/lit/ - Literature

>>19209914
There would be fewer whores filing false rape charges if that law were on the books.

>>19209914
The passage you describe there is a social technology to ensure male cooperation in civilization

>>19209914
>Wouldn’t I have to agree with the Bible in its entirety to be a good Christian?

Definitely, if you lived in a time where contextually, christianity was inseparable to any sort of participation in society. There isnt a good arguement to follow the bible literally in a modern age unless you live in a society that actively prescribed the tenants of a religion (Shia, orthodox parts of russia). If you think about it, cultists were more on the right track trying to create their own self sufficient communities.

>>19209914
>How is the Bible meant to be interpreted?
It depends. Each book of the Bible has a different context. And much of the Law of Moses (which you quoted) ceased to apply after the coming of the new covenant with Jesus Christ, and ceased to apply to those who didn't follow Christ once the Romans destroyed the second temple in AD 70. Biblical literalists are retards whose retardedness was predicted the moment the reformation happened. An easy example for you to test yourself on: If you read the Book of Jonah as a literal story rather than as the political satire is was clearly written as, you're missing the point. Go ahead and read it; it's just 2 pages and you can finish it in less than 10 minutes.

>>19209958
>There isnt a good arguement to follow the bible literally in a modern age
Pure sophistry. The Bible is true regardless of the age, and trying to make it fit the spirit if the age has been a hinderance.

>>19209960
>Jonah
>political satire
Sounds like you're just making things up. Men have survived inside whales before.

>>19209972
Yes all these Jewish laws are eternal truths

>>19209914
>How is the Bible meant to be interpreted?
However the Holy Fathers interpreted it and not in any other way. This is the only true answer you are looking for.

>>19209972
Isn't 'our age' in a sense Caesar?

>>19209960
This is a loaded question but how could I read the Bible and tell what the context of each section is? I've been wondering how so many churches can claim to accept LGBT people, are they heathens or does the context of the Bible affect those passages?

>>19209987
The Jewish laws were superseded by the new covenant and not necessary for Christian society.

>>19209914
>“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

Well if you bothered to actually read the bible and understand the historical context you'd realize that the passage you posted is just a part of the Jewish legal system from thousands of years ago. By no means is that God commanding us to do that nor has any Christian teaching every promoted that thought.
That is not to say that Christians have taken inspiration from ancient law and incorporated into their own but that would be a purely secular matter

>I’ve come to realize that religion can be useful in society, particularly in this increasingly degenerate and nihilistic age, but it really does come across as barbaric
how so? can you elaborate on this?

>Wouldn’t I have to agree with the Bible in its entirety to be a good Christian? I don’t understand how I can accept the Lord at this point, blindly agreeing with the morals it presents.
what exactly about the bible hurts your feelings?

>>19209972
Not an arguement.

>>19210007
What's the difference between fulfilling and abolishing the old laws?

>>19210003
You can read the early church fathers and see how they understood things.
Or you can look to the traditions that stretch back to christ

>>19210017
Yes it is. The Bible provides a superior ethos abd metaphysics than any "modern" alternatives.

>>19210047
I would say it does going back to a clerical society, but in this modern age its actually counterintuitive and only reinforces systems of individualistic commodification. You see this with the adamant support of secularization of church and state.

>>19210002
Yes, exactly.

>>19210083
>reinforces systems of individualistic commodification.
What are you on about? Individualism is a rejection of Christianity's family-focus.

>>19210105
Then surely it is only proper to be as relativistic as possible about our morals, since that is what Caesar demands

>>19210106
Lick my ass I will rape your whole family

>>19210003
This is what Sacred Tradition is for. The Church Fathers and the Church throughout istory knew how to interpret these things and has passed this on.

The idea of just grabbing an English bible and going solo is found only in certain forms of protestantism.

>>19209914
>How is the Bible meant to be interpreted?
Catholic answer:
>just trust ur priest bro lmao
Protestant answer:
>it interprets itself!!!!
No, really. Christians are that stupid when it comes to the most basic questions about their scripture.

>>19210110
>The Bible says pay your taxes, so morality is relative
Are you actually retarded?

>>19210106
>If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

>>19209986
>muh whale
A) It was a giant fish.
B) That's not even the main part of the book. That's the piece that pop culture latched onto.

The Book of Jonah is a satire about a prophet who, unlike any other prophet, explicitly refuses to do what God asks; runs away; has the pagan sailors pray to the Lord God before he does; asks for deliverance from God without actually repenting; one he finally does what God asked of him, he gives a bare minimum 5-word sermon which all the people of the capital of Assyria all not only immediately understand but immediately begin praying to the Lord God for forgiveness because of (including the "king of the city," who's actually just the city administrator, and the fucking cows); and then Jonah gets pissy when God forgives them and accuses God of being too merciful, before saying that the only reason he ran away initially was that he knew that God was going to forgive them anyway and didn't want to waste his time. It's a satire with Jonah was a militant rabbinicalist pissed off that God loves all his children, and not just Israel.
>>19210003
It is different, but context should be apparent in the text, especially if you've got a background commentary to your side. Jonah's one example, but translations usually butcher all the humor, puns, and other jokes in the Bible, too. People think the Bible is just this dry read, but when you actually start to get an idea about the context, reading becomes much easier. Fortunately, the poop jokes did survive translation, heh.

>>19210016
>what exactly about the bible hurts your feelings?
I have trouble agreeing with the morality it presents without being able to think for myself. On the other hand, if I alone decide what I think is right or wrong, I'd just be nihilistic. There's no solution, I don't know what to believe.

>>19210126
What's wrong with trusting tradition? What makes you think you know better?

>>19210131
>yes, our age is Caesar
How do we pay taxes to an age? Is it by engaging in and accepting that age's precepts?

>>19210125
Knew how or decided how?

>>19210030
Those laws were intended for the Jewish people in preparation for the Son to become incarnate as one of them. Since that has now happened, there is no longer any need to follow them. Nor would there have ever been a point for a non-Jew to do so.

>>19210133
And? You're supposed to put Gid above all else. Yet Christian society has encouraged strong family bonds.

>>19210149
No, it's by paying taxes.

>>19210159
Yeah ok. Taxation which funds institutions that perpetuate relativism. Funny how that works

>>19210144
There is a solution. God decides what's right or wrong, so you're not free to arbitrary choose that. Yet, it's your task to determine, through your ability to comprehend the concept of God (however imperfectly) and of God's will, how His will is to be manifested in every particular situation.

There's a great passage from Kierkegaard, which I don't recall to the letter, but it amounts to that: if it's not possible that two honest-to-God and upright individuals will in the very same situation that calls them to action as honest-to-God men do the opposite things, without losing their honesty and their uprightness, then there is no connection to God for the people, then the collective and the Hegelian universal is the highest there may ever be, then Christianity is neither possible nor necessary.

>>19210144
>I have trouble agreeing with the morality it presents without being able to think for myself
can you be more specific? "Christian morality" is very broad
>On the other hand, if I alone decide what I think is right or wrong, I'd just be nihilistic. There's no solution, I don't know what to believe
sounds like you are ready to admit that a single person alone isn't capable of being able to properly discern objective morality

>>19210106
>Christianity's family-focus.
This is not solely present in christianity or even contemporary religions.

The point is, christianity does not specifically address individualism simply because that idea did not even exist yet. The religion of being politically correct based on gnosticism which is the seperation of the body and soul has much more context in todays world, which is why we see the commodfication of the individual. Christianity canot exist properly in this society because its necessary, just like every other system, to follow to tenet of endless progression which does not allow for any concrete beliefs to exist. You see this alot with protestants and even the pope saying "its okay to be gay! As long as you believe in god he will love you", its become very individualistic and subjective.

>>19210204
>a single person alone isn't capable of being able to properly discern objective morality
As opposed to a group of people?

>>19210185
>There is a solution. God decides what's right or wrong, so you're not free to arbitrary choose that.
Stopped reading after that
OP read the Beatitudes.

>>19210213
are you able to answer the first question regarding whatever "issues" you have with Christian morality?

>>19210204
To be more specific, I've always thought that murder can be justified under certain circumstances, and I have never understood how consensual sexuality is a problem. I've tried to avoid saying what I think because it's degenerate but I truly feel this way and I can't change that.

>>19210231
>I have never understood how consensual sexuality is a problem
see you no issue with modern hook up culture, std tranmission, the pain a person suffers from infidelity, the pain a family can suffer from infidelity. the damage jealousy can do?

>>19210243
That's not what I meant. Specifically, why do homosexuals exist? It's cruel, they have to deny themselves of that basic instinct and live hating themselves. The same goes for psychopaths, it is their nature and they are born with appetites for destruction. They were born to go to hell. They can't change themselves without suffering and denying who they are. The second case is more tragic because they are harmful to others, but why do we have to be homophobic? Why would love be a sin?

>>19210272
A wise man once told me that each man (and woman) suffers burdens. The degrees vary. But how you react to them is up to you.
(not the person you were talking to)

>>19209914
>I’ve come to realize that religion can be useful in society, particularly in this increasingly degenerate and nihilistic age,
apparently you really haven't

>>19210272
>Why would love be a sin?
You are falsely assuming that fallen human nature is something you can exanine to see what is good or counts as love.

>>19210296
I haven't presented that side of my argument, I feel two ways about this issue and I'm focusing on my doubts right now.

>>19210299
What makes it fallen human nature?

>>19210272
>That's not what I meant. Specifically, why do homosexuals exist? It's cruel, they have to deny themselves of that basic instinct and live hating themselves
Yes exactly but this applies to all sin as well.
They exist merely as all sin exists. Why are you suddenly thinking the fag should be considered less of a sinner then anyone else?

>The same goes for psychopaths, it is their nature and they are born with appetites for destruction
again we are all born with a desire for sin they simply desire a different one.
what is curious is that you put them on some sort of different level.

>They were born to go to hell
They weren't there is nothing about a homosexual or a psychopath that is destine for hell.
It is only acting on that sin and refusal to repent for it which the sinner then sends himself to hell.

