End Times #2 The Rapture of the Church (58 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/23/2001 2:35 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 80)  
 
  40.1  
 
*Part Two, End Times*
Rapture / caught up See also Wrath of God
Harpazo (726) snatch, seize, take with force; ie. To snatch like a wallet by a pickpocket.
Latin - Rapiemur - to be caught up, taken away, brought into another existence
English - Caught up; Rapture is the English translation from the Latin word Rapiemur.,br> Verses - Gen 5:24 2Kings 2:11 Acts 3:19-21 1Cor 15:51-55 1Thess 4:13-18
First Use: Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not {Enoch vanished}; for God took [Raptured] him.

2Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. {This is not a rapture as much as it is a translation, Elijah was translated from his physical body inorder to ride in the chariot of fire and to be received into heaven.} Up represents heaven, down represents hell. Elijah went to heaven, but like everyone else during the Old Testament times he had to wait in Paradise - the good side of Hades - until the resurrection of Jesus then he with the other Old Testament saints were led free by Jesus, and taken to remain in heaven.

Rapture of the Church is the specific event where the Church on earth is gathered together to Jesus in heaven. The Church had a specific start on the day of the resurrection of Jesus when Jesus breathed (baptized) on the disciples and instructed them to receive the Holy Spirit. The Church is the unique period of time and the unique group of people that have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The Church did not exist during the Old Testament times and the Church will not exist during the end times of Revelation, called the tribulation and great tribulation. It was not possible for the Church to exist prior to the resurrection of Jesus, because the Church belongs to Jesus. Since the Church belongs to Jesus and is in the sinless image of Jesus, it is not possible for the Church to take part in the coming wrath of God. The coming wrath of God is specifically for the ungodly, the Church is the opposite of ungodly we are Gods prized possession.

Acts 3:19-21 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And He shall send Jesus Christ, which was before preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (return to Gods original intention) of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. Forty days after the resurrection of Jesus, He bodily ascended into heaven. Jesus is to remain bodily in heaven until the times of restitution, the restitution is described in part in the book of Revelation where Jesus returns to the earth and takes control of the earth. Since the Church is taken out prior to the restoration, prior to the return of Jesus to the earth, the Church is to meet Jesus in the air and we will forever be with Jesus.

1Cor 15:51-55 Behold, I show you a mystery; We (Christians) shall not all sleep (suffer physical death), but we shall all be changed (translated). In a moment, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump {announcement}: for the trumpet shall sound {this trumpet is a call to gathering, sounded by God. it does not have anything to do with the future trumpet judgments of Revelation that are sounded by angels}, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed (translated). For this corruptible (fleshly body) must put on incorruption (spiritual body), and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I would not have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep (physically dead), that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: And the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up (Harpzo, Rapture) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Enoch is an Old Testament Saint, who is a type of the coming rapture. Enoch had a relationship with God, and God removed Enoch from the earth prior to the earths first global judgment when the earth was flooded during the days of Noah. Like Enoch the Church will be removed from the earth as mankind under goes the second global judgment, receiving the wrath of God revealed in the Book of Revelation.

Excerpt from the Book
Basic Christian: Theology
by David A. Brown






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/24/2001 7:33 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 80)  
 
  40.2 in reply to 40.1  
 
At the coming event of the Rapture of the Christian Church, the Christians will All be in Heaven with Jesus. What will the Next Church Age be like since the Christian Church as we know it will be in Heaven? 
The Next Church Age after the Current Church is the Martyred Saints Age. This soon coming Church Age will be a volatile bloody age as many of them will be Killed do to opposition to Christianity. 

In part 3 we will look at the soon coming, Glorious Martyred Saints Church Age. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Raincast   7/2/2001 7:21 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 80)  
 
  40.3 in reply to 40.2  
 
Did you know according to most scripture experts that the Rapture does not exist? In fact there is no solid evidence at all of its existence. Yet in the Book of Revelations there is a large number of scriptures that debunk the idea. What is the purpose of a grand test when all the faithful have not been tested? Testing the unfaithful would prove foolhardy...Who do you think is the multitude of people in white? They are the ones who came THROUGH the tribulation...Just a thought. I dont personally know. All I know, is that is it comes then I pray to be left behind...To be tested like the rest... 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Zebra30   7/2/2001 10:42 pm  
To:  Raincast   (4 of 80)  
 
  40.4 in reply to 40.3  
 
Why in heavens name would you pray to be left behind to endure a time unlike anything mankind has ever endured, ma'am (or sir)? We're not talking about a Sunday School picnic here. We're talking about the wrath of God upon an unrepentant world. Why would the Lord allow His church, His bride to be abused in such a manner? It's all very well that you can talk about faith in tribulation and all that, but if we as Christians think we have it tough now and many of us have trouble holding on, what makes you think that you're strong enough to stand up against some of the worst evils that mankind will ever face in all its history. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be insulting, but what you're saying doesn't make sense. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/2/2001 10:51 pm  
To:  Raincast   (5 of 80)  
 
  40.5 in reply to 40.3  
 
The Tribulation is it not a Test for the righteous it is Gods Judgment on the world. 
The only Test is if you acknowledge Jesus as God. If you do, you pass the test and Go to Heaven to be with God. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/2/2001 11:47 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (6 of 80)  
 
  40.6 in reply to 40.5  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
The only Test is if you acknowledge Jesus as God. If you do, you pass the test and Go to Heaven to be with God.
  Jesus seems to be saying otherwise, in Matthew 7:2127.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Raincast   7/3/2001 7:30 pm  
To:  Zebra30   (7 of 80)  
 
  40.7 in reply to 40.4  
 
I am a sir. And to answer your question, I want to stay and help those who are left. My faith in Jesus is something that cannot be tested, and if something can make me deny him, then I dont deserve to be called Christian. Evil has no place with me. I wish to be tested and prove to God and myself that I love Him no matter what. And I wish to stay because I know many that would not be going...and I love them too. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  cajunhillbilly (Willard01)   7/4/2001 6:28 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (8 of 80)  
 
  40.8 in reply to 40.2  
 
You obviously do not know your church history. Bloody persecution and martyrdom is found in all ages of the church. Read the Foxs Book of Martyrs. Read about the early persecutions under the Roman Emperors. Read what is going on in other parts of the world today. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/4/2001 8:37 am  
To:  cajunhillbilly (Willard01)   (9 of 80)  
 
  40.9 in reply to 40.8  
 
What has been going on and IS Currently going on in Church Persecution, is Satanic Persecution.
Satans Hatred of God, is being directed at Gods children (Christians).

When Saul/Paul (the Apostle before he became a Christian) persecuted the Church, Jesus spoke to him and told him that he was actually persecuting Jesus. Jesus is a part of the Church, He is the head of the Church, to persicute Christians is to persecute Jesus.

