From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

Christians claim Jesus is God, and we have had discussions on that in
the past.

I want to look more closely at the Old Testament God, who in my opinion
did some pretty immoral things.*

Perhaps the most abhorrent thing he did was command the wholesale
slaughter of the Middianites, but alllowed the Israelites to keep the
Virgins for themselves, nearly 3 to every soldier. Numbers 31:17-19

The other one that springs to mind is forcing a victim of rape to marry
their attacker. Deut. 22:28-29

Lots of others that depict God as a Warlord rather than the loving
Father Christians see him as today.

Jesus however, is the exact opposite. Love your enemies, forgive them,
turn the other cheek etc etc.

So if Jesus is God, why is He the complete opposite of the God of the OT?


*Actually I don't, I think the Israelites (including Moses) attributed
to God what they wanted to do.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 01/12/2025 23:54, John wrote:

Perhaps the most abhorrent thing he did was command the wholesale
slaughter of the Middianites, but alllowed the Israelites to keep the Virgins for themselves, nearly 3 to every soldier.-a Numbers 31:17-19

The slaughter of the Midianites was punishment for the way the Midianite
women led the children of Israel into sin. The women deserved punishment
for seducing the Jewish men, the men deserved punishment for allowing or encouraging their women to do so. Clearly virgins were innocent of
seducing the Jews!

Almost certainly the Midianite women did not just sashay up to random
Jewish men, waggle their eyebrows and say "How about it, darling?"
Rather they induced the Jewish men to take part in the immoral fertility worship of Baal or his Midianite equivalent. So it wasn't just a bit of hanky-panky, but leading Jews into idolatry which was the reason for the severe punishment.

The other one that springs to mind is forcing a victim of rape to marry their attacker.-a Deut. 22:28-29

This has been discussed many times before. It is possible that genuine
rape is the subject of the law, but far more likely that it is seduction
and the girl merely cried rape after being found. Note the point in v.
27 about the girl screaming for help. Presumably in v.28 she didn't
scream for help!

However notice Exodus 22:16, 17 where the father could refuse to give
his daughter to her seducer. Presumably the girl was not without a
tongue and could influence her father's decision.

Lots of others that depict God as a Warlord rather than the loving
Father Christians see him as today.

Certainly, the Jews were a sovereign nation and war is an unavoidable
part of national life.

Jesus however, is the exact opposite.-a Love your enemies, forgive them, turn the other cheek etc etc.

Jesus was laying down principles for individuals, not for a nation.

So if Jesus is God, why is He the complete opposite of the God of the OT?

Because Jesus was envisaging a completely different situation. Private morality as opposed to public or government morality.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 01/12/2025 23:54, John wrote:

Christians claim Jesus is God, and we have had discussions on that in

the past.

I want to look more closely at the Old Testament God, who in my

opinion did some pretty immoral things.*

Perhaps the most abhorrent thing he did was command the wholesale

slaughter of the Middianites, but alllowed the Israelites to keep the
Virgins for themselves, nearly 3 to every soldier. Numbers 31:17-19

The other one that springs to mind is forcing a victim of rape to

marry their attacker. Deut. 22:28-29

Lots of others that depict God as a Warlord rather than the loving

Father Christians see him as today.

Jesus however, is the exact opposite. Love your enemies, forgive

them, turn the other cheek etc etc.

So if Jesus is God, why is He the complete opposite of the God of the OT?

*Actually I don't, I think the Israelites (including Moses)

attributed to God what they wanted to do.


"You have heard it said, but I say..."

The underlying cause of much division is really down to differing understandings as to what the Bible actually is.

To me, the writers of the many books were inspired to write them, but
were not dictated (most of the time) with what to actually say. So my
view is that the Bible is a record of humankind's interaction with God,
as understood by those people at the time.

It is "The Word of God" in much the same sense as when someone might
ask, "Oh, have you had word of Susie?" That is, it is the words people
have written about God. It would include to some extent their own understandings, views and biases, as well as the understanding,
knowledge and culture of the times and places in which they lived.

The rabidly 'conservative evangelicals' OTOH will insist on some
statement such as "The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, perfect and
without error as originally delivered". I usually point out that no such statement appears anywhere in the historic Creeds, and in any case there
are at least some contradictions in differing accounts, and we have
precisely zero original manuscripts.