>They can't change themselves without suffering and denying who they are
Congratulation you've discovered the human condition.

the glutton cannot change themselves without suffering and denying who they are
the sloth cannot change themselves without suffering and denying who they are
the lustful wrathful the greedy you start going down the list and sudden you encompass all of human cannot change themselves without suffering and denying who they are

Also you say "who they are" who are they exactly? why is who they are some how desirable?

>The second case is more tragic because they are harmful to others, but why do we have to be homophobic? Why would love be a sin?
Homosexuality is anti life they cannot reproduce they do no foster families they are creatures enslaved to lust.
so as to why homosexuality is a sin it is because their actions are counter to a healthy soul

>>19210311
Gensis

>>19210311
Fallen humanity is the mode of being Adam entered after separating from God's grace. His sin is what caused it and we all inherit it by our means of birth. Homosexuality is not natural to us, but a corruption caused by sin of true love which can also exist between males.

>>19210322
>Homosexuality is anti life they cannot reproduce they do no foster families they are creatures enslaved to lust.

Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids? And what of the population exceeding it's limit, who is to say that the increase in homosexuals in modern years wasn't to combat that? The quality of life is going down because there are too many human beings compared to our resources to care for them

>>19210350
>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
yes

>And what of the population exceeding it's limit
what of it?

>who is to say that the increase in homosexuals in modern years wasn't to combat that?
whos to say it is?
thats quite the stretch

>The quality of life is going down because there are too many human beings compared to our resources to care for them
and..?

Are you only able to reply to the last part of the post?

>>19210272
>They can't change themselves
False. Christ's grace is powerful to change this as it powerful to make a dead man rise up to life.
>without suffering
Following Christ guarantees you suffering.
>denying who they are
They are first of all a human created in God's image. Their lustful inclination is not a created part of them.

>>19210350
"The quality of life", if I may use this horrific phrasing, "is going down" when you're enslaved to sin. Compared to it, not having the newest TV is, literally, not an issue.

>>19210350
>The quality of life is going down
Good.

>>19210144
You haven't read the bible and it's pattently clear. Read the three chapters after this https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/>>19210146

>Homos = barren women, condoms, and couples who don't want kids
Is that what you're saying?

>>19210364
>Homos = barren women, condoms, and couples who don't want kids
Is that what you're saying?

>>19209960
>ceased to apply after the coming of the new covenant with Jesus Christ
every time with you pseuds
reminder:
>Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them
and don't forget the numerous times that he makes references to certain prophecies and things in general from the old testament

>>19210428
I never said that I don't know what you're confused about

>>19210415
>>19210404
>>19210383
>>19210382
>>19210364
All I've gotten from this thread is to give up understanding the Bible and return to nihilism and then hell, lmao

>>19210436
>>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
>yes

>>19210441
well you can't seem to reply to answers to your questions. maybe if you actual engaged with the topic you'd get more out of it

>>19210443
>>19210443
>>>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
"this" referring to: "Homosexuality is anti life they cannot reproduce they do no foster families they are creatures enslaved to lust"
>>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
>yes
at no point did this mean Homos = barren women so you're either unable to follow a conversation or you're just arguing in bad faith

>>19209914
the instructions in the OT are for psycotic Jews, The Law does not apply to Christians
start with the Gospel of John and then read the other Gospels and Paul's letters and you will be able to hone in on Christ's message

>Homosexuality is anti life
>>19210322
>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth
>>19210350
>yes
>>19210364

>>19210467

>>19210518
>>>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
"this" referring to: "Homosexuality is anti life they cannot reproduce they do no foster families they are creatures enslaved to lust"
>>Does this apply to women who cannot give birth, couples who use condoms, couples who don't want kids?
>yes
at no point did this mean Homos = barren women so you're either unable to follow a conversation or you're just arguing in bad faith

>>19210536
feel free to make an argument at any time

>>19209914
What you're telling me here is that polygamy is acceptable, rape and marriage are not different and age is not a concern in terms of marriage.

Sounds like OP is bad the bible teaches against buttsex

>>19210620
you got me

Why'd op run away like a bitch

>>19209920
>"We should force raped women to marry their rapist, God said so!"

>>19210007
>Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I don't know how much more clear old JC has to be than to LITERALLY AND DIRECTLY say he has not come to abolish the old laws. What more do you want?

>>19210612
Also if a bride isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she much be stoned to death on her father's doorstep. God said so.

>>19211340
thats not the original translation, its one of those corrupted bible versions, in the original its not about rape but someone who has sex before marriage.

>>19210754
I don't see how I could've contributed to the conversation further, many answers were identical. So, I got my answer. I wasn't here to debate

>>19211363
Okay, and if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death on her father's doorstep, right? Or is that a mistranslation too?

>>19211374
>if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death on her father's doorstep, right?

Where does it say this?

>>19211399
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

You should actually read the Bible anon, you might not be so quick to defend it if you had.

>>19211360
based??

>>19211411
yes it gives a man reproach if he was promised a virgin and was not.
what is the confusion