Acts 9:4 Saul, Saul, Why persecutest thou Me (Jesus).

 Im sure you realize that Jesus is Not persecuting His own Church.

Romans 8:32,33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that Justifieth. Who is he that condemneth (Christians)? [Not God] It is Christ that died (for Christians), yeah rather, that Is Risen Again, Who is even at the right hand of God, Who (Jesus) also maketh Intercession for Us.

In the coming Great Tribulation God will be Judging the earth. Christians are appointed to Salvation not to Wrath; therefore the Church will be removed (Raptured) prior to Gods appointed wrath upon the earth.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And (Christians) to wait for His Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which Delivered us from the Wrath to come.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/4/2001 9:58 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (10 of 80)  
 
  40.10 in reply to 40.9  
 
<<<What has been going on and IS Currently going on in Church Persecution, is Satanic Persecution. 
Satan's Hatred of God, is being directed at God's children (Christians).>>> 

Last I checked, most worldly conflicts about religion were Christian vs. Christian (see the former Yugoslavia for example). To say that you're persecuted while you're allowed to have shows on national television, wear your symbols in schools and even preach publicly without a license (which everyone else needs) while other religions are denied such freedoms hardly counts as persecution towards Christians. George Bush Sr. as president even said that if you're not Christian you shouldn't even be considered an American citizen let alone a patriot. I guess he didn't seem to understand that all blood is red. If anything, and as history shows, Christians are the oppressors. 

...And I though you said that we were all of God's children. Now you're just saying that Christians are? 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/4/2001 3:37 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (11 of 80)  
 
  40.11 in reply to 40.10  
 
I have Always said that Only Believers in God are Gods Children. Everyone is a Creation of God but only those who accept God are His Children. 
See the Post What is Adoption 

Anyone who visits this forum will quickly see how Loving and Unoppressing non-Christians are. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/4/2001 3:49 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 80)  
 
  40.12 in reply to 40.11  
 
Loving and unoppressing? 
This coming from a man who censors everything that might open people's eyes to what christianity really is? 

I mean, I just want to reccomend a book, having to deal with angels and demons, and it is a very good religious book, but no, you can't let someone do that. Thats not christian. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/4/2001 6:52:55 PM ET by DEATHWISH123 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 13 of 80 was Deleted    



  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/4/2001 7:13 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (14 of 80)  
 
  40.14 in reply to 40.13  
 
Bob. David has judged us. He has judged our words by censoring them. Should we not judge him back?

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/5/2001 12:41 am  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (15 of 80)  
 
  40.15 in reply to 40.14  
 
DW (DEATHWISH123) wrote:
Bob. David has judged us. He has judged our words by censoring them. Should we not judge him back?
  Well, perhaps we shouldn't, but it's rather difficult not to.  BTW, I note that my previous posting, to which you were replying, has been censored in its entirety.  I must have struck a nerve.

  My wife thought of something that never occurred to me.  She suspects that David isn't at all what he claims to be, but a fictitious caricature of a Christian, of the fundamentalist variety, being played by someone who wishes to discredit Christianity by portraying it in a negative manner.  Having spent some time among various fundamentalist sects before she converted to Mormonism, my wife thinks David's rhetoric comes across as an exaggerated, hyperbolic depiction of the beliefs of such sects, such that it doesn't really represent the true beliefs of such fundamentalists, but rather the sort of negative depiction of their beliefs that would come from someone who hates them and wishes to make them look bad.

  Perhaps we've all been taken in by a clever hoax.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/5/2001 1:07 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (16 of 80)  
 
  40.16 in reply to 40.15  
 
No. I think David's just a right-wing zealot who believes everyone else in the world is wrong-wing, and is praying that his god still exists, and still cares enough to save his ass from the fires of hell. In all actuallity he goes against the two main points of the bible. Judge not, yest ye be judged. And Turn the other cheek. He still believes that the church is infallible and the bible was written by god. He refuses to admit that horrendous things have been done in the name of Jesus Christ, and that most of it went unpunished. 
Maybe we should refer to David as Pontius Pilate. After all, he is silencing the voices of reason and of possible prophets.

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/5/2001 8:25 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (17 of 80)  
 
  40.17 in reply to 40.15  
 
Bob, 
Your post was deleted for having a phony link. 

All of your posts with these links will now be deleted regardless of content. 

If you wish to repost the info w/o the link, please do so. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/5/2001 11:46 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (18 of 80)  
 
  40.18 in reply to 40.11  
 
<<<Anyone who visits this forum will quickly see how Loving and Unoppressing non-Christians are.>>> 
This coming from a man who censors links, posts, etc despite content? Also, this coming from a man who will let a Christian post openly that he "hates homos" while deleting the posts of us of us Non Christians who have never claimed to hate you or any other Christian or anyone, for that matter? You yourself said that Jesus will teach his children the truth of the world however you cloud the public eye under the guise of scientific misinformation, information coming from neither God nor mortal researcher, editing for content like a paid journalist. 

From what I've seen, you would only help another living creature if it either served your blind political agenda or if they were Christian. You're part of California Right To Life (which you preach proudly) but I bet you've never helped at a food shelter, a church charity function, a crisis intervention group or any other public service that didn't propagate hate. 

From what many others and I have seen on this board, David, you are one of the most spiteful, hate filled people I've ever encountered. A man preaching fire and brimstone rather than any compassion Jesus ever showed his fellow man except for when the acts of Jesus serve to justify your hate. A man with only book to stand on. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/5/2001 3:37 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (19 of 80)  
 
  40.19 in reply to 40.18  
 
The reason that I have the California Pro-Life link on this forum and the reason that Im involved in Pro-Life is because I care. There is a better alternative for Mother and Child then death by an abortion. 
You are making a lot of conclusions about me, based on knowing virtually nothing about me or how I spend my time and resources. Not very scientific. 

You and the other non-Christian posters on this forum have little or no credibility left because you constantly choose to stereotype slander and malign, God, the Bible, and Christians, even though you know little or nothing about Christianity. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Dr_Shock   7/5/2001 4:33 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (20 of 80)  
 
  40.20 in reply to 40.19  
 
<<<The reason that I have the California Pro-Life link on this forum and the reason that Im involved in Pro-Life is because I care. There is a better alternative for Mother and Child then death by an abortion.>>> 
Has there ever been a case of a doctor killing a pro-lifer? No. Has their ever been a case of a pro-lifer killing a doctor or patient? Many times. Would you uphold the views of a murderer on either side? 

<<<You are making a lot of conclusions about me, based on knowing virtually nothing about me or how I spend my time and resources. Not very scientific.>>> 

Much as you maid the assumption about us being uncaring and oppressing haters of God. You know nothing about any of us except for what we've told you. Perhaps you should rethink what you're saying since you're just as guilty as me. 

