Why do Christians lose faith?

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure how it is a false dichotomy. Can you tell me what the third possibility is?

The only two positions you seemed to consider are inerrantist Christian or atheist. Of course atheist is defined many different ways. I prefer to define atheist as somebody who believes in metaphysical naturalism, but there are other definitions as I'm sure you already know.

Don't you ever experience synchronicities and so forth that make you dissatisfied with metaphysical naturalism? There are lots of possibilities besides inerrantist Christian and atheist.

 

[cloudyday2]

snip

@Chris B , I think you might be reading more into my OP than I actually wrote? No biggee of course. Sometimes I start threads as a way of testing my ideas. As I watched the sermon (linked by @AV1611VET in post #2), I was impressed by how accurately some of that pastor's words described my own path to atheism. The driving force for me has been thoughts like: "why, God?", "why won't you help me on this?", "why did you let that happen?", ... Eventually I decided that God either didn't exist or didn't care about me (possibly I was predestined for hell). Then I started looking for arguments to rationalize an atheist position that I had already reached for more emotional reasons. I've gone from Christian to atheist twice, and the process was the same both times for me.

Here is something I learned about recently - logotherapy. Psychological health depends on searching for purpose in our lives. It isn't healthy to believe in dumb luck:
"Oops, I slipped on a banana peel and now I'm a paraplegic for the rest of my life."
OR
"I'm a paraplegic, but there must be a purpose for this happening to me."

I hate to see Christians abandoning their religion for this reason, because they are also abandoning a sense of purpose that is important. I'm not saying atheists can't have a purpose or that theists always have a clear vision of their purpose.

Logotherapy was developed by neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl. It is considered the "Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy"[1][2] after Freud's psychoanalysis and Adler's individual psychology. Logotherapy is based on an existential analysis[3] focusing on Kierkegaard's will to meaning as opposed to Adler's Nietzschean doctrine of will to power or Freud's will to pleasure. Rather than power or pleasure, logotherapy is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one's life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans.[4] A short introduction to this system is given in Frankl's most famous book, Man's Search for Meaning, in which he outlines how his theories helped him to survive his Holocaust experience and how that experience further developed and reinforced his theories. Presently, there are a number of logotherapy institutes around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy

 

[cloudyday2]

I just happened to read Psalm 44 an ancient example of this doubting of God's purpose.

Here is a link:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+44:11-26&version=KJV

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The only two positions you seemed to consider are inerrantist Christian or atheist.

The two positions I considered are inerrant Christianity or errant Christianity. I explain in my thread "Satan and errors in scripture" why the latter is untenable. The other option was known to be false. From there I lost my faith.

Of course atheist is defined many different ways. I prefer to define atheist as somebody who believes in metaphysical naturalism, but there are other definitions as I'm sure you already know.

This would mean that someone who rejects theism and metaphysical naturalism is not an atheist.

Don't you ever experience synchronicities and so forth that make you dissatisfied with metaphysical naturalism? There are lots of possibilities besides inerrantist Christian and atheist.

I can tell you the expected amount of synchronicities given the data, and also that a value below the expected is just as unlikely as another value above. Our selection bias favors the higher values heavily and ignores the lower values so that certain outcomes seem manufactured when in reality nothing of probabilistic interest occurred.

 

[Chris B]

@Chris B

Here is something I learned about recently - logotherapy. Psychological health depends on searching for purpose in our lives. It isn't healthy to believe in dumb luck:
"Oops, I slipped on a banana peel and now I'm a paraplegic for the rest of my life."
OR
"I'm a paraplegic, but there must be a purpose for this happening to me."

I hate to see Christians abandoning their religion for this reason, because they are also abandoning a sense of purpose that is important. I'm not saying atheists can't have a purpose or that theists always have a clear vision of their purpose.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy

Oh I'm with that. The framework of words and interpretation applied to an event can drastically change its effect without changing the event one iota.
To your two examples one could add: "Well, stuff happens."
They may be psychologically low-stress, but it doesn't hang on "purpose".
The follow-on, in my mind would not involve blame or despair. More "So what's my next move?"
Rather like a game of golf: you have to play the ball from where it lies: wishing it were somewhere else changes nothing.
A game of golf, however has the flags clearly marked as objectives and the rules definitively set out (and you do occasionally get to change your ball position!)

