Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they don’t blame the person who left then it’s that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[Yahu]

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

IMO many reject Christianity over 1 major issue, sex.

How can something so beautify actually be evil? It is because of many of the misunderstandings and the inherent Phariseeism of the church attacking people over what they believe is sin in another's life and the biggest area of attack is human sexuality.

Most professing Christians don't have a clue what the law actually says about what is forbidden. They expand it to things they think might lead to sin and forbid that as well.

Old Testament Law on sexuality forbad only a few things.
1) Don't rape (death penalty for violation)
2) Don't take another man's wife (death penalty for violation)
3) Don't commit incest (at the time of Moses and beyond) (death penalty for violation)
4) Don't take a girl's virginity without her father's blessing (fine paid to the father, had to marry her, couldn't divorce her)

Who would even attempt to argue that the top 2 are not evil? The third is understandable with our knowledge of genetic problems. In every case someone is hurt by the action. Basically the law was don't use sex to hurt someone. Even the case of taking a girl's virginity was about don't steal what doesn't belong to you.

So only those things were forbidden in heterosexuality. The definition of fornication is 'unlawful sexual intercourse' so it had to be included in that list but modern Christianity has expanded the definition to include much more as forbidden. For example, a couple living together outside of marriage isn't fornication. It is actually taking on a concubine which isn't forbidden in the law.

Phariseeism by expanding on the law by traditions of man make the law much harsher then it actually was intended to be.

IMO those Pharisical views on human sexuality is the biggest problem that keep people out or drive them out due to being attacked over sexual issues whereas Yah gave us our desire and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He just expects us to be responsible with our actions and not to hurt people by our actions.

The enemy tends to focus on sexuality as a major wedge to drive people away from Yah. People flee from the harshness of the Pharisical views thinking it is a requirement placed by Yah.

[Haven]

IMO many reject Christianity over 1 major issue, sex.

I know many ex-Christians, and I don't know of a single one who left Christianity over sex. I am sure someone has left the faith for that reason, but I would imagine it is a very uncommon reason to depart from Christianity.

Old Testament Law on sexuality forbad only a few things.
1) Don't rape (death penalty for violation)

Actually, the Old Testament had several different "punishments" for rape, only one of which was the death penalty. In Deuteronomy 22, the penalty prescribed for rape was that the rapist had to marry his victim and pay a dowry to her father.

4) Don't take a girl's virginity without her father's blessing (fine paid to the father, had to marry her, couldn't divorce her)

One wonders why this command only applies to men "taking" women's virginity and not the other way around -- I feel it is obvious that it is rooted in the anti-woman cultural context of the time.

Who would even attempt to argue that the top 2 are not evil? The third is understandable with our knowledge of genetic problems. In every case someone is hurt by the action. Basically the law was don't use sex to hurt someone. Even the case of taking a girl's virginity was about don't steal what doesn't belong to you.

So only those things were forbidden in heterosexuality. The definition of fornication is 'unlawful sexual intercourse' so it had to be included in that list but modern Christianity has expanded the definition to include much more as forbidden. For example, a couple living together outside of marriage isn't fornication. It is actually taking on a concubine which isn't forbidden in the law.

Phariseeism by expanding on the law by traditions of man make the law much harsher then it actually was intended to be.

IMO those Pharisical views on human sexuality is the biggest problem that keep people out or drive them out due to being attacked over sexual issues whereas Yah gave us our desire and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He just expects us to be responsible with our actions and not to hurt people by our actions.

The enemy tends to focus on sexuality as a major wedge to drive people away from Yah. People flee from the harshness of the Pharisical views thinking it is a requirement placed by Yah.

The New Testament also places further restrictions on sexuality; for instance, the Pauline letters ban polygamy, denounce homosexuality, and proscribe sex outside of marriage.

[McCulloch]

One reason is probably that they were never intellectually grounded in the first place.

In my own case, this rings true. I now see that I converted to Christianity for personal and emotional reasons. I left having investigated it intellectually.

Another is that they only ever get to know fundamentalist Christianity. Once they find that it is weak, they decide that all Christianity must be weak.

Not so much. Having left one version fundamentalist Christianity, my wife and I were not yet ready to leave Christianity altogether. We explored various Christian traditions, each more liberal than the other. While we did find that there was less to object to, there was also less real positive value in liberal or progressive Christianity for us. For example, I find Spong really clear and articulate when he describes what he does not believe and why. However, when he attempts to expound on what he does believe, I am left in a complete fog.

Lastly, maybe they're just emotional. How many people have left Christianity after some upsetting circumstance? Like, oh, now that evil has happened to you do you decide to see the power of the problem of evil?

Oh, I get so tired of this. Whenever a Christian finds out that I am a former Christian, they start to probe. Did someone in the church piss me off? Did something bad happen to me, and I blamed God? No and No.

IMO many reject Christianity over 1 major issue, sex.