<<<You and the other non-Christian posters on this forum have little or no credibility left because you constantly choose to stereotype slander and malign, God, the Bible, and Christians, even though you know little or nothing about Christianity.>>> 

I've never said anything bad about God or Jesus. I never even said that neither existed. You're the one putting all of us into a lump-sum stereotype. You even attack Bob who, technically, believes in the same God as you do. If I know so little then why can I always make your arguments blow up in your face with your own Bible, including the fact that I can usually spot when you take a quote out of context? I see no connotation to your above arguments and loss of credibility since I, unlike you, have never contadicted myself yet.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/5/2001 5:36 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (21 of 80)  
 
  40.21 in reply to 40.20  
 
Hi Dr. Shock 
"Has there ever been a case of a doctor killing a pro lifer"? What a strange comparison. Gee, how about the reality of doctors killing pre born babies? Suppose because they can't speak and can't vote and aren't big enough to win a physical fight with an adult they don't count. Nature itself fights to live, nature is pro life and so are babies in the womb. 
R/C 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/5/2001 9:41:55 PM ET by RACHELSCHILD 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/5/2001 5:55 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (22 of 80)  
 
  40.22 in reply to 40.21  
 
But killing the doctor is just another sin, not retribution. Killing them for preforming their job doesn't make it right.


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
"Two wrongs don't make a right... But two Wrights made an airplane!" 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/5/2001 6:40 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (23 of 80)  
 
  40.23 in reply to 40.22  
 
Hi: 
"Killing the doctor is just another sin, not retribution." Not quite sure what you are expressing in that but I do not advocate or think it right to kill doctors who preform abortions. Killing isn't the answer for either side of the issue. 
Regards, 
R/C  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    7/5/2001 10:46 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (24 of 80)  
 
  40.24 in reply to 40.19  
 
Does this post include me? 
I ask because I have NEVER stated anything about my religeous beliefs other than to say I am not a Catholic. However, if you do include me in the "group", Then I am honored as they seem much more compassionate and understanding of the words of Christ than you do. 
Sorry... just an opinion.


Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/6/2001 1:11 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (25 of 80)  
 
  40.25 in reply to 40.23  
 
<<<Not quite sure what you are expressing in that but I do not advocate or think it right to kill doctors who preform abortions. Killing isn't the answer for either side of the issue.>>> 
Thats exactally what I was saying. I'm glad we agree. =)


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 5:33 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (26 of 80)  
 
  40.26 in reply to 40.20  
 
I've never said anything bad about God or Jesus. I never even said that neither existed. You're the one putting all of us into a lump-sum stereotype. You even attack Bob who, technically, believes in the same God as you do. If I know so little then why can I always make your arguments blow up in your face with your own Bible, including the fact that I can usually spot when you take a quote out of context? I see no connotation to your above arguments and loss of credibility since I, unlike you, have never contadicted myself yet. 
Ditto. Well put, and I think Al Kupone and Bob fit in there too.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 5:40 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (27 of 80)  
 
  40.27 in reply to 40.21  
 
Suppose because they can't speak and can't vote and aren't big enough to win a physical fight with an adult they don't count. 
But that is exactly what society has dictated is pertinent to this issue. Currently, they DON'T "count". And until society states otherwise, your counter is a simple example of trying to make two wrongs equal a right, which it is not. Pro-lifers killing doctors is wrong, status quo, and doctors performing abortions is not, status quo. And even if the doctors WERE wrong, pro-lifers killing them would still be wrong.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/6/2001 9:33 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (28 of 80)  
 
  40.28 in reply to 40.27  
 
Hi: 
Nope, I think my point was killing babies is wrong, as is killing abortion providers. If society dictated that *providers* for whatever reasons, didn't count and could be killed, status quo dictate or not, it'd be wrong. Status quo rarely determines the right or wrong of an issue it just reflects the, as it is, in any given society. 
Regards, 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 10:40 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (29 of 80)  
 
  40.29 in reply to 40.28  
 
Status quo rarely determines the right or wrong of an issue 
What you are trying to nail down is the subjective, between GOOD and BAD. The status quo IS what determines what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, this is called moral relativity and it is a reality - it is a main part of the world's societies today.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/6/2001 10:46 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (30 of 80)  
 
  40.30 in reply to 40.29  
 
Yes, just as David's status quo says its alright to censor. Even though the world's status quo says its not alright.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/6/2001 11:16 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (31 of 80)  
 
  40.31 in reply to 40.29  
 
Well, I'm looking for something other then what the present moral relativity in my society is offering...have to create another one.;0) 
R/C  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/6/2001 11:21 am  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (32 of 80)  
 
  40.32 in reply to 40.30  
 
Hi DW: 
LOL! In this little society it is okay for David to censor..this is the status quo in here, so what's the problem? 
Regards, 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 2:18 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (33 of 80)  
 
  40.33 in reply to 40.31  
 
That, of course, is the proper attitude. 
Have a good weekend! 

-Sea






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/7/2001 2:05 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (34 of 80)  
 
  40.34 in reply to 40.27  
 
<But that is exactly what society has dictated is pertinent to this issue. Currently, they DON'T "count". And until society states otherwise, your counter is a simple example of trying to make two wrongs equal a right, which it is not.> 
If this is the logic you live by in life, I truly am sorry for you. Our 'society' concluded for decades in the USA that slavery of black people was OK. Blacks did not 'count'. (nor did women for many things like voting, land ownership etc.) At what point did 'society' say otherwise. The Civil War was a little more than just a ballot referendum. But all the time before you believe it would have been wrong for slaves to try to escape when given the rare opportunity, wrong to defend themselves and possibly kill their 'owners' when they tried to rape the women. After all, two wrongs do not make a right, per you. 

It is equally wrong (per your view) for the Christians who disobeyed the Nazi orders and hid Jews to save their lives, apparently. Those who fight today against the 'will of society' in a nation which practices female genital mutilation are equally in error - moral relativism after all as you said. Same with child slavery in the Sudan and elsewhere...on and on....Hey, what is so immoral about ethnic cleansing, as long as the majority view is doing the murders, they can claim majority 'will of society' and if they simply pass a law allowing for it (as Hitler did before exterminating the Jews) they are in the clear, right?? 

So you really do not believe there are EVER times when the majority of the people are simply WRONG on an issue from a moral perspective? 

One more thing, society did not allow abortion, a 7-2 vote by the Supreme Court did - if you had taken a poll of society at the time, abortion would never have been allowed. Same with outlawing prayer in schools and other issues that politicians could never have legislated through (and hoped in getting reelected) but had a majority of the Supreme Court do their work for them. 

Not one Christian here, or in their right mind, advocates the assasination of doctors who perform abortions. The fact that sometimes it happens by crazy people does not speak to Christianity one bit. Read my truth in labelling post earlier on that score.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 1:54 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (35 of 80)  
 
  40.35 in reply to 40.34  
 
If this is the logic you live by in life, I truly am sorry for you. Our 'society' concluded for decades in the USA that slavery of black people was OK. 
You seemed to have missed an ever-so-subtle point: what society says "counts" (is "OK") and what is actually considered to be ethically and morally right can be two different things.