The King James Version Bibles usually titled the Gospels (for example)
as "The Holy Gospel *according to St Luke*" and so on. So we have four accounts by four different people which differ in places, at least in
minor ways.

So the Bible is necessary and important, but so is the question of how
we should understand it and interpret it, in the light of Christ's
teachings. For the Christian, Christ is at the core, He is "The Word of
God". To be 'Christ Believing' is more central even than being 'Bible Believing'.

I've said before, that there is a difference in the importance of
different writings. Highest being the words of Christ Himself
(especially 'The Sermon On The Mount'), then the Gospels and Acts. After
that, the other New Testament writings such as the letters and
Revelation. Less central, but of importance for complete understanding,
are the Old Testament writings.

Putting Christ at the centre being the core of the matter.

Tim.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* Timreason <10gmmbm$29i71$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:33:58 +0000:

"You have heard it said, but I say..."

The underlying cause of much division is really down to differing understandings as to what the Bible actually is.

To me, the writers of the many books were inspired to write them, but
were not dictated (most of the time) with what to actually say. So my
view is that the Bible is a record of humankind's interaction with
God, as understood by those people at the time.

It is "The Word of God" in much the same sense as when someone might
ask, "Oh, have you had word of Susie?" That is, it is the words people
have written about God. It would include to some extent their own understandings, views and biases, as well as the understanding,
knowledge and culture of the times and places in which they lived.

God does not change but seeng that the bible is a record of his
incremental increasing revelation of himself to man, I don't have a
problem like John does with the apparent incogruities, God's nature has
shown to be larger than that revealed in the incident Midian. In your
walk with God you likely won't have to go through the situation in
Midian again.

The rabidly 'conservative evangelicals' OTOH will insist on some
statement such as "The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, perfect and
without error as originally delivered". I usually point out that no
such statement appears anywhere in the historic Creeds, and in any
case there are at least some contradictions in differing accounts, and
we have precisely zero original manuscripts.

There is a consistency that underlies those claims, that is missed in
the interaction between the rabids and the non-rabids by focussing on
something else.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 15:31, Madhu wrote:

* Timreason <10gmmbm$29i71$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:33:58 +0000:

"You have heard it said, but I say..."

The underlying cause of much division is really down to differing
understandings as to what the Bible actually is.

To me, the writers of the many books were inspired to write them, but
were not dictated (most of the time) with what to actually say. So my
view is that the Bible is a record of humankind's interaction with
God, as understood by those people at the time.

It is "The Word of God" in much the same sense as when someone might
ask, "Oh, have you had word of Susie?" That is, it is the words people
have written about God. It would include to some extent their own
understandings, views and biases, as well as the understanding,
knowledge and culture of the times and places in which they lived.

God does not change but seeng that the bible is a record of his
incremental increasing revelation of himself to man, I don't have a
problem like John does with the apparent incogruities, God's nature has
shown to be larger than that revealed in the incident Midian. In your
walk with God you likely won't have to go through the situation in
Midian again.

God is perfectly just and holy, God is perfectly merciful. God is
perfectly loving. So justice has to be fulfilled, yet God is always
merciful. Hence Christ died for us that the law could be fulfilled, and
yet at the same time offering us mercy. We in no way deserve or merit
that, it is God's Grace alone.

The rabidly 'conservative evangelicals' OTOH will insist on some
statement such as "The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, perfect and
without error as originally delivered". I usually point out that no
such statement appears anywhere in the historic Creeds, and in any
case there are at least some contradictions in differing accounts, and
we have precisely zero original manuscripts.

There is a consistency that underlies those claims, that is missed in
the interaction between the rabids and the non-rabids by focussing on something else.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there. But one key area is that the
church organisation that I worship with, the Church of England, accepts
women as priests and bishops, and indeed has now elected a woman as
Archbishop of Canterbury. That is something I fully accept.

Now, the point of me saying that, is that St Paul very clearly said that
it is "Shameful for a woman to speak in church". Now, the "rabids" would insist that means that a woman clearly cannot be Ordained. I would claim
that St Paul spoke for his time and culture, and this is a different
time and culture, on in which women have equality of opportunity and education, and that is rightly so.

Hence there IS a difference of approach, and I believe the more liberal approach is the right one, for in Christ there is "Neither male nor female".

