.
i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.
the NWT is amazingly deceptive and twisted. It could take years to fully grasp all the doctrimally motivated alterations.
It could be years before the WTS is done tampering with the textus receptus so that it will fit their theology.
i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.
this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".
in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.
nmm
You are assuming a lot here.
I don't see how I am.
There is nothing in the scripture that talks about what her state was, or what she claimed to be, at the time of her engagement.
She was found to not be a virgin when he went to her. He was expecting that she was a virgin. She must have been or pretending to be a virgin when she was engaged. You know that.
Her husband would have no way of knowing whether she had premarital sex before or after she became engaged.
Yes he could, she claims it or lets him think it. It is her that proves it. She can speak, she has a tongue. She can prevent her death if she doesn't pretend to be a virgin.
She could have lied about being a virgin at the time of her engagement as well as at the time of her marriage.
I mentioned that. She testifies to being a virgin if she lies. It is her own fault. A woman knows she better not lie about being a virgin when she enters engagement because of this law. I don't think you realize that I have explained all this.
Therefore, in practical terms, a girl who had engaged in premarital sex before becoming engaged would face the same penalty as one who had committed "quasi-adultery" (to use your term).
You have proven no such thing. If she claimed she was not a virgin at engagement there is no precedent for her being stoned to death. The precedent for stoning is a virgin fiance having sex with another man. That is when the law prescribes death and it does so specifically. SHE TESTIFIES TO being a virgin upon engagement. If she lies it is her fault. If someone admitts to having gay sex would they be stoned to death? Yes? What if they were just lying? DONT LIE!
1. The text does say that she was “promiscuous” (NIV).
In the KJV it is just the deragatory "whore" adjective. This is applied to a woman who commits adultery also. The NIV softens the language at times to be less offensive.
The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous. Neither fraud nor premarital sex alone would merit the death penalty, but combining the two under circumstances such as these elevated the level of evil being perpetrated.
That is far more speculative and completely lacking precedent. My solution had precedent and could be proven. She testifies to virginity at her engagement because her husband thought she was when they got married. She is submitting the evidence that she committed the "quasi-adultery" which specifcally requires the death sentence.
Of course, if premarital sex is not at all sinful, then we are dealing with a simple case of fraud, and the scripture makes no sense.
Wrong. I didn't say premarital sex is not sinful at all. You are just ingoring the fact that she had sex while engaged to another man. I am saying that she was guilty of pre-marital sex in which she was another man's virgin fiance. The OT specifically prescribes death for that offense and in this case the offense is proven by the girl.
Another line of reasoning comes to mind: if premarital sex is not sinful, why was it not customary for engaged persons to have sex with each other prior to marriage?
I am looking for a specific scripture that will help with that question. You forget the flipside to that coin. If premarital sex IS sinful why is it not called a sin. That is what I want to know. My catechism uses this type of funny logic too, no scripture saying premarital sex is a sin.
It would take more than that to fight off:
I’m sure that young people back then had raging hormones just as much as in modern times.
Here is the problem, you are now (back to previous quote) speculating without grounds and I can't respond but to speculate without grounds. I don't want to elaborate on this speculation though because there is no point.
There may be many things that are not sins that are not customary and generally considered not profitable. If the man has sex with the virgin she is now not a virgin. What if he decides to back out? The custom was that a man take his bride after their wedding.
Now you have to marry off a nonvirgin. I hate to sound like the 'liberals' but the lack of precedent leads me to assume many opinions were cultural. I think that in fact they are. For example, muslim men have some cultural fantasies. Virginity is highly prized in the muslim world. When a muslim man is richly rewarded in heaven, among other things, he is to get 70 virgins. Not just any virgins, these virgins are magical virgins. They constantly are revirginized after he devirginizes them. So he gets to spend eternity devirginizing these 70 magical virgins.
Me personally, I dont want to take a woman's virginity. The thought of it is a turn off to me. So I would have gotten one(ten) of the "bargain babes" if I were in ancient Israel. And I would have been happy to do it. Of course I may have been culturally induced into wanting the virgins.
Once you are engaged, why refrain from having sex, if it is not sinful?
Why do a lot of things that are not sinful? The guy could decide he doesn't want to marry her. How do you know it didn't happen anyways?
And why, for that matter, should there be any virtue attached to being a virgin at the time of marriage, or any stigma attached to having an illegitimate child?
Why so much virtue attached to not getting married at all if getting married is not a sin?
and also, AHHA! Dealing with illigitimate children. The scripture I was looking deals with this subject. That scripture says that if a man and a woman unmarried have sex and the man "spills" his seed into her the man must take a ram (i think a ram) and make the atonement with the priest. And that was it. It was no more condemned than if someone accidentally touches a dead body. It doesn't say what to do if he doesn't spill his seed into her. But do you see the symbolism that it deals with? Unmarried and he spills his seed into her = illigitimate child.
Here is where I am going with this. As far as I can tell, a man(even married) was allowed to have concubines. I don't have the scriptures for this right now but I am looking. That scenario would apply in this instance.
Why should a man care whether he married a virgin?
If he wants someone that does not sin he is going to be looking for a long time. Premarital sex itself is not called a sin. Why does he want a virgin? Why does a muslim want an eternal virgin?
He wants a virgin BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE PAID FOR.
as larc's thread has mutated into the tired old nurture vs nature debate i thought i'd give a response to his question, which was how do you reconcile the bibles attittude to homosexuality and the living breathing reality of human beings.
i was at a recent screening of trembling before g-d, a documentary on homosexuals in the orthodox community who want to be practising homosexuals and still be accepted as part of the orthodox faith.
(my opinion is that they're wanting to have their cake and eat it but i was interested in the reasoning).
scotsman,
Im sorry but dedalus is bating me.
dedalus,
Starscream -- it's your sort of dumb irrelevence that motivated Scotsman to start a new thread in the first place.
excuse me but the name of the other thread was "HOMOSEXUALITY" in case you forgot.
Let me see If I understand you. You are saying that I am the reason Scotsman started a new thread? How the hell do you know?
Get on-topic or get off this thread,
You don't need to tell me. If Scotsman wants to chastize me I invited him to do it.
The whole time I have respected the gay opinion that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle. I did point at the fact that if they take offense of someone taking offense then they should not be offended by beastiality or incest.
Sorry Scotsman, for taking dedalus' bait
as larc's thread has mutated into the tired old nurture vs nature debate i thought i'd give a response to his question, which was how do you reconcile the bibles attittude to homosexuality and the living breathing reality of human beings.
i was at a recent screening of trembling before g-d, a documentary on homosexuals in the orthodox community who want to be practising homosexuals and still be accepted as part of the orthodox faith.
(my opinion is that they're wanting to have their cake and eat it but i was interested in the reasoning).
I posted this on the other homosexual post. The thread was getting exaustive so I figured I would put it under this one to. This was a response to some sentiment that being gay is not or cannot be a choice and that there is something wrong with being offended by homosexuality.
scotsman, hope you dont mind me putting this under your post, the only relevance is the Homosexual topic.
Fact.
It is not a choice that a heterosexual be heterosexual. It is genetically programmed that we are attracted to the opposite sex of the same species. Could a straight man choose to be gay? If he didn't find it disgusting sure he could. I don't know of any genetic disposition that would cause someone to be disgusted by the same sex. So you can become gay by choice I suppose. Most men I would assume simply lack sexual attraction towards other man. It's a lack of programming. People can make themselves like things that they didn't once like. I once didn't like beer. No I hated it. I made myself like it by trying it enough. Now I love it.
Fact.
There are a massive number of bi-sexuals. They have the natural programming to be attracted to the opposite sex of the same species. If being gay is genetic then that proves being gay does not mean you don't have the natural attraction for the opposite sex.
Fact.
A bi-sexual chooses to become "gay" rather than just stick to the heterosexual lifestyle. He/she has a choice and entertains the aberration. Mere experimentation is a choice. What is not proven is that anyone lacks the natural desire for the opposite sex based on genetics. It may be true that genetics can cause attraction for the same sex. All that we can say based on genetics is that some people have a choice to be gay.
No one would choose to be gay rather than live as a heterosexual if they could?!!??!?!?!?!?!? Well then you are saying there is no such thing as a bi-sexual, people having incest or screwing sheep.
Fact.
Society places prohibitions on many things that are considered victimless. Incest is a taboo. Incest is "victimless," considered a serious aberration and the result of mental illness. Beastiality is "victimless," considered a serious aberration and the result of mental illness.
If gay people want to their actions to just be accepted and screw how anyone even feels about it then they would need to join the horse and chickenf***ers allaince as well to fight off the bigotry directed at people that want heterosexual relationships with farm animals, apes and household pets. If a gay person considers any such behavior as offensive then they would have to accept the opinion that their actions may be offensive and considered immoral by some people regardless of whether or not they can percieve a victim.
This is where I draw the line between a reasonable defense of a gay lifestyle and a fanatical one. If a gay person can accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with someone being offended by it then they are being reasonable.
"Swinging" or open marriage is considered victimless yet immoral to our society. Prostitution is considered victimless yet is immoral to our society. Some pedophiles will reason that a child as young as 6 can give consent but almost nationally the barrier is placed at 18.
There is nothing that governs these rules in our culture but how we feel about things. A person cannot help but be disgusted at homosexual activity any more than they or a homosexual can with beastiality.
Sex is considered natural between the opposite sex of the same species. Change it to same sex and you might as well allow for other species as well.