For example: if I lived in the 1850's South I would probably have not owned slaves because I don't believe that it was "right" for me to do so. Just because I travel to Amsterdam does not mean that I'm going to spark up a fat joint and get high. But no matter what we FEEL like is right and wrong, the fact is that those societies determined within themselves that they WERE right. Period. And until the laws are changed, the LOGIC is that slavery was "OK" in 1850's Southland and that smoking pot in Amsterdam is "OK". Period. 

And how I live my life is independent, but within the lawful REALM, of what that society says is "OK". 

Concluding that I must be pitied because I accept society's authority is misplaced. I still make the decisions that are best for my personal morals and ethics.

Is that explained better?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/9/2001 2:16 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (36 of 80)  
 
  40.36 in reply to 40.35  
 
>For example: if I lived in the 1850's South I would probably have not owned slaves because I don't believe that it was "right" for me to do so. 
But was slavery right at all? Had everyone maintained your attitude toward slavery, would not slavery still exist in America today? Did not slavery end because some people refuse the status quo of what is right and wrong (based solely on societies law) and do something about it? 

The similar attitude was followed by a majority of German Christians with regard to the Jews during the holocaust. We rightfully condemn that attitude, and say they should have done something. 

Sometimes it is not good enough to just not participate in what you know is wrong, sometimes you have to stand against it. I realize that this occurs at different points to different people. 

BTW... this is not to justify abortion doctor killers anymore then I would justify the actions of John Brown 140 years ago. Though the cause be good, the end does not justify the means. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 2:37 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (37 of 80)  
 
  40.37 in reply to 40.36  
 
What is right and what is wrong is still a personal moral judgement. While you are chewing on a nice t-bone steak, there could be a Hindu living next door to you that is on the verge of spiritual collapse because he is smelling his God being BBQ'd right next door. 
While I might not protest against legal pot, I *might* do so if slavery was being proposed as a legal source of labor again. It is relative to the importance of the beholder. I am all for people standing up for their beliefs and doing what they consider "right" for themselves. 

My point is that UNTIL it is deemed "wrong" by the society that makes and enforces the laws, there is just nothing that can be done to others that are working within those laws except passive resistance and action to change the laws. 

Yes, it may be "wrong" from a golobal view (as subjective as that is), but it is not "right" to judge, persecute and punish those who are operating within society's framework simply because they do not share your zeal for the disapproval of the accepted law. 

As morally wrong as it was to own slaves by our standards today, a slaveowner in 1855 Georgia was NOT a criminal. And treating him as one would have made you more "wrong" than he was.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/10/2001 8:41 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (38 of 80)  
 
  40.38 in reply to 40.35  
 
<<<You seemed to have missed an ever-so-subtle point: what society says "counts" (is "OK") and what is actually considered to be ethically and morally right can be two different things.>>> 
But if somethings can 'actually be considered ethically and morally right' then is there not a duty to support that cause. It is not enough you would not just own slaves, you should have been an outspoken critic of slavery at the time, if slavery was morally wrong. 

I gave other examples. Nazi Germany never changed its laws of society to stop the extermination of Jews..in fact after the Jews they were going to kill all the blacks...Hitler had his 'list' in goal of his superior race. 

Germany had to be defeated by powers outside their accepted society and ORDERED to change their laws relating to the Jews. 

If you accept there are times when something is morally or ethically wrong or right then you are face to face with what Christians believe, who is it OUTSIDE that nation or society making that determination? WHo or what is the absolute standard of morally right and wrong??? 



 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/10/2001 12:19 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (39 of 80)  
 
  40.39 in reply to 40.38  
 
But if somethings can 'actually be considered ethically and morally right' then is there not a duty to support that cause. It is not enough you would not just own slaves, you should have been an outspoken critic of slavery at the time, if slavery was morally wrong. 
Hmmmm. I can still see that you are missing the point that I am trying to make, but I don't know how else to explain it. 

First of all, we are speaking in generalities but are using specific examples. If you keep this in mind, the following may help to make more sense.

Like you said, "if something can 'actually be considered ethically and morally right' then is there not a duty to support that cause." The problem here is that not everyone will EVER agree on what is considered ethically and morally "right". Different strokes... This being the case, as well as people having varying degrees of what they believe is "right" (for example, one may not believe that capital punishment is really "right", but they aren't that sure or dedicated to that belief that they care to change the current state laws) society will make the decision on a democratic basis (usually) and then it WILL be "right", regardless of the position of the minority and how they individually feel about it.

Now you CAN say moderately easily that the moral "wrongness" of murder is unanimous (and there WILL be an objection, btw). But you can NOT say the same for issues like abortion, prostitution, pornography, capital punishment, etc. You WILL have opposition, and as long as that opposition exists, your label of "wrong" will always be just an OPINION, and the label of "right" will be status quo.

You have a STRONG belief that something like abortion is definitely "wrong" because you have a cultural belief system and a spritual text that seems to support your position, but there are others (and an apparent temporary majority in this country) that disagree with your position. This is just a fact that must be lived with.

As for the position stated in your 2nd sentence, "should" is an awfully big word and, once again, is just opinion. There were those (and once again, it was a majority) who did NOT oppose slavery because they did not believe that it was morally wrong. An entire cultural transformation needed to take place first. 






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  StevenJn316   7/10/2001 2:38 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (40 of 80)  
 
  40.40 in reply to 40.39  
 
I believe I fully understand where you are coming from now. We recognize slavery as wrong, but back then many in society did not, but ultimately society changed its view on its own to outlaw slavery. So to shift gears a little, you mentioned that murder (I guess in keeping with my Nazi example) would almost unanimously be considered 'wrong'. 
I agree with you, except of course the nation that did the murders would disagree (the vast majority of its citizens). The main reason is that germans did not consider Jews to be 'people'. In fact the German courts had ruled that they were not people in the eyes of the laws of the land, thus not entitled to any protections those same laws gave other German citizens. 

Therefore, were the Allies wrong to force Germany into a new government. Do we have any right telling another people who they can or can not kill? Should we not have just forced them out of France, Poland and the other nations they conquered and let them do whatever the majority of the people wanted within their own nation?? 

As a side note, WHY would the murder of these people be almost unanimously agreed upon to be 'wrong'. Where did such an idea come from??
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/10/2001 7:32 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (41 of 80)  
 
  40.41 in reply to 40.40  
 
<We recognize slavery as wrong> 
Yes, we do today, but don't forget the bible condones slavery. 

Sirach, chapter 33 
Set your slave to work, and you will find rest; leave his hands idle, and he will seek liberty. 