Tim.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 12:33, Timreason wrote:

To me, the writers of the many books were inspired to write them, but
were not dictated (most of the time) with what to actually say. So my
view is that the Bible is a record of humankind's interaction with God,
as understood by those people at the time.

Certainly God did not dictate the words to the prophets or authors of
the Bible, but I think you underestimate the meaning of "inspired". God
didn't just tell them, "Write a book" but "Write that I am against the
people for their idolatry and will punish them in this particular way."

It is "The Word of God" in much the same sense as when someone might
ask, "Oh, have you had word of Susie?" That is, it is the words people
have written about God. It would include to some extent their own understandings, views and biases, as well as the understanding,
knowledge and culture of the times and places in which they lived.

We have the story of Nathan the prophet who approved of David's plan to
build a temple, but then was sent back the following day with the
opposite message (2 Samuel 7). If these authors were mistaken in what
they wrote, I have no doubt that God was quite capable of correcting them.

The King James Version Bibles usually titled the Gospels (for example)
as "The Holy Gospel *according to St Luke*" and so on. So we have four accounts by four different people which differ in places, at least in
minor ways.

That is how the gospels are titled in the Greek manuscripts

So the Bible is necessary and important, but so is the question of how
we should understand it and interpret it, in the light of Christ's teachings. For the Christian, Christ is at the core, He is "The Word of God". To be 'Christ Believing' is more central even than being 'Bible Believing'.

Er - how do you know about Christ except through the Bible? Written by
these imperfect authors with their cultural views and biases?

Putting Christ at the centre being the core of the matter.

To claim that we must put Christ above the Bible is a statement of such astounding illogicality that only a liberal could make it. We know
nothing about Christ except from the Bible. We have no record of His
words and teachings except in the Bible. But in the Bible both Jesus and
His followers endorse and praise the Bible, so if you insist on the
words of Jesus, why not accept what He said? "Search the Scriptures, for
in them ye have eternal life - and they testify about Me."

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 15:31, Madhu wrote:

God does not change but seeng that the bible is a record of his
incremental increasing revelation of himself to man, I don't have a
problem like John does with the apparent incogruities, God's nature has
shown to be larger than that revealed in the incident Midian. In your
walk with God you likely won't have to go through the situation in
Midian again.

That's an interesting statement. Was God's revelation of Himself
increasing or is it merely the record which was increasing? Did Adam
know less about God than - say - Elijah?

So I agree that by the end of the Old Testament *we* have a fuller understanding of God than we would if we confined ourselves to the early
books of the Old Testament, but does that mean that the authors of those
early books *knew* less about God than the later authors?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 16:55, Timreason wrote:

God is perfectly just and holy, God is perfectly merciful. God is
perfectly loving. So justice has to be fulfilled, yet God is always merciful. Hence Christ died for us that the law could be fulfilled, and
yet at the same time offering us mercy. We in no way deserve or merit
that, it is God's Grace alone.

Amen to the above. I merely point out that complete mercy and strict
justice are often in contradiction. Mercy for the criminal means
injustice for the victim. The sacrifice of Jesus is a work-around, a
judicial fudge that allows some of the contradictions to be resolved.

I would also point out that if God could abolish the law - as so many Christians are fond of claiming - then Jesus need not have died.

Now, the point of me saying that, is that St Paul very clearly said that
it is "Shameful for a woman to speak in church". Now, the "rabids" would insist that means that a woman clearly cannot be Ordained. I would claim that St Paul spoke for his time and culture, and this is a different
time and culture, on in which women have equality of opportunity and education, and that is rightly so.

Or even just for one particular city within that time and culture.

Hence there IS a difference of approach, and I believe the more liberal approach is the right one, for in Christ there is "Neither male nor
female".

Indeed, so the general principle over-rules the particular instruction,
whichi may be valid in a certain circumstance, but if that circumstance
no longer applies, then the particular instruction lapses.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* "Kendall K. Down" <10gonbh$31sef$2@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:03:14 +0000:

On 02/12/2025 15:31, Madhu wrote:

God does not change but seeng that the bible is a record of his
incremental increasing revelation of himself to man, I don't have a
problem like John does with the apparent incogruities, God's nature has
shown to be larger than that revