Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 381
That said, a lot do draw from it, which is unfortunate
bskeptic is a prime example of someone who mistakenly does this. He'll have to wait a few hours before he can smite me again for saying that though.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What are you reading?
« on: May 24, 2015, 06:26:21 PM »
Currently reading:
1. A history of British police: The Great British Bobby by Clive Emsley for a book group (meeting tomorrow)

2. The Classical World: an Epic History of Greece and Rome by Robin Lane Fox (nearly finished)

3. Civilisation by Kenneth Clark. I'm watching a CD set of the TV series as well. Much better than when I remember watching it on TV. Recommended.

4. Consider Her Ways and Others: SF short stories by John Wyndham. Unjustly forgotten author these days.

5. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (just over half way through)

and I have The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity waiting in the wings but I need to listen to some lectures of theology first.

Where's the rape? Where's the sexual slavery? Where's any mention of any sexual coercion in that passage?

It's not an exact parallel and I never said it was. However, there is no indication whatsoever that this woman was willing. Members of her family have just been killed in a war situation and she's supposed to go happily off with one of the men who did the killing! And as I asked, and you avoided answering, what would be the reaction if a modern army behaved like this today?

Quote from: CrashTest
Secondly, because you are responding to Lapwing as if he was arguing that the Bible condones slavery.  He wasn't, he was arguing that if you take the same approach that theists on this board take to Islam to the Bible, you get the same results.

Thanks Crash. it's kinda disappointing that self-identifying Christians didn't seem to realise this obvious point and it needs a self identifying atheist to say what you said +1. I'm being accused of doing bad exegesis when I'm not even doing exegesis! (= Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture)

All I'm doing is drawing a parallel between how posters criticise ISIS' use of Islamic texts and how that same usage could be applied to biblical texts which would lead to undesirable actions.

Lawlessone I have a lot of respect for you and have learned a lot from your posts, but I'm very disappointed with you on this occasion.

As Crash has said the release of the woman is only allowed if the man doesn't fancy her any longer! She has no say in the matter. In a non war situation that would be the recipe for a shotgun wedding and in a silent movie the man would be a cad with an evil thin curly moustache. The woman is being treated as plunder akin to the cattle.

Quote from: Lawlessone
If the woman was unhappy after a month
There is nothing in the text that remotely suggests this is the case.

You're also viewing this from the modern lens of a society which hasn't been involved in the kind of wars that occurred back in those days and whose economy is enough that people can survive reasonably well on their own. You also take it out of the historical and cultural contexts of how wars went about at the time.
As Crash has said I'm doing none of these things. I completely agree with you that times have changed from "those days". And here you make my point for me. Because ISIS use the same kind of wrong reasoning, ignoring the fact that Islam started in a situation of warring tribes and it was kill or be killed (no justification for rape as a weapon - but it was a frequent occurrence in WW2 and other European wars). My intention isn't "isn't the God of the Bible wrong to have condoned such things". I'm making the point that if you apply the same kind of interpretation that ISIS does to Islamic writings, to parts of the Bible, you can end up with wrong behaviours being commended. I'm making a comparative point not an absolute point.

In essence this is some terrible exegesis
No in essence you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Honi soit qui mal y pense.


When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. 12If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

What would be the reaction if a modern army acted in this way? Now you could argue that it's for the best as the woman gains a home and a husband to look after her, but that presupposes there was no alternative i.e. her own people had been completely destroyed. There's no indication that the woman has any choice in the matter, but rather is treated as passive plunder. It is true that the treatment is much less harsh than that meted out by ISIS e.g. she is given a month to mourn her family, as Archsage pointed out.

Does separation of church and state mean that there shouldn't be prayers at the beginning of a national and local government meetings, or that a new monarch shouldn't be crowned in a cathedral or church, or anointed by an archbishop?

That's a tough one.  I think we Christians can do a better job of showing that the prayer is a result of independent, local, grass roots, movements.  Not a result of tax payer dollars.

Well in the UK it's pounds not dollars - but seriously I don't think such things are done because of money (graft) but because of tradition.

Quote from: Questions11
realising that A above has actually damaged the church
Is this really the case? There has been a recent General (i.e. national gov't) Election in the UK where the different parties have squared up to each other. But does a party that espouses a view that does not succeed in the election, damage itself? If a political party just adopts policies that they think people like won't they be accused of having no principles and wouldn't that be worse?

You often see in these interviews that the media interviewer says to the church person "doesn't the Bible teach that homosexuality is wrong" often when the church person is taking a conciliatory or emollient line. In other words, how can you expect the people to respect you if you abandon your principles and just agree with the majority. If the majority want capital punishment does that mean a government should automatically adopt it?

Does separation of church and state mean that there shouldn't be prayers at the beginning of a national and local government meetings, or that a new monarch shouldn't be crowned in a cathedral or church, or anointed by an archbishop?

This paragraph in the article was omitted in the OP:

She lashed out at the vast majority of Muslims around the world who have condemned Isis’ interpretation of Sharia law, massacres and violence.

which confirms the point that kurros has made in this thread.

Yes the biblical example I quoted was case law, it wasn't a direct command (edit: how do you command a man to desire a woman?!). However, it does show that such behaviour could and did happen - and was not condemned outright as it would be now. Similar arguments can be used by Muslims to refute ISIS' interpretations. The article doesn't give any citations from Islamic texts so where does "Muhammad gave them that commandment" come from?

Different but hardly commendable. The captured woman doesn't seem to have much say in the matter does she. They were misogynistic days when women were mostly treated as inferior. Now there are very few if any Christians or Jews would see this as commendable now. As Kurros says, many Muslims would decry the interpretation of the texts ISIS used to justify their behaviour - texts taken from another misogynistic time and culture.

In the past, Christians used the false idea of the children of Ham to justify slavery and maltreatment of blacks - a crime against humanity that was responsible for the suffering and premature deaths of millions.

So this shows that ISIS are sinful, false and reprehensible. It doesn't prove anything about Islam.


When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her
Deuteronomy 21:10-14  ESV

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: A posible attack on Christian
« on: May 24, 2015, 07:10:19 AM »
Hi marcpgangmei, welcome to the forum. +1 for a good question

The issue with Mt 27:9 is not so much the Jeremiah/Zechariah attribution of the prophecy as the fact that neither prophet has the exact same words "quoted" in Matthew's gospel.


When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.
4“I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”
5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me"
Mt 27:3-10 NIV

Judas throws the thirty pieces of silver into the temple. According to their tradition ("blood money") the chief priests couldn't leave it there so they use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners.


I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
13And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.
Zech 11:12-13 NIV

The context of this passage is quite difficult, involving a symbolic shepherding of sheep. The pay is for being a shepherd but note that, although this passage refers to thirty shekels, a potter and the temple - there is no mention of any field being bought. In the Zechariah passage the "potter" is used to emphasise the unworthiness of the amount of thirty shekels being used for the manufacture of lesser (not metallic) vessels despite the shepherd having shepherded the flock "marked for slaughter" i.e. Israel.


Jeremiah said, “The word of the Lord came to me: 7Hanamel son of Shallum your uncle is going to come to you and say,
 ‘Buy my field at Anathoth, because as nearest relative it is your right and duty to buy it.’
8“Then, just as the Lord had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said,
‘Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.’
“I knew that this was the word of the Lord; 9so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekels of silver.
Jer 32:7-9 NIV

Here Jeremiah buys a field despite the on-going siege of Jerusalem by superior Babylonian forces. Jeremiah is showing he is trusting God for a future restoration (buying low in a bear market!)

So, apparently, Matthew has followed contemporary rabbinic practice to create a composite quotation (gezerah shavah) of more than one Scripture, but refers to only one of the sources by name. Mark does the same in Mk 1:2. Matthew may have also had Jer 19 in mind. This is best thought of as typology rather than strict fulfilment of prophecy.

Now whether this type of prophecy fulfilment passage is fair is a subject of much discussion.

Recent texts on this are: "Handbook of the NT use of the OT" by G K Beale and the monumental (i.e. physically heavy) "Commentary on the NT use of the OT". Each have extensive bibliographies for different views on the subject.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Its a Joke
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:56:11 AM »
I heard someone espousing butter over margarine and they said this could be shown experimentally. Put open tubs of margarine and butter outside in summer. The flies will love the butter and ignore the margarine.

What John the Baptist said to Herod he was saying to all people, so I don't see it as John the Baptist engaging in politics. On the other hand, Herod was most likely engaging in politics.

Interesting thread. Do you think there are some parts of the church that are already (wittingly or unwittingly) choosing the Benedict Option?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Why haven't you written a book yet?
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:36:56 AM »
Too many better books to read.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 381