1 Timothy, chapter 6 
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may 
not be defamed. 

Joshua, chapter 9 
Now therefore you are cursed, and some of you shall always be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God. 

Ephesians, chapter 6 
5 - Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; 

1 Maccabees, chapter 2 
11 - All her adornment has been taken away; no longer free, she has become a slave. 

This doesn't mean I agree with slavery, but it sure can look bad for the bible since quotes like these and many others were used as propoganda for the pro-slavery people. 

Al Kupone 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/10/2001 8:47 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (42 of 80)  
 
  40.42 in reply to 40.41  
 
For Purposes of Clarity on this forum the Bible is Referred to as the Current 66 Canonized Books. 
When Quoting the Bible please Reference Chapter, Verse and Translation, if other than KJV. 

*Note, in the previous post Sirach is referred to as a book of the Bible. Whatever it is, Sirach is not a part of the Current Christian Bible. Therefore the quote stands as an Unknown, Unidentified, Non-Biblical, Source. 

*Note, The Book of Maccabees, also quoted in the previous post, is considered Historical but not Biblical. 

Please see the Links on the Post The Bible and how we got it for a complete description of the current Christian 66 Book Bible Cannon. 

*Also Note; The word Servant and Slave are the Same Greek word doulos (1401) 

1 Peter 2:16 .. as the Servants (1401) of God. 

Christians are Honored to be called Slaves/Servants of God. The Highest Honor for a Christian is to be a Bond Slave/Servant of God. A Slave has Life and Accommodation only as good as the Master is willing to provide. God our Master is Providing Luxurious Eternal Life in Heaven for His Servants, and we Christians have Gladly placed our care and Eternal Comfort into the Hands of our Master Jesus. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/10/2001 10:34 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (43 of 80)  
 
  40.43 in reply to 40.42  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
*Note, in the previous post Sirach is referred to as a book of the Bible. Whatever it is, Sirach is not a part of the Current Christian Bible. Therefore the quote stands as an Unknown, Unidentified, Non-Biblical, Source.

*Note, The Book of Maccabees, also quoted in the previous post, is considered Historical but not Biblical.
  Any Catholic would disagree with you.  The Catholic bible includes Sirach as well as both of the books of Maccabees, as well as several other books not found in KJV or any of the other common Protestant-oriented Bibles.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/10/2001 10:46 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (44 of 80)  
 
  40.44 in reply to 40.42  
 
I quoted directly from my Father's Bible. It is the 'revised standard bible' A version that is nearly identical can also be found at... 
http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html 

I'm sorry if my bible isn't identical to yours, does it make it any less holy in your eyes? 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/10/2001 10:59 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (45 of 80)  
 
  40.45 in reply to 40.44  
 
Im just looking for clarification so everyone can follow the information and the discussion. 
Thank you, for the clarification. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
2.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/10/2001 11:04 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (46 of 80)  
 
  40.46 in reply to 40.41  
 
First, Sirach and 1 Maccabees are not Scripture per the Protestant canon. But you are right in that those in the USA who supported slavery looked to a Bible passage here and there as backup. 
However, I disagree that the Bible condones slavery of the sort practiced in the USA pre-Civil War. 

First, in the law of Moses what is called slavery is more like the idea of indentured servant - work six years and go free (with property) in the 7th. You can read the details, especially as to the voluntary aspect of it. 

Elsewhere in the OT like the Joshua passage you cite, we see slavery as a PUNISHMENT to the enemies of God's chosen people. Put another way, just because God enforced capital punishment in certain situations is not the same as saying he approves of murder. Many of these slaves were actually first ordered to be put to death, except in some cases Israel goofed up and made treaties etc. with them. 

As to the NT epistles, we must keep in mind that slavery WAS (and is) a reality to millions of people over the years. It was estimated there were over a million slaves in the entire Roman Empire of the first century. So God addresses them as He does all people in His Word. Note that passages dealing with the slaves' duties are paired with verses about the masters' duties, which are always charitable. Much of the passages on the subject we can easily apply to the employee/employer relationship today as well. 

And there are NT passages that speak loudly against the oppresion of workers and taking advantage of them without paying wages etc. 

So when one says the Bible condones slavery just because the same word is used in the King James Bible, one must look at the whole Scripture to see that the oppressive slavery we think of in our past and currently in some African nations and elsewhere is clearly spoken against.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
4.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/10/2001 11:09 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (47 of 80)  
 
  40.47 in reply to 40.46  
 
Nicely put. I was using the quotes to make a point. 
Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/10/2001 11:18 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (48 of 80)  
 
  40.48 in reply to 40.46  
 
Excellent Post, and clarification for several topics. 
Some people cannot Blame God enough for topics like Slavery and Murder, never mind that mankind is the one in sin, Not God. 

The Same people can Never seem to find any reason to Thank God for Anything! 

Your Brother in Jesus, 
David 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/11/2001 8:11 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (49 of 80)  
 
  40.49 in reply to 40.40  
 
I agree with you, except of course the nation that did the murders would disagree (the vast majority of its citizens). The main reason is that germans did not consider Jews to be 'people'. In fact the German courts had ruled that they were not people in the eyes of the laws of the land, thus not entitled to any protections those same laws gave other German citizens. 
NOW you are right on, from a philosophical perspective. Morality is "relative" to those that have the authority and power to enforce it, regardless of what is individually considered "moral".

Therefore, were the Allies wrong to force Germany into a new government. Do we have any right telling another people who they can or can not kill? Should we not have just forced them out of France, Poland and the other nations they conquered and let them do whatever the majority of the people wanted within their own nation?? 

But you see, this is just an example of the same principle on a bigger scale: yes, the people of Germany were more powerful than those they had conquered, so therefore their version of "right" and "wrong" prevailed temporarily. But then a bigger power moved in from a GLOBAL perspective and imposed THEIR morality on those that they conquered (Germany). Same thing, larger scale. 

As a side note, WHY would the murder of these people be almost unanimously agreed upon to be 'wrong'. Where did such an idea come from?? 

I think that is just the result of the maturation of societies in general. That is why, when an atheist starts relying too heavily on all of the death and destruction of the Old Testament to support his arguments agains the bible as the "Good Book" I have to object. The relative morality of the TIME and the CULTURE that authored those texts allowed for such atrocities (by our standards today) to occur in a "good" light. Just because there are examples of condoned slavery in the OT doesn't mean that the people who practiced it were of the same moral basis as those who are reading it in the 21st century, having had the example of Antebellum South to formulate their judgements by.

