It ia a well known work of fiction. Logic dictates your answer is disingenuous.
Logic also dictates that whether Shakespeare was God or not has nothing to do with my ability to read and comprehend His plays.
Now you claim to be a mind reader?
No. You implied that my faith, or lack thereof is somehow relevant to my ability to discuss the content of the Bible.
"So says the non-Christian" - Blackdog
No mind reading required.
You seem to be saying that you dislike the Old Testament laws; but instead that you like the sublime and winsome teachings of Jesus - especially the "golden rule".
It would seem that way.
But Jesus hasn't left that option open to anyone!
Yes He has.
The fact is that if you dislike the law of God, then you're REALLY going to hate the "golden rule" of Jesus, once you understand it.
I don't dislike the Law of God, I dislike the law of Moses.
Because Jesus Himself says that it is the summation and essence of the law of God!
Right, and since "Don't menstruate" cannot be summed up by the Golden Rule, and "don't eat bacon" cannot be summed up by the Golden Rule, and "Don't wear cotton/polyester blend tee-shirts" cannot be summed up by the Golden Rule, the law of Moses was clearly not God's Law. You were deceived. You thought it was God's Law, but the lying pen of the scribes had rendered it falsely. (Jeremiah 8:8) Fortunately Jesus came along to set the record straight. Unfortunately, not everyone was paying attention.
The problem isn't that you prefer to think about "love". The problem is that you don't seem to love God, who is a God of great love, nor understand His law - which is summed up in the command to love our neighbor as ourself.
How does loving our neighbor as ourself require that we not menstruate?
Now this leads us to the question of how do you/we obey this command? Let me suggest that one of the most important mistakes we could make is to forget that the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is not meant to be understood as the first great command. It is the second; and it can only be obeyed as we obey the first command first.
The two laws are actually one and the same. One cannot be accomplished without the other, for the simple fact that God is love. Anyone who loves their neighbor is indwelt with the Holy Spirit and His love is made complete in us. (1 John 4:12)
When obeying Jesus' command toward our treatment of our neighbor, we don't start with looking at our neighbor; and we certainly don't start with looking at ourselves. Instead, we look to God.
Ok, we look to God, and then He tells us to look to our neighbor. Do you have a point here?
And it's that kind of love that fulfills the requirements of the law of God with respect to our treatment of others. Paul whom you would just throw out agrees In Romans 13, Paul wrote;
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10).
Ok, I get not stealing from people you love. I get not murdering people you love, and I get not bearing false witness against people you love. Now explain to me about how love relates to not menstruating.
No. You are telling me what you think (incorrectly) what one part of the Bible says.
Wait, now you think I was incorrect about the old testament saying that menstruation was a sin? We can look at it again if you like. It hasn't changed.
Assuming or mind reading again?
Logical inference. You claimed that we only know about God from the Bible, which clearly implies that you don't know about Him from personal experience.
Not true. Fact is we don't know as the Bible is not clear on whether God created people after Adam and Eve. They were the first, not necessarily the last as God says "Go fourth and replenish the earth, not populate.
We also know Cain went into the land of Nod, to find a wife. This insinuates a larger population.
Genesis does not give scientific type details on time line or any real specifics. So anything along that line is purely assumption.
So stating what you said as fact does not really work.
Bible knowledge fail again.
"And Adam called his wife's name Eve;
because she was the mother of all living." -Genesis 3:20
Eve was the mother of all humanity according to the Bible.
We know in the Mosaic law it was banned. So we can at least assume God does not like it.
By that reasoning, God doesn't like bacon or shrimp or mixed fabrics either. Is the Old Covenant still in effect or isn't it?
Matthew 5:27-30b"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.
Betraying your spouse, even in your heart, is a betrayal. You don't betray people you love. You don't want people to betray you. This all fits my paradigm to a tea, so why are you acting like it somehow proves your point?