Oddly enough, I find this to be not my own experience. Before I left Christianity, I was happily married, sexually active and faithful to my wife. The same is still true, twenty-five or so years later. We had found a number of Christian groups that were open about discussing sex with a degree of frankness that would embarrass many secularists. Sure, they were against adultery and per-marital sex, but those did not apply directly to us. They were also against gay sex, but I had not come to the point of supporting gay rights until quite a while after leaving Christianity, so that was not a factor in my leaving either.

[Yahu]

[quote="Haven"]
Actually, the Old Testament had several different "punishments" for rape, only one of which was the death penalty. In Deuteronomy 22, the penalty prescribed for rape was that the rapist had to marry his victim and pay a dowry to her father.
[quote]
That wasn't for rape but for consensual sex without the betrothal with the father's permission. That is why a penalty was paid to the father. It was due to not having the betrothal agreement in place 1st. Suppose a girl wanted to marry someone her father didn't approve of. The man lost a dowry and paid a fine. The man also could never divorce her.

Rape ALWAYS carried a death penalty to the man that committed it!

[Haven]

That wasn't for rape but for consensual sex without the betrothal with the father's permission. That is why a penalty was paid to the father. It was due to not having the betrothal agreement in place 1st. Suppose a girl wanted to marry someone her father didn't approve of. The man lost a dowry and paid a fine. The man also could never divorce her.

Rape ALWAYS carried a death penalty to the man that committed it!

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[TheJackelantern]

One reason is probably that they were never intellectually grounded in the first place. Popular philosophies that are kind to the careful analysis of theology and metaphysics it takes to be an intellectually grounded Christian are very few. It is just a fact of our age that a popular philosophy happens to be the decrepit scientism you see pushed by so many even here on the forum.

Nice dishonest dogma.. Intellectually grounded usually means posting intellectually honest arguments with some sort of intellectual integrity.. This you seem to have a problem adhering to here on this forum in many of your arguments. To claim someone is not intellectually grounded for leaving Christianity is a pretty bad argument, and is merely just a social control tool..:/ Hence it just makes you feel better about them leaving if you can dehumanize them... It's the same method used in training soldiers for war...It's easier to kill if you are trained to think of your enemy as less than human.

However, I for one was a Christian for 20 years. And guess what, it wasn't science that changed my beliefs.. Science had little to nothing to do with it as I hadn't bothered to get a science education till 5 years ago.. I used to do advertising for Churches by making pamphlets, posters, flyers ect.. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian.. What changed my beliefs? I read a few books on brainwashing, how it's done, and later did some research on how cults trap and brainwash people.. Often without them knowing or caring. Every aspect described in those books were found in how my once religious beliefs operated, and how I was told to advertise ect. Reading the bible after reading books on brainwashing became the first seed of rational and critical thought of what the bible actually says, and how religious people act and behave.. Organized religion became clear as to what it actually is.. It's nothing but the fleecing and control of the masses by preying on their ignorance and vulnerabilities... And it's not just Religion that uses these tactics.. I learned a hell of a lot about advertising in general and how it works and operates.. I can look at a commercial and see it for what it really is.. It's psychological and social manipulation found in subliminal programming. You even find clicker training techniques used with sounds and music in both advertising and in religious cults.

[Yahu]

Who would even attempt to argue that the top 2 are not evil? The third is understandable with our knowledge of genetic problems. In every case someone is hurt by the action. Basically the law was don't use sex to hurt someone. Even the case of taking a girl's virginity was about don't steal what doesn't belong to you.

So only those things were forbidden in heterosexuality. The definition of fornication is 'unlawful sexual intercourse' so it had to be included in that list but modern Christianity has expanded the definition to include much more as forbidden. For example, a couple living together outside of marriage isn't fornication. It is actually taking on a concubine which isn't forbidden in the law.

Phariseeism by expanding on the law by traditions of man make the law much harsher then it actually was intended to be.

IMO those Pharisical views on human sexuality is the biggest problem that keep people out or drive them out due to being attacked over sexual issues whereas Yah gave us our desire and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. He just expects us to be responsible with our actions and not to hurt people by our actions.

The enemy tends to focus on sexuality as a major wedge to drive people away from Yah. People flee from the harshness of the Pharisical views thinking it is a requirement placed by Yah.

The New Testament also places further restrictions on sexuality; for instance, the Pauline letters ban polygamy, denounce homosexuality, and proscribe sex outside of marriage.

Polygamy is only forbidden to church leadership, not the laity. It was the same in the Old Testament law for the priesthood. For example a high priest had to marry a virgin or widow of a priest. The priesthood was held to a higher standard then the common people. It was the same in the New Testament.

Yes homosexuality is denounced, I did mention forbidden heterosexual sex in my original statement. I didn't cover homosexuality or beastiality.

As for sex outside of marriage, that is from a wrong usage of the definition of fornication. Fornication has nothing to do with marital status. The english definition picked up puritanical views.

Now both the old testament and new condemn the use of a prostitute. Part of the reason was there was rampant prostitution associated with the pagan worship. It also warns that visiting a prostitute was joining yourself with demonic spirits via that contact.

The plague that fell on the children of Israel due to the incident of Baal-Peor wasn't because of sex. It was because Baal and Ashtoreth were pagan deities of fertility and sexual pleasure and their worship was conducted via sex. It was the pagan worship that angered Yah. The sex was just the bait to draw men into that worship. Yah was not to be worshiped through sex acts and is the reason the price of a prostitute or a dog (male prostitute) was to be brought to the temple as well as forbidding an Asherah Pole from being made by the Alter. An Asherah Pole was used for sexual worship in the groves in Baalim worship.

This was one of the early enemy tactics to draw people away from the worship of Yah. Follow the pagan gods and you can have all the unrestricted sex with as many people as you want. The ancient groves were the modern day equivalent of a night club to pick up a one-night-stand or visit a ritual prostitute or watch public sex acts. It was eat, drink and be merry while worshiping the pagan gods/goddesses.

It wasn't condemned to have sexual contact with a betrothed. That is the beginning of the marriage covenant as well as the reason that it is considered Adultery, not fornication to have sex with another man's betrothed. It is the reason Mary wasn't stoned when she was found pregnant. Only Joseph KNEW it wasn't his child. He could have had her stoned because it wasn't his child. Everyone else just assumed it was Joseph's child.

A sexual relationship without a marriage is taking a concubine but the man is responsible for any children produced. It could only be with a non-virigin. You had to marry her if she was a virgin. A concubine had a lesser status then a wife.

[Yahu]

That wasn't for rape but for consensual sex without the betrothal with the father's permission. That is why a penalty was paid to the father. It was due to not having the betrothal agreement in place 1st. Suppose a girl wanted to marry someone her father didn't approve of. The man lost a dowry and paid a fine. The man also could never divorce her.

Rape ALWAYS carried a death penalty to the man that committed it!

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

That is the passage about taking a girl's virginity I referenced. NIV mistranslated the Hebrew word 'taphas' as rape. It does not mean rape.

Verse 25 deals with rape and that man dies!

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Note is specifically says 'force her'! That is the rape issue. In the case of a woman being raped, the woman is innocent, the man dies for the crime. Since rape is already covered, the later verse is a different issue.

Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist is ridiculous and is a blatant misunderstanding of Yah's law.

[Shermana]

I believe I have a thread from long ago on this issue of "Taphas" meaning simply "take" and not rape, and that the verse should be read as a reiteration of in Exodus 22:16 where it says "seduced". An issue of the "D" source perhaps in question. Otherwise, it makes no sense as to why it only applies if they are discovered, and if the Father allows the marriage to said assaulter. The word "Take" can be applied both as "He took her by the hand into the bedroom" and "He took her by the hair into the alley".

Though there is not much translation support, even from modernist Jewish translations like JPS (which I believe they do themselves a great disservice by continuing the KJV tradition as their basis), I think the NLT gets it right here, and I usually don't like the NLT. I believe it should only be viewed as a flawed D-source reiteration of Exodus 22:16.

New International Version (©1984)
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and has sex with her, he must pay the customary bride price and marry her.

And as Yahu says, Polygamy was never formally abolished scripturally, perhaps at best among the dubious-Pastoral epistles for Church leadership, but it was apparently allowed without a problem by and to prophets themselves.

[Yahu]

4) Don't take a girl's virginity without her father's blessing (fine paid to the father, had to marry her, couldn't divorce her)

One wonders why this command only applies to men "taking" women's virginity and not the other way around -- I feel it is obvious that it is rooted in the anti-woman cultural context of the time.

Again, your opinions are way off the mark. It had to do with the protection of women. If a woman has multiple partners, it is debatable as to who the father is of a child and thus responsible for it. If a woman was limited to a single partner, that partner was responsible. So it was a protection for women and their children to insure they had a provider. There is no doubt of the parentage if a man had multiple partners as long as the women kept to a single partner.

So IMO it was pro-women and children protection, not anti-women.

It also ensured that the inheritance of land stayed within the proper tribal bloodlines. Land could not be sold. It could only be leased out until the next Jubilee when it returned to the rightful heir in the bloodline. This is the primary reason Ruth wanted to have a child by Boas. He was a near relative and the first son she had by him would be entitled to regain the land due as her dead husbands inheritance of land at the next Jubilee year. That child's land would maintain both Ruth and Naomi for the rest of their lives. A Levirate situation like this didn't require marriage to the woman, just that she have a child of the right bloodline. This is a specific situation where sex outside a marriage was actually protected by the law. Boaz went the extra-mile by restoring the land to the family early and taking Ruth as a full wife as well.

The same situation happened with Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law. The death of Judah's 2nd son was not for having sex with her or just spilling his seed. He wanted the sex but refused to give her a child that would gain the double inheritance of the eldest. His sin was GREED. He wanted the larger double portion for himself.

The Levirate law was also for the protection of women because they were to be maintained by their sons after the husband died. The eldest son got the double portion to maintain his parents in old age. A childless widow would loose the ability to maintain herself since she could not inherit her husbands property.