All things must be taken in context. Glad we speak the same language at times.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/11/2001 8:22 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (50 of 80)  
 
  40.50 in reply to 40.46  
 
Hi Steve.... 
Indeed Southern Slavery practices and some modern ones today, violate all of the Bible's teachings on women and children. 
God prohibitted all the sexual abuse females slaves endured. Rape is clearly forbidden, adultary, fornication, public nakedness ( the slave block)these sexual sins were committed against female slaves and the children produced by such actions. These poor women had children by these men which the men did not acknowledge or raise as sons and daughters.... 
Not to dismiss the abuse male slaves suffered but clearly what female slaves had forced upon them was totally unbiblically based. 
R/C 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/11/2001 10:59 am  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (51 of 80)  
 
  40.51 in reply to 40.50  
 
Rape is clearly forbidden... 
*sigh*

Once again, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to hit you with the heavy hand of reality and set the record straight. 

No, neither the bible (nor god) "clearly" forbids rape. It is mixed, with CLEAR examples of god condoning rape and enslavement, as he gave the young women (32,000 Midianite virgins) of the conquered people to the Isrealites for their sexual pleasure (Numbers 31:17-18). This can be considered both slavery AND rape, but however you choose to interpret it, it was recorded as a biblical reward from god.

(And for all of you who are trying to apologize and explain away things like slavery in the bible as "servitude", it gives a pretty basic description of how a person sells his daughter into slavery correctly in Exodus 21:7-8.)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/11/2001 11:27 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (52 of 80)  
 
  40.52 in reply to 40.51  
 
Numbers 31:17-18 
"Now therefore, kill every male amonth the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." (NAS) 
Now it is easy to read into that a condoning of rape, if that is what you want to read into it. But where does it explicitly say permission was given to rape? Is it not possible that they were to be saved to become either wives or household slaves? All the scripture says was that they were to be spared. Since the Bible is not afraid to mention sex (see the passage below), sex is not implied in the passage above, or it would be stated as such. 

Exodus 21:7-8 (adding vs 9-11) 
"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money." (NAS) 

This sounds more as a cross between slavery and marriage (buying a bride). If fact it sounds more like the intention is buying a bride for himself or his son. Does the Bible say that this should be practiced? No, it starts the whole thing off with that magic word "If." God allows us freedom, but we must treat people fairly. In modern slavery (or last century slavery), rape of slaves was condoned and the children were kept in slavery. This passage states that if the woman is not treated well, she can walk away. There is a big difference to how slavery existed back then to how it exists now. At least a big difference between God's regulations over Hebrew Slavery and the practices of the States when they practiced slavery. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/11/2001 12:59 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (53 of 80)  
 
  40.53 in reply to 40.51  
 
Sorry Sea God does not allow rape. The text your quoting is God allowing the men to marry these women and under the conditions of Deut. 21: 10 - 14. 
I do not understand all the intents of *arranged marriages*. It is still a cultural practice of the mid east. Agree with that concept or not the women weren't raped....they were given all rights of a wife..including a physical home, the right to children and financial care. 
God does know the human heart and spirit, He is not afaid to discuss sin. Men love to rape all on their own, they get the desires all on their own, sin produces it!! God knows that rape is within the power of a man and set up rules to protect women form being used and abused sexually. 
What rules, laws/refinements has mankind/humanity ever offered women that protect her from being used as a sexual object better then the Bible? 
R/C 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/11/2001 1:35 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (54 of 80)  
 
  40.54 in reply to 40.52  
 
Now it is easy to read into that a condoning of rape, if that is what you want to read into it. But where does it explicitly say permission was given to rape? Is it not possible that they were to be saved to become either wives or household slaves? All the scripture says was that they were to be spared. Since the Bible is not afraid to mention sex (see the passage below), sex is not implied in the passage above, or it would be stated as such. 
Oh come on now. You are getting into apologetics something awful. A passage in Numbers describes the systematic slaughter of men, women and children as ordered by god, and the only ones that are to be spared are young VIRGIN GIRLS who are to be kept for the soldiers as spoils of victory, and you write it as if their intentions could actually, somehow, be honorable? That if the idea of servitude were genuine, that the MALE children could have been spared? (Hint: they weren't, and they make better slaves). That if they were to be made into "wives" that they wouldn't NEED to be raped because why in the world would the virgin girl WANT to be made love to by the man who just executed her brothers and her parents?

Puh-lease.

A spade is a spade. Numbers recounts a god who gives virgin female children to the soldiers as spoils of war, and any historian will vouch for what that means.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/11/2001 1:48 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (55 of 80)  
 
  40.55 in reply to 40.53  
 
The text your quoting is God allowing the men to marry these women
Do you guys hear what you are saying and how far you are stretching to make this passage fit into your concept of what is "acceptable"? You are completely omitting the fact that this was a common practice and considered acceptable for the culture and the times.

Listen to yourselves: you are saying that these virgins are going to be made into wives and make willing love to the men that just executed their parents and siblings. Yer just plain nuts if that is the extreme that you will go to to keep a happy, cheery vision of what exactly is happening in this passage. Forget about the brutal executions that are occurring, this is a passage about the abduction and submission of female children. Period. 

It is not necessarily a "bad" thing that is being described; it is appropriate for the culture. The only bad thing is this attempt at revisionism on your part and the denial that you insist on going through. While it may be "possible" that, given the OTHER brutalities that are described in the passage, they just *might* be talking about keeping the virgins for honorable intentions, but it certainly is not PROBABLE, given what we know of common practices in the era.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/11/2001 2:19 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (56 of 80)  
 
  40.56 in reply to 40.55  
 
Sea..... 
You are the one that says the status quo rules, remember? 
As for the original issue which was Southern Slavery and servitude in general I brought up the valid point that God does not condone a woman being used as a sexual slave/servant...she was to be treated as a wife. 
God did give specific rules for women captured in war: 
Read Deut. 21: 10-14 NKJV I am quoting vs 13-14 "She shall put off the cloths of her captivity, remain in your house and mourn her mother and father a full month: after that you may go into her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. And it shall be if you have no delight in her then you shall set her free but you shall not sell her for money: you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her." 

I deny nothing....God in no way condones men sexually relieving themselves on women through rape, adultary or fornication. He did set up parameters to protect a woman from being sexually used/abused. 
R/C 


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/11/2001 2:32 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (57 of 80)  
 
  40.57 in reply to 40.56  
 
Thanks for providing yet another contradiction. Here you have a quote stating how to care for women captured in war, while numbers describes how to kill the women captured in war. Remember, the passage in numbers only dealt with virgins, all the other women were executed. 
It's gotta be tough keeping all the excuses and contradictions straight...