When sitting down to play this compulsory game called life, to me the obvious question is "What are the rules?"*
At which point half a dozen different groups offer you books and say "these are"
And the little French guy in the corner says that there aren't any.
And then you notice that at least locally there seem to be some unwritten rules that somehow "everybody knows"... but that are rarely stated or openly taught.
Which you then discover are not taught at all in some other countries, which have different ones.
Great fun, this game.


*"Rules? In a knife-fight?"

 

[com7fy8]

The follow-on, in my mind would not involve blame or despair. More "So what's my next move?"

About why someone might lose faith in a hard situation > if the person is able to despair and blame someone, one could get even into blaming God.

Ones let evil decide if they believe in God or not > this is not wise, to allow evil to effect how you see things; because evil partly is a set-up of Satan's kingdom, meant to get people to look away from God, get their attention "elsewhere", and get people to give up hope.

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

And there are people who have been depending on their own selves, while practicing "religion". Yes, we can make things up and produce our own un-virgin versions and experiences of God. And when this fails us, then is when we can feel "faith" does not work. But it was not depending on God, first.

I think of how Joseph handled things when his own brothers sold him into slavery > Genesis 37-50. Joseph did what was good. He stayed with God and how God used his situation to save many people's lives. Being with God, he did not only solve his own troubles, but what he did with God was with God who is all-loving, and so what he did had God's intended all-loving result.

Plus, Joseph used his situation to get back with his brothers, but in better relating, in family caring and sharing >

Genesis 50:19-21.

"Therefore", "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) does not have us only surviving, but discovering how our Father takes care of us in His family caring and sharing love

 

[Chris B]

About why someone might lose faith in a hard situation > if the person is able to despair and blame someone, one could get even into blaming God.

Why "even"? If God exists, then the buck stops there. For good and bad, for weal and woe.
The bible does assert God's "creator's immunity" (like diplomatic immunity, only more so) from any comeback or complaint, placing humanity in the same relative place as clay stands to a potter.
(Tough on the "vessels of wrath, made for destruction", but that's "potter's rights" for you.)

Otherwise God's moral behaviour would definitely up for at least indictment, failing for example to meet some of the standards of the Geneva conventions.
Never mind the treatment of Job.
"So, for a bet, you decided to see if this guy would break under torture?"

And there are people who have been depending on their own selves, while practicing "religion". And when this fails us, then is when we can feel "faith" does not work. But it was not depending on God, first.

Have we decided that God exists yet? I thought I had, but then I got new information.
Yes, a relied-upon faith or hope, broken, is going to be traumatic. That's in the mechanism rather than in any specific content of the faith or hope.
You see it on the news with people traumatised, saying "I never thought that sort of thing could happen here..."
The problem being a false (comforting while it lasted) trust in their street being "nice and safe and normal".

...Being with God, he did not only solve his own troubles, but what he did with God was with God who is all-loving, and so what he did had God's intended all-loving result.

And what of those faithful (by any visible standard) who were not given an all-loving result.
I've known Christians wrecked, and even two driven to suicide, despite the best efforts of their friends.
To call "mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" there required more than I could blithely accept.

Tolkien has it at the death of Boromir:
Pippin: "...Yes, I stood beside him, as he blew the horn. But no help came. Only more orcs."
"Only more orcs" indeed, for some people I've known.

Is "our Father takes care of us in His family caring and sharing love" actually true, or one of those hopes of faith that may not be?"
I think I've seen enough that I can no longer believe it.

 

[cloudyday2]

The two positions I considered are inerrant Christianity or errant Christianity. I explain in my thread "Satan and errors in scripture" why the latter is untenable. The other option was known to be false. From there I lost my faith.

You're probably familiar with the parable of the wheat and the tares?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+44:11-26&version=KJV
The common understanding that modern Christians give for this parable is that the wheat are sincere Christians and the tares are insincere Christians. However, that was not the understanding of the early Christian scholar Origen. Origen believed that the wheat were teachings from God and the tares were teachings that only seemed to be from God. The parable says that the phony teachings will creep into the Church in the night, and rather than risk uprooting genuine teachings, the Church must allow them all to grow together until the harvest (return of Jesus). The Church recognized from the beginning that phony teachings were creeping into Christianity despite their best efforts. Several centuries later when the NT canon was decided, those Christians could only make educated guesses. If those Christians had been able to talk to modern Bible scholars, they might have left more out of the NT.

This would mean that someone who rejects theism and metaphysical naturalism is not an atheist.