Adultery:[uh-duhl-tuh-ree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ter·ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse. -
Adultery | Define Adultery at Dictionary.com
Adultery
n., pl., -ies.
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. -
adultery: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
Modern English definitions are about as relevant here as peach cobbler.
Mal. 2:14 "The Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant." Those who deal treacherously with their spouse are guilty of breaking a covenant relationship. This is "adultery."
Wow. Could you have proven my point any better? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of treachery? It means betrayal. You found the definition of adultery in the Bible and surprise surprise it means exactly what I said it means. Yet somehow you think you are proving me wrong my saying that adultery means dealing treacherously with your spouse.
But, what exactly is adultery, and just how are we to understand this concept from a biblical point of view? "That would seem to be about as obvious a question as a person could ask. Whether he has done extensive studies or not, virtually everyone knows that adultery is sexual activity between a married person and someone other than his (or her) lawful spouse. ... It unquestionably has to do with the illicit sexual conduct of a married person" (Wayne Jackson, "What Is Adultery?" -- an article that appeared in The Christian Polemic, May, 2001). Our English dictionaries generally agree with this assessment by Bro. Jackson, defining the word adultery as "sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than their spouse." Thus, by this definition, adultery is "cheating on one's lawful mate; sexual misconduct with another." There is no denying that such a view of the concept of adultery is found within the pages of the inspired Scriptures." -
Biblical View of Adultery
Again, this is entirely correct for the majority of couples, who have an expectation of monogamy. "Cheating" implicitly means betrayal. The word itself means "breaking the agreed upon rules" Consensual swinging isn't cheating, by virtue of it being consensual, and all the partners being aware of the arrangement. They agree upon a different set of rules then most, and as long as they abide by those rules, they aren't cheating, therefore no sexual misconduct has taken place.
Besides of which, Wayne Jackson is hardly more of an expert on the Biblical definition of adultery than the Bible itself, and according to the Bible, adultery means "dealing treacherously with one's spouse."
You are trying to make the definition fit something it does not.
No, my definition is supported by scripture. As a wise man once posted on a debate forum:
"Mal. 2:14 "The Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant." Those who deal treacherously with their spouse are guilty of breaking a covenant relationship. This is "adultery."
Wow, leaving out quite a bit aren't you?
Not going into to much detail but let's see what happened to his concubines after he was forgiven by God:
II Sam. 20:3 "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood"
Looks like he new it was wrong from the beginning. After he repented, he never went to them again. That pretty much sums it up.
Ok. So he never went to them again. Doesn't change the fact that he went to them in the first place. Or that he had numerous wives. None of which was a sin.
He did not have to, it is stated many time in the Bible. We know even as regular men it's wrong.
It's stated in the Old Testament. A covenant with the ancient tribes of Israel that has no bearing on us today.
For you to want to legitimize incest is not a good thing.
Yes it is.
I have done the same thing. The difference is I do not have redefine words to get my meaning across.
Yes you do. Define "treachery" for me. Define "love" for me. Define "do" for me. Define "to" for me. Define "others" for me. You have to redefine a whole slew of words before you start making sense.
I suggest you read above more closely. Accusing me of being homophobic is also a sin as you are lying.
So are you saying that homosexuality isn't a sin, or are you saying that you aren't anti-sin?
Now you use Paul for just this and leave the rest?
Sure. I think he was a bit slow most of the time, but he did get this part right. Besides, you believe him, so I might as well quote him.
I am twisting nothing. We can see your changing of words above in my response.
The only word you attempted to demonstrate me changing was "adultery." Then you posted an example from the Bible that absolutely agrees with my definition. Adultery is treachery against one's spouse.
Tell me, what is it about adultery that you think makes it wrong if not treachery?
My understanding of sin is reasoned. Your understanding of sin is arbitrary. My understanding can be demonstrated to be consistent with the greatest two commandments and the Golden Rule. Yours cannot. My hermeneutic is just plain superior. =)