Personally, homosexuality is less offensive to me than beastiality but that doesn't mean I think it is more ok.
The argument that homosexuals are victimized by being forced to suppress their "natural" desires really doesn't hold water with me. There are people that don't have sex at all and are perfectly normal. I haven't had sex since I became a Christian (2.5 yrs). It is not suppression of sexual desire if there is someone or a group of someones that you are restricted from having sex with.
I myself am restricted from having sex with a married woman. I may entertain my desire to do it, form a fetish and then not be able to enjoy sex with a woman that is not another man's wife but I would still be wrong to do it.
I even confess that I like (or love i don't know) a woman that I have known for years and is married. I would love to have her but I am obligated to "suppress" my desire because it is immoral. I'd like to make it clear how much I want her. I want her ALOT. Another woman just won't do.
I am not judging someone for having sexual desires that I consider perversion. I think I have immoral desires as well. I am willing to accept that you can't help that. I will still accept someone as a person if they are acting immoral. I would be offended by it and would not condone it though. And if my feelings are considered bigotry then I don't know how that person can say they are not a bigot.
Also. Homophobic means having an overpowering or irrational fear of man. Wild animals are homophobic. A bashful gay man is a homophobe, not an outspoken straight one.
i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.
this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".
in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.
NeonMadman,
I am really enjoying our discussion so far. There is one point you made in your last post that I did not have a complete answer for at the time, although I knew it didn't prove your point and IMO I gave a good enough answer to buy some time.
I remember wondering if you would use that scripture to prove your point knowing that the death sentence derailed your argument quite a bit. I was a little surprised you went ahead with it but I can see why you did.
You might also review Deuteronomy 22:13-21. A bride who falsely claimed virginity was to be put to death. Why? If there is no sin attached to premarital sex, what guilt has she incurred by not being a virgin? Yet her actions are called "evil" and "a disgraceful thing."
I knew that your conclusion in this place was wrong if for no other reason than the girl here was to be put to death. The lack of information on the reason for her sentence seemed to leave the door open to interpret her crime as pre-marital sex. I knew that there was no precedent for that but it seemed that is the only thing that could be proven by her lack of virginity and because of that your point had some merrit. If I couldn't figure out what was going on in a timely manner I was considering concession until I had an answer.
I have nailed this one down though. The assumption that pre-marital sex is all that can be proved against her is error number one. I can prove more than that.
This is dealing with a woman who has been married to a man under the guise of virgin. Fraud of course is not grounds for death, so that is not the direct reason she would be stoned. Premarital sex is also not grounds for death. What we are forgetting is that a woman is engaged to a man prior to being married. We read the scripture and we forget about the engagement. The precedent for the death sentence is a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another man. The woman testifies to her crime whether or not it is true.
When she gets engaged she is now facing execution if she commits fraud by claiming virginity because she is testifying that when she entered engagement she was a virgin. Whether or not she actually committed "quasi-adultery" it was her silence or claim of being a virgin at the time of engagement that is the evidence for her crime. She has no one to blame but herself. Now that I understand it I see how brilliant it was.
It was designed not to really punish sin (although it does) but more importantly to keep the brides honest about their chastity. When a man pays for a virgin he can be that much more assured he is getting what he has paid for because the law makes it so that if she lies she can be put to death not for the lying but because she is calling herself guilty of the quasi-adultery when she claims to be a virgin upon engagement.
Brilliant law.
And when I say "quasi-adultery" I'm reffering to a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another. If she is not a virgin (in the future) I will call it pre-adultery. This is just to make the distinction between virgin and non-virgin fiance offenses should they arise.
.
i am a newbie here and have just found this site after a some jw sisters came a visiting to my door.. i was listening intently to what they were saying, and asked a question about cruelty in this world, the subject got around to animals and they said that animals did not eat each other until after the flood.. and animals did not turn against man until they started to be cruel to them, which was again after the flood.
this seems to me to be so ludicrous, please can you tell me if anyone has heard of this before?
I don't know if the bible says all animals were herbivores prior to the flood. It said that all the plants were given as food but I don't think the animals were asking permission before using their daggers and poisons. It was after the flood that MAN was allowed to eat meat and then the animals were afraid of man.
It seems to me that satan and his demons rebelled long before the creation of the earth and that the world was created with violence as a reflection of the demons.
The snake is something that God (Jesus) made, yet it is completely "demonized" by biblical writers.
recently we looked this up, to show to someone who refused to believe that they would ever print such advice.. this was in the watchtower 1976 page 330. it was the lifestory of porfirio caicedo from columbia :-i recall a form of punishment that worked effectively on horacio, my fifth son, when the literal rod failed to do so.
he was about eight years old.
he was too insistent in associating with undesirable neighborhood boys.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Once again the WTS praises an abomination to prevent something that is not even a sin. Way to go WitchTower Bible Trick Society!