That is how I think it should be. In practice, 99% of atheists believe in metaphysical naturalism, and that is why science is admired by atheists (science assumes methodological naturalism - which is very close to metaphysical naturalism). I would say the best argument for atheism is the success of science. Almost everything that has made society better results from science. If God existed, we should expect to see religion contributing something to humanity too, but we do not. The great cathedrals could be designed, because science and engineering advanced. The great cathedrals could be funded, because prosperity increased as a result of agricultural advances (like water mills, steel plows, etc.), and because a new merchant class developed, etc.

But I know that many atheists prefer to define their belief as NOT some theistic belief. I believe that atheism should clearly define itself as metaphysical naturalism, because the theistic definitions of God or gods are so varied and vague.

I can tell you the expected amount of synchronicities given the data, and also that a value below the expected is just as unlikely as another value above. Our selection bias favors the higher values heavily and ignores the lower values so that certain outcomes seem manufactured when in reality nothing of probabilistic interest occurred.

Yeah that is the way to look at it - i.e. "what is the probability that random variables could have created the observed data?" (or however it is stated in statistics - I only took an introductory class, and it was a long time ago).

There is also the question of whether our models of reality should have random variables in them. Random variables in a model are a recognition of missing knowledge (IMO). I know many people disagree with me.

 

[razzelflabben]

It is not off topic. The topic is about why Christians lose their faith. For many it is because they see the laws in the Old Testament that clearly endorse slavery, or perhaps all of the genocide and butchery committed at the behest of Jehovah, and others might [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] their head in confusion while seeing no "Thou shalt not rape" in the ten commandments.

that is what you have been taught it says, if you actually study it, you will discover things that you don't yet understand....but that is the point, many fall away because they believe in the traditions that do harm rather than the God of the Bible as He tells us about HImself and His reasons for what He does.

For example, Ot does NOT endorse slavery it teaches what is right and wrong when owning a slave. Slavery was part of the culture, lots of reasons for that. In fact, at the time, indentured slaves were a huge part of life. The OT does not say whether or not this is good, only that since it is happening, this is how you should treat your slave.

As to the genocide and butchery, according to the text, God was protecting His people. A good analogy without taking us off topic, is God is the Father, His children are being kidnapped and raped, so He orders (remember He is KING) that the people kidnapping and murdering and raping His children be killed. If this were a man doing this, we would applaud him and say he was justified, but because it is God we try to portray Him as evil.

As to rape, the rape victim that cries out does not have to marry her rapist....think about that, what rape victim doesn't fight to not be raped? Think it through....

WEll, as I said, if we get to know the God of the Bible rather than the traditions of man, we are LESS likely to fall away.

The genocides are recorded proudly in Joshua. Sometimes genocides were left incomplete so the men could be rewarded with virgins as war loot. Other times defectors from the enemy were spared.

The laws on rape are written in Deuteronomy 22:25-29. You will see that punishment is only administered if the rape victim is betrothed to another man. If she is not "claimed" by another man, and you rape her, she's all yours. As it's written, the woman can refuse marriage, but if she chooses to marry her rapist, the man may not divorce her all his days. Also the rapist must pay an increased dowry to the father, presumably as punishment for not asking the father's permission before raping her. I find it unlikely the woman would refuse the marriage because her father would likely kick her out of the house, as she would be sabotaging his one chance to fetch a dowry for her (no one will want to marry a woman who is not a virgin in such a patriarchal society). The elephant in the room, of course, is the fact that the rapist will rape her at his leisure for the rest of their lives. Nothing is said or done to protect her from this. I've heard from apologists that this law was put in place to protect the woman, since she was shamed and would otherwise be unable to support herself (hence the reason the rapist is not executed despite the fact that the law was quite severe on other issues) but this explanation is an abject failure for many reasons that I'll be happy to share if you're somehow not disillusioned by everything I've said about the treatment of women here.

This paragraph shows exactly what I am talking about....your basing your assumptions on man's wisdom rather than on what the God of the Bible says. This makes it much easier to lose faith, because they are the traditions of man that are being questioned not the God of the bible.

As for slavery, God endorsed chattel slavery where the Jews were permitted to take slaves from other nations. God endorsed the owning of one human being over another for life (Leviticus 25:45-46). Most apologists completely ignore this and point to the verse which says Jews can only own Jewish slaves for 6 years, which actually only serves to confirm my accusation that they were racist (the sexist claim is pretty much verified on every page).

Again, you talk about apologists rather than the actual truth of what God says, but then again, this post just reinforces my claim that many fall away because they believe in the traditions of man not the God of the Bible.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why "even"? If God exists, then the buck stops there. For good and bad, for weal and woe.
The bible does assert God's "creator's immunity" (like diplomatic immunity, only more so) from any comeback or complaint, placing humanity in the same relative place as clay stands to a potter.
(Tough on the "vessels of wrath, made for destruction", but that's "potter's rights" for you.)