 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/11/2001 2:42 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (58 of 80)  
 
  40.58 in reply to 40.50  
 
Yes, and also during the time of southern slavery there were large numbers of Christians preaching AGAINST the evil institution. Now if the Bible critic agrees slavery is wrong, but seeks to blame God and Christianity for its existence, there is a problem because (as you and I posted) the Bible does not support what was happening AND true Christians were not either. 
Just because some covetous slave owning groups of hard-hearted individuals happened to also go to church on Sundays, does not mean they are representative of true Christianity's view on the subject or of course the Bible and God's.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/11/2001 4:14 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (59 of 80)  
 
  40.59 in reply to 40.57  
 
Sea.... 
What you are really asking is why did God deal so harshly with some groups of people and not with others? I can't answer that question specifically. I can answer it in the context of OT directives of God. God was merciful to some and not to others, including the children of Israel. 
Man by nature is not merciful, goodor kind. When he governs himself without a code of justice, he is brutal, he shows no behaviors of discretiony judgements. Man is an unmerciful, revengeful creature. 

The Bible is an honest book. God does not cloak His behavior from man, nor is He contradictory. He simply does not play by your rules and that is your complaint. You want a world where man rules himself, 
it is not possible...somebody will always be bigger, badder, meaner and not play by the rules. Who will reign in your world, by what consenses and rules of engagement? What's your rules on rape and how will you get men to not rape women? 

Instead of writing and posting about all the "bad" things God does or allows, why not write a big book of conduct for the godless to live by? At present you are preaching to the wrong choir. 
R/C 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/11/2001 4:35 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (60 of 80)  
 
  40.60 in reply to 40.54  
 
>Oh come on now. You are getting into apologetics something awful. A passage in Numbers describes the systematic slaughter of men, women and children as ordered by god, and the only ones that are to be spared are young VIRGIN GIRLS who are to be kept for the soldiers as spoils of victory, and you write it as if their intentions could actually, somehow, be honorable? That if the idea of servitude were genuine, that the MALE children could have been spared? (Hint: they weren't, and they make better slaves). That if they were to be made into "wives" that they wouldn't NEED to be raped because why in the world would the virgin girl WANT to be made love to by the man who just executed her brothers and her parents? 
If you mean by apologetics what it means in Bible schools... defening the faith, then yes, my answer is in defense of my faith. If by that you mean that I am making excuses for God, no I am making no excuses. Moses did give the Virgin girls as part of the booty to the soldiers, who were then to give half of them to the people at large. Were they raped? It was not mentioned that they were, to read in a modern view of war were rape is prevalent and apply it to a people devoted to God to such a degree that the soldiers were not allowed back into the camp after undergoing a purification ritual is interesting. How does this purification compare to the way history has conducted war? God has called his people to be peculiar, different and they were. 

God's blessings 
Scott 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Dr_Shock   7/11/2001 4:57 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (61 of 80)  
 
  40.61 in reply to 40.58  
 
This isn't just to you Steven. 
In Leviticus 25:44 God instructs the Jews (through Moses) that they may take slaves from all the land around them and treat them as possessions, however they are forbidden to do this to another Jew. 

In Leviticus 19:20-22 if a man lies with a female slave who is not his, he has to make a "guilt offering" to the Lord in the form of a sacrificial ram. Normally, the law would say to kill them both, but since one is a slave this cannot be done. 

Leviticus 27:2-8 is nothing but the Lord putting value on people based on age, sex, etc.. 




-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/11/2001 5:18 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (62 of 80)  
 
  40.62 in reply to 40.61  
 
>In Leviticus 19:20-22 if a man lies with a female slave who is not his, he has to make a "guilt offering" to the Lord in the form of a sacrificial ram. Normally, the law would say to kill them both, but since one is a slave this cannot be done. 
"20 'Whoever lies carnally with a woman who [is] betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; [but] they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 'And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, a ram as a trespass offering. 22 'The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed. And the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him. " 

I thought I would quote the passage to see if you are correct. And you are, partially. But you forgot the scourging. Yes, he was not put to death as in other cases, he was only beaten as punishment. Seems a bit harsher the Jefferson ever got. 

Lev 27:2-8 is talking about a person vowing themselves or a family member to God, and the price to buy out of that vow. It makes me think to be careful about making those vows in the first place. But it is volentary by the person in charge. 

The Bible does permit (but does not require) slavery and then regulates it. It was the common economic system of the time and the bible isn't about which economic systems are better, but just treatment under them is expected. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/11/2001 8:44 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (63 of 80)  
 
  40.63 in reply to 40.62  
 
I just threw up the quotes because they seemed on-topic and because, suprisingly, any quotes Leviticus hadn't been clearly mentioned in the string yet.


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/12/2001 7:53 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (64 of 80)  
 
  40.64 in reply to 40.63  
 
>I just threw up the quotes because they seemed on-topic and because, suprisingly, any quotes Leviticus hadn't been clearly mentioned in the string yet. 
What I find funny is that while the passages are most definitely in line with the current subject of this thread, they have absolutely nothing to do with its title. I will need to reread the whole thread at some time (when I have a little more time) and see the flow that leads us from rapture to slavery. And to think this is only the 64th message. 

God's blessings 
Scott 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/12/01 10:53:47 AM ET by SCOTTR1982 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/12/2001 8:10 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (65 of 80)  
 
  40.65 in reply to 40.64  
 
Hi Scott, 
LOL Happens in/with every thread on every Forum I've visited. 
Human nature I reckin' to get sidetracked form the original topic. 
R/C 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/12/2001 1:31 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (66 of 80)  
 
  40.66 in reply to 40.59  
 
The Bible is an honest book. God does not cloak His behavior from man, nor is He contradictory.
I don't disagree with this. I believe that those who wrote the different books were doing their best to write what they believed was right for them. What I disagree with is when people take what is written and try their darndest to change what it means so it can fit in a nice little PC package for the present. It is a harsh book written in harsh times. No need for sugar-coating. Remember, it was YOU who made the statement regarding rape and the bible, I was just trying to keep YOU from inadvertently "cloaking" god's behavior.

He simply does not play by your rules and that is your complaint. 

No, it is not. I understand that his rules were the rules of the land in the times that the texts were written. But some have survived today, while others have evolved. The rules of the land are up for interpretation and I follow the ones that keep me feeling like a moral human being while also keeping me out of jail, whether they are of "god's rules" or not.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/12/2001 1:35 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (67 of 80)  
 
  40.67 in reply to 40.62  
 
Seems a bit harsher the Jefferson ever got. 
Jefferson was neither Christian nor Jew...

;0)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/12/2001 2:06 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (68 of 80)  
 
  40.68 in reply to 40.67  
 
Ah, but Jefferson was a slave holder who took certain, eh, er, shall we say liberties. Had U.S. slave law included the scourging for such offense, one wonders if he would have. 
God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/12/2001 2:10 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (69 of 80)  
 
  40.69 in reply to 40.66  
 
Hi Sea.... 
I respect your POV, ( don't agree but do respect it ) I was a bit *testy* yesterday and I apologize for telling you to go write your own book. As long as we aren't belittling POV's or beating one another up with them, questions about *faith* are fair game and the discussion of them legit'. 
Wish you were not so convinced of God being mean. I'll admit myself though, it is a challenge to sort out sinful behavior, justified through bogus/bad theology and present the differnces coherently. I do know this: God gets a bum rap for a lot of awful stuff man claims to do, in the name of God. 

Regards, 
R/C 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/12/2001 2:26 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (70 of 80)  
 
  40.70 in reply to 40.69  
 
I respect your POV, ( don't agree but do respect it ) I was a bit *testy* yesterday and I apologize for telling you to go write your own book.
Aw shoot, you got me all wrong. I have a helluba thick skin and there is little that you could say to abrase it. To tell you the truth, I don't even remember the "book" comment.

As long as we aren't belittling POV's or beating one another up with them, questions about *faith* are fair game and the discussion of them legit'. 

I try not to belittle a person's POV, what I belittle is their lack of evidence or the quality of the evidence they submit. *I* have had FANTASTICALLY silly POV's in my lifetime, so I know that there are plenty to go around. :0)

Wish you were not so convinced of God being mean.

You've got me all wrong AGAIN - :0). #1) I'm not even sure of the existence of a god, so I cannot be convinced that one is "mean". #2) We are then referring to the Judeo-Christian god and I don't think of him as "mean" he just IS. He just is what the people, culture and times made him out to be and if he APPEARS "mean" by today's standards, we just have to accept that and keep it in context. A god that kills the multitudes that he killed is justified in doing so because the culture that recorded his deeds was doing so with the standards of that culture. I therefore look at him neutrally.

I'll admit myself though, it is a challenge to sort out sinful behavior, justified through bogus/bad theology and present the differnces coherently. I do know this: God gets a bum rap for a lot of awful stuff man claims to do, in the name of God.

As long as this is done honestly we won't have an issue. The bible is very clear at points and there is no need, with me, to try desperately to make every horrific act (by today's standards) look like pony rides and ice cream. I am not one who is trying to discredit the bible based on the atrocities within, the merits of the bible exist on their own rights within the document. There is a lot of good information that is being offered and discussed on these threads, while occasionally someone puts a spin in with a little embellishment that needs to be called out. I just want people to keep things honest so we can at least learn if we can't agree. I have been.

;0)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/12/2001 5:28 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (71 of 80)  
 
  40.71 in reply to 40.65  
 
<<<Human nature I reckin' to get sidetracked form the original topic.>>> 
Life would be very boring otherwise. Don't you think? =)


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  inhiskingdom   5/24/2003 11:20 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (72 of 80)  
 
  40.72 in reply to 40.2  
 
Hi. 
<At the coming event of the Rapture of the Christian Church, the Christians will all be in heaven with Jesus.> 

The 10 virgins is a story of the catching away. Five went with Jesus, five were not able, they were all Christians, they were virgins but five did not have enough oil. Oil is the Holy Spirit. Could the five that were not able to go be the ones that did not receive the promise of the Father? The filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit? 

In His Love 
Norb
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 73 of 80 was Deleted    



  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/25/2003 2:31 pm  
To:  inhiskingdom   (74 of 80)  
 
  40.74 in reply to 40.72  
 
Hi,

I think that that in that passage you have 10 Christians with 5 of them being "works based" working for God and five being "relationship based" in a personal relationship with Jesus and it is the 5 Relationship  Spirit filled Christians" that enter into heaven while the works based people came up short.

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  inhiskingdom   5/26/2003 8:40 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (75 of 80)  
 
  40.75 in reply to 40.74  
 
Hi. 
They were all virgins, all Christians, 5 had enough oil, (enough Holy Spirit) five did not, it is the difference between being Christians and Christians receiving the Holy Ghost. 

Notice in Acts 8 12-17, the people believed Philip teaching about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. They were baptized, they were believers, they were saved. Then the apostles sent down Peter and John to pray for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost for as yet he had not fallen upon none of them. 

This, receiving, the promise of the Father, is the power, the Holy Ghost Himself, coming within us to be the power that we need to hear the voice of our Shepherd, to do the works of Jesus and to have the signs following us that Jesus said would follow the believer. 

In His Love 
Norb
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/26/2003 1:28 pm  
To:  inhiskingdom   (76 of 80)  
 
  40.76 in reply to 40.75  
 
Thanks Norb,

 

This really is an Important Biblical Verse and Concept that the Church does need to understand.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  JayMorg (JayMorganD)   5/28/2003 7:03 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (77 of 80)  
 
  40.77 in reply to 40.1  
 
"Elijah was translated from his physical body inorder to ride in the chariot of fire and to be received into heaven" 
Considering that the above author can't even get it right that Eli'yah NEVER rode in a chariot of fire, but was caught up in a whirlwind after a chariot of fire separated him from Eli'sha, why should I believe this author concerning something as controversial as the rapture mythos? 

JayMorg 
[Link Deleted]

The Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, Scriptures of the People of the Living Way 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 5/28/2003 7:25:56 PM ET by David (DAVIDABROWN) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/28/2003 4:35 pm  
To:  JayMorg (JayMorganD)   (78 of 80)  
 
  40.78 in reply to 40.77  
 
Hi Jay,

 

Re: 2 Kings 2:11 Thanks for the insight.

 

You are correct as the Bible does say that a Chariot of fire separated them and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

 

My point is still that Elijah underwent a Translation as his physical body was Translated into a Spiritual body to be received into heaven.

 

2 Kings 2:17 informs us that 50 men looked for three days and were unable to find the physical body of Elijah.

 

I was pointing out what a complete act of God the Rapture is as it includes our bodily Translation into Heaven as well as our "bodly" removal from the earth.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  JayMorg (JayMorganD)   5/29/2003 11:29 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (79 of 80)  
 
  40.79 in reply to 40.78  
 
And MY point was that the fact of your teaching error concerning Elijah shows that you were teaching only what you learned from others, since all I have ever heard other ministers teach and preach on concerning this passage is exactly what you said. My own studies, however, revealed the TRUTH to me on this and many other passages of Scripture. 
The same applies to the mythological rapture. There is no such thing as a "pre-trib rapture" recorded anywhere in Scripture. this is a heretical teaching which began in the early 1800s and has caught on over the decades since until it now permeates the modern church. Still it is nothing more than error and should not be taught as true. 

Personal study of Scripture will always show the truth on this matter, which is that the first resurrection (not rapture) will occur after the time known as the great tribulation, but before the time known as the wrath of God (sic). 

JayMorg
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/29/2003 4:13 pm  
To:  JayMorg (JayMorganD)   (80 of 80)  
 
  40.80 in reply to 40.79  
 
Hi Jay,

 

 

The mistake regarding Elijah is mine and mine alone. I admitted it, I was blessed in what I learned from you and I have moved on.

 

We certainly do disagree about the Timing of the Rapture however I would not turn a disagreement on the rapture into an indictment.

 

God Bless you,
David A. Brown



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
 