Otherwise God's moral behaviour would definitely up for at least indictment, failing for example to meet some of the standards of the Geneva conventions.
Never mind the treatment of Job.
"So, for a bet, you decided to see if this guy would break under torture?"





Have we decided that God exists yet? I thought I had, but then I got new information.
Yes, a relied-upon faith or hope, broken, is going to be traumatic. That's in the mechanism rather than in any specific content of the faith or hope.
You see it on the news with people traumatised, saying "I never thought that sort of thing could happen here..."
The problem being a false (comforting while it lasted) trust in their street being "nice and safe and normal".



And what of those faithful (by any visible standard) who were not given an all-loving result.
I've known Christians wrecked, and even two driven to suicide, despite the best efforts of their friends.
To call "mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" there required more than I could blithely accept.

Tolkien has it at the death of Boromir:
Pippin: "...Yes, I stood beside him, as he blew the horn. But no help came. Only more orcs."
"Only more orcs" indeed, for some people I've known.

Is "our Father takes care of us in His family caring and sharing love" actually true, or one of those hopes of faith that may not be?"
I think I've seen enough that I can no longer believe it.

ASking for clarity nothing more or less at this point....are you suggesting that living for Christ is all about doing away with the discomforts of life? That is how this reads to me, but I don't want to read into your post what is not there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

that is what you have been taught it says, if you actually study it, you will discover things that you don't yet understand....but that is the point, many fall away because they believe in the traditions that do harm rather than the God of the Bible as He tells us about HImself and His reasons for what He does.

For example, Ot does NOT endorse slavery it teaches what is right and wrong when owning a slave. Slavery was part of the culture, lots of reasons for that. In fact, at the time, indentured slaves were a huge part of life. The OT does not say whether or not this is good, only that since it is happening, this is how you should treat your slave.

For example, Ot does NOT endorse abortion it teaches what is right and wrong when performing an abortion. Abortion is part of our culture, lots of reasons for that. In fact, at this time, abortions are a huge part of life. The OT does not say whether or not this is good, only that since it is happening, this is how you should perform your abortion.

As to the genocide and butchery, according to the text, God was protecting His people. A good analogy without taking us off topic, is God is the Father, His children are being kidnapped and raped, so He orders (remember He is KING) that the people kidnapping and murdering and raping His children be killed. If this were a man doing this, we would applaud him and say he was justified, but because it is God we try to portray Him as evil.

Your analogy is quite hilarious because it was actually the Jews who were kidnapping and raping the inhabitants of the land. I even specifically reminded you of that. Remember, when I said this:

The genocides are recorded proudly in Joshua. Sometimes genocides were left incomplete so the men could be rewarded with virgins as war loot. Other times defectors from the enemy were spared.

Did you ignore that or did you just automatically not believe it because I didn't cite the book, chapter and verse? I commend your skepticism but your lack of initiative and research skills leaves something to be desired. But here you go. Numbers 31:17-18.

So... in essence, your argument is that God wanted to protect the Jews from something like kidnapping and murdering and raping, so he ordered them to go kidnap and murder and rape people in the holy land.

As to rape, the rape victim that cries out does not have to marry her rapist....think about that, what rape victim doesn't fight to not be raped? Think it through....

That is not the criteria for whether or not the rapist is executed. The criteria is whether or not the woman is betrothed to another man or not. You are being dishonest to the absolute extreme.

I was honest, I did not say that the rape victim MUST marry her attacker. I was as charitable as possible, and explained the dynamics of the verse thoroughly. You, however, are twisting the one verse and completely ignoring the other verse. You completely ignore the elephant in the room:

Please tell me what you think a rapist will do to the woman he's already raped if he is forced to marry her.

WEll, as I said, if we get to know the God of the Bible rather than the traditions of man, we are LESS likely to fall away. This paragraph shows exactly what I am talking about....your basing your assumptions on man's wisdom rather than on what the God of the Bible says. This makes it much easier to lose faith, because they are the traditions of man that are being questioned not the God of the bible. Again, you talk about apologists rather than the actual truth of what God says, but then again, this post just reinforces my claim that many fall away because they believe in the traditions of man not the God of the Bible.

I am talking only about what the Bible says. The Bible says that if you rape a woman who is not betrothed, then you must marry her if she chooses that course of action. The rest of your punishment is a fee to be paid to the father. Meanwhile people are executed for homosexuality or working on the Sabbath.

This is a backwards society. Just acknowledge it.

 

[razzelflabben]

For example, Ot does NOT endorse abortion it teaches what is right and wrong when performing an abortion. Abortion is part of our culture, lots of reasons for that. In fact, at this time, abortions are a huge part of life. The OT does not say whether or not this is good, only that since it is happening, this is how you should perform your abortion.

not exactly, since scripture teaches not to murder, but it's not an argument I am going to get into on a thread about why christians lose their faith. Bottom line, your posts have shown that traditional understand trumps Biblical understanding all too often and that is often the reason people lose their faith. In the case of abortion vs. slavery, the teaching is not to kill (what that means with a fetus is a whole different discussion yet) whereas with slavery, the teaching is how to treat a slave, that makes it two different things. IOW's from the standpoint of scripture, any murder is sin, but owning a slave is not. That does not mean that one is endorsing slavery, but rather that owning a slave is not sin....given some of the examples already offered as to what slavery was in that day, this makes sense. Hint: it helps you make your point when you compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges in an attempt to get me to make an emotional argument. But then again, I am not an overly emotional person whereby all the emotional arguments stir me the way you want them to.

Your analogy is quite hilarious because it was actually the Jews who were kidnapping and raping the inhabitants of the land. I even specifically reminded you of that. Remember, when I said this:

The genocides are recorded proudly in Joshua. Sometimes genocides were left incomplete so the men could be rewarded with virgins as war loot. Other times defectors from the enemy were spared.

usually, ah, no, sometimes, yes, and as I said, I will not get into a discussion here about all the things you don't like about the scriptures, however, that being said, you will remember if you try that I talked about God's perspective, which applies here as well.

Did you ignore that or did you just automatically not believe it because I didn't cite the book, chapter and verse? I commend your skepticism but your lack of initiative and research skills leaves something to be desired. But here you go. Numbers 31:17-18.

lol...Numbers 31:17-18, what in that are you trying to argue? When I asked you for passages so I could show you the context, I did not ask for passages that show that this happened, duh, I just addressed that it did happen. so...notice in verse this is a matter of vengeance this time around...notice in vs. 3 this is God's vengeance, not the children of Israel, iow's the children of Israel here are like soldiers carrying out the commands of their King. The King is exercising judgment, which btw, is according to scripture, His job. Now in vs. 16, we see that disobedience to the command is in the case of God, like committing adultery, iow's in God's eyes, they are horing around if they don't follow through...now remember, I told you one analogy was that God was protecting His children from kidnappers and murderers and rapists...here is another similar analogy, this time of a husband and wife and adulterer. Now also notice vs. 19-20 where purification after this rampage is required, this basically means (then we study cleansing) that the acts that were being asked of them were horrendous in the eyes of God and yet necessary for the sanctity of the marriage relationship between God and Israel. Then we see the soldiers being paid for their service...you know, like our soldiers receive pay for going into battle....ah well, it is necessary to read the scriptures and study and understand them more so than the teachers who teach their traditions and ask you to buy what they are selling.

So... in essence, your argument is that God wanted to protect the Jews from something like kidnapping and murdering and raping, so he ordered them to go kidnap and murder and rape people in the holy land.

what he ordered them to do was to prevent themselves from being kidnapped, murdered and raped, you know kind of like killing someone in self defense. Oh wait, self defense is an evil thing, right? Good luck trying to convince a jury of peers that self defense is evil, like you are trying to convince me here that it is.

That is not the criteria for whether or not the rapist is executed. The criteria is whether or not the woman is betrothed to another man or not. You are being dishonest to the absolute extreme.

hum...so if a woman is raped and she is married or betrothed, is not stealing as well as rape? Hum, I wonder where at the time the jail cells were that they could put people in for years and years and years....can you show me from archeology where these jails were? Oh well, we like to justify our own ideas without ever understanding anothers perspective. You are free to post passages that we can look at, like we did above.

I was honest, I did not say that the rape victim MUST marry her attacker. I was as charitable as possible, and explained the dynamics of the verse thoroughly. You, however, are twisting the one verse and completely ignoring the other verse. You completely ignore the elephant in the room:

Please tell me what you think a rapist will do to the woman he's already raped if he is forced to marry her.

what are you talking about? If a woman does not fight the rapist, she isn't really being raped now is she? That is the point. If she cries out against the rapist, the rules don't apply, if she doesn't cry out, the rules apply...here is a hint for you, not only was I a victim of an attempted rape but someone very close to me was raped and we both fought our rapists. Another friend was raped by her father and fought back...the very instinct of being raped requires us to fight back. If we don't fight it, we aren't really objecting, now are we? And if we aren't really objecting, just falsely accusing of rape, why should the same rules apply to the rapist? Oh well, moving on, I thought you could have figured that out, but apparently you didn't think about it long enough.

I am talking only about what the Bible says. The Bible says that if you rape a woman who is not betrothed, then you must marry her if she chooses that course of action. The rest of your punishment is a fee to be paid to the father. Meanwhile people are executed for homosexuality or working on the Sabbath.

This is a backwards society. Just acknowledge it.

see above about rape....as to the rest, like I said, this isn't the thread to show you what scripture says about everything that you don't like. If you want to go into detail in another thread, start one and we will look at each one individually and see what the whole picture is as we did above.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

....as to the rest, like I said, this isn't the thread to show you what scripture says about everything that you don't like.

Two things.

Firstly, yes this is the thread to discuss atrocities in scripture because many leave the faith for that very reason.

Secondly, you have again ignored the elephant in the room. What do you think a rapist will do to his victim if he's forced to marry her?

Let's examine Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in your two favorite versions.

The KJV says,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

The NIV says,

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


So the NIV is quite clear. The KJV doesn't address whether she's crying out for help but it says the man is laying hold on her and humbling her. Fifty shades of imagery there. So please get off this "Oh but the other verse is talking about if she cried out" rant you're on and read it for yourself.

One of the laws is about an engaged woman being raped and the other is about a single woman being raped.

 

[razzelflabben]

Two things.

Firstly, yes this is the thread to discuss atrocities in scripture because many leave the faith for that very reason.

your personal interpretation and understanding of the traditions of man are NOT the topic of this thread. As to the point you brought up about how these things affect someone losing their faith, it has been addressed and addressed completely with clarity and fairness for what the text says.

Secondly, you have again ignored the elephant in the room. What do you think a rapist will do to his victim if he's forced to marry her?

I have not ignored any elephant in any room....if the woman calls out, that is, doesn't want to be raped, she doesn't have to marry the rapist and so your question does not apply. That is what you have been told and it is what scripture says.

Let's examine Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in your two favorite versions.

now wait a moment....are you confusing me with another poster as I have suggested previously you are and you didn't respond? Cause there are two problems here 1. I have never said what my two favorite versions are and yet you claim to know them and 2. these are not my two favorite versions and so your wrong in your information wherever you got it from. So how about if instead of making assumptions you can't back, you start playing fair and respond to me when you quote me, not some fabricated version you want to try to convince people that I am, cause the fabricated version is inflammatory posting and thus in violation of forum rules.

The KJV says,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

The NIV says,

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

now, let's approach this one a different way, just to cut down on off topic discussion, the end result is the same, just not as lengthy way of getting there.

Are you aware that the Bible is made up of ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew and Aramaic? As such translation can be a problem. Without even looking at the context, which as I pointed out previously is vital, we can go to the Lexicon, which is for translation purposes and see that the word that the NIV translates rape does not translate as rape but translates into the idea of to catch....https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610&t=KJVhttps://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610&t=KJV this terminology is used all the time when referring to someone who finds a spouse, as in "she/he finally caught you..." If anything, from a purely translational issue this passage tells us that if you have sex with a virgin, you are obligated to marry her.

Then, in order to fully understand the intent, we need to look at the context....now, in context, vs. 24 says exactly what I told you about crying out. iow's it is about whether or not she is a willing participant in the sexual act. notice vs. 25-26 tells us that in the case of rape, not consensual sex, the man is stoned and the woman goes free. Vs. 26 equates rape to murder. Which takes us back to vs. 28 and the translational issue there.

Like I said, it isn't about the traditions of man, but rather what the scriptures really do say.

So the NIV is quite clear. The KJV doesn't address whether she's crying out for help but it says the man is laying hold on her and humbling her. Fifty shades of imagery there. So please get off this "Oh but the other verse is talking about if she cried out" rant you're on and read it for yourself.

see above, I showed you a quick exegesis of the passage which testifies to the truth of what I am telling you. It is not necessary for you to have an emotional response about it like your posts are demonstrating, you are free to believe whatever you want and I am not here to try to convince you of something else. I am here to defend my claim that many fall away because they believe the traditions of man rather than the God of the Bible as He tells us He is in scripture. We know who He is not by what man says about Him, but by what He claims is the authority on who HE is, aka the Bible.

One of the laws is about an engaged woman being raped and the other is about a single woman being raped.

see above, it is all about the context and the translations thereof...not that hard, the same rules we would use for any text especially an ancient one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

your personal interpretation and understanding of the traditions of man are NOT the topic of this thread. As to the point you brought up about how these things affect someone losing their faith, it has been addressed and addressed completely with clarity and fairness for what the text says. I have not ignored any elephant in any room....if the woman calls out, that is, doesn't want to be raped, she doesn't have to marry the rapist and so your question does not apply. That is what you have been told and it is what scripture says. now wait a moment....are you confusing me with another poster as I have suggested previously you are and you didn't respond? Cause there are two problems here 1. I have never said what my two favorite versions are and yet you claim to know them and 2. these are not my two favorite versions and so your wrong in your information wherever you got it from. So how about if instead of making assumptions you can't back, you start playing fair and respond to me when you quote me, not some fabricated version you want to try to convince people that I am, cause the fabricated version is inflammatory posting and thus in violation of forum rules. now, let's approach this one a different way, just to cut down on off topic discussion, the end result is the same, just not as lengthy way of getting there.

Are you aware that the Bible is made up of ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew and Aramaic? As such translation can be a problem. Without even looking at the context, which as I pointed out previously is vital, we can go to the Lexicon, which is for translation purposes and see that the word that the NIV translates rape does not translate as rape but translates into the idea of to catch....https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610&t=KJVhttps://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610&t=KJV this terminology is used all the time when referring to someone who finds a spouse, as in "she/he finally caught you..." If anything, from a purely translational issue this passage tells us that if you have sex with a virgin, you are obligated to marry her.

Then, in order to fully understand the intent, we need to look at the context....now, in context, vs. 24 says exactly what I told you about crying out. iow's it is about whether or not she is a willing participant in the sexual act. notice vs. 25-26 tells us that in the case of rape, not consensual sex, the man is stoned and the woman goes free. Vs. 26 equates rape to murder. Which takes us back to vs. 28 and the translational issue there.

Like I said, it isn't about the traditions of man, but rather what the scriptures really do say. see above, I showed you a quick exegesis of the passage which testifies to the truth of what I am telling you. It is not necessary for you to have an emotional response about it like your posts are demonstrating, you are free to believe whatever you want and I am not here to try to convince you of something else. I am here to defend my claim that many fall away because they believe the traditions of man rather than the God of the Bible as He tells us He is in scripture. We know who He is not by what man says about Him, but by what He claims is the authority on who HE is, aka the Bible. see above, it is all about the context and the translations thereof...not that hard, the same rules we would use for any text especially an ancient one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So what were you saying about me fabricating things?

 

[razzelflabben]

any idea how long ago I posted that? Hint: lots of things in my life have changed since then....geesh, head palm...

 

[razzelflabben]

So what were you saying about me fabricating things?

I'm saying that you don't know as much as you think you know.

But even more telling, you didn't address any of the points I made in exchange for pretending to know things about me that you don't know....based on your information, the best you can claim is that years ago, my favorite translations were....which is like saying that years ago I liked Fred Flintstone.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm saying that you don't know as much as you think you know.

But even more telling, you didn't address any of the points I made in exchange for pretending to know things about me that you don't know....based on your information, the best you can claim is that years ago, my favorite translations were....which is like saying that years ago I liked Fred Flintstone.

What's not to like about Fred Flinstone?

 

[com7fy8]

my own path to atheism. The driving force for me has been thoughts like: "why, God?", "why won't you help me on this?", "why did you let that happen?", ... Eventually I decided that God either didn't exist or didn't care about me (possibly I was predestined for hell). Then I started looking for arguments to rationalize an atheist position that I had already reached for more emotional reasons. I've gone from Christian to atheist twice, and the process was the same both times for me.

Even if someone were to be "predestined for hell", Paul says,

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

To me, personally, this means God is doing some kind of good to each and every person, but we benefit best by trusting Jesus and how He takes care of us. But . . . by the way . . . in order to benefit from how He would care for us, we need to obey how He cares for us. And, leading to Chris's point below, I have seen how some number of ones claiming to be Christians do not obey how God would care for them. And I see what they get themselves into.

I've known Christians wrecked, and even two driven to suicide, despite the best efforts of their friends.
To call "mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" there required more than I could blithely accept.

Each of us is now reaping emotionally according to whatever we have been sowing, for ideas and attitudes and how we train ourselves to react to things not going our way. And this sets us up in pride, or "low and safe" in humility. Pride will bring a fall and shame and blaming.

And one trick is how ones do only what they understand that church culture or even Christians tell them to do > they might only copy-cat and socially conform to the outward stuff. We need to get with God Himself, and leave behind all, and start new >

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

When I fail in this and let this world's old and love-dead stuff get the better of me, I can get into a victim thing and meditate on suicide or letting myself die for some sort of "convenience" of getting out of going through something.

And what of those faithful (by any visible standard) who were not given an all-loving result.

Joseph was faithful > Genesis 37-50. He was sold by his brothers into slavery, then with God he used his situation to save many lives, plus he used his situation to reconcile with his brothers. This did not come in a moment with some quick-fix prayer or method.

I do not personally know the people you are talking about, nor do I know you and all that is really going on in you.

But I have seen how it takes time of investing in being with God, and learning how to love, and more and more strong and mature so we do not get under the power of getting what we want (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 2 Corinthians 6:12). With weakness for pleasure seeking and excitement seeking is weakness for suffering pain and breaking down so one can do bad things. And ones are trying to "use" God for what they want and how they want things to go. But "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and in 1 Peter 5:5). And when certain people are effectively resisted long enough, so they discover they are not going to get what they want mainly or only for their own selves, then is when ones can break down to suicide. Any of us can get to acting like lunatics, if someone or things effectively mess with us getting some selfish pleasure that we treasure; so it is important not to have selfish treasure pleasures.

They did not lose faith, if they did not live in "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).

If you have faith, you stay here because you have people worth staying here to love. Jesus even came from Heaven itself, in order to love us, here; because Jesus valued loving, more than staying with all He had going for Him, in Heaven. There are ones who decide there is no one, at all, worth staying here to love even that one person.

Is "our Father takes care of us in His family caring and sharing love" actually true, or one of those hopes of faith that may not be?"

Well, Chris it is not a "hope". But it means we need to be living in God's family caring and sharing love, so we can discover how "things" are, here.

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

There are people who are selfishly loving, picking and choosing who is good enough for them to love, and worth their attention. In various church culture settings, yes there are in-crowds; this is not "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).

And while we are living in God's family and all-loving love, we enjoy His almighty power to keep us safe from fear and its personality torments >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love." (1 John 4:18)

But I have personally known one who tried to use suicide threats to get me to marry her. She had faith that God would give her everything, and that she could get some guy to spoil her while she kept on in her faulty ways, it seemed to me. She was not making obvious progress in something she needed to do. So, if she gave up "faith", it was not Christian faith which would have her caring as much about others as herself, and first about how to please God while enjoying Him in His love >

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

So, Christian faith has each of us "one spirit with" God Himself in His own love >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

If and as much as I am "one spirit with Him", in this love with this almighty power > this changes my nature to be all-loving and not hung up about what happens or could happen to me. I think Paul discovered this > 2 Corinthians 12:7-15 < God's grace of this love made him become able to take "pleasure" in his troubles and to unconditionally love others, even if they did not love him > "suicide can come when people decide that others do not love them." But Paul's way of loving unconditionally came with correction "and being cured in God's grace." (1 John 4:17)

Included in Christian faith is we seek our Heavenly Father for His correction > Hebrews 12:4-11.

When I let things get the better of me, then, Chris, I pray for God's correction, instead of just trying to change things to be the way I might want. And when I have awful things come to me in paranoid nonsense, I offer myself for correction so that stuff can't mess with me, but also I pray for strength so I will keep on loving even if those things do happen.

Or, I can be a victim. And evil has things set up to bring people away from God. So, I think it is wise not to let evil decide how we see things. And, yes, part of the strategy of Satan's evil kingdom is to have counterfeits who pretend or think they are Christians, so when they fall ones can say, oh look at how Christianity does not work. And the ones falling can make a show and get the attention . . . while the humble and quiet and gentle ones are busy in real life, not getting such attention; but God sees how they are >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

@cloudyday2 So, it could be good to find out why Christians do not lose their faith!

By the way, I do believe in predestination, and I have described how a person predestined becomes and lives because of "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) and God's correction which I understand is life-long > Hebrews 12:4-11 < this is included in the "predestiny". So, if someone is in some thing which is otherwise, trust in Jesus (Ephesians 1:12) and either get started or get back on track and learn from Jesus, instead of learning how this world would have you learn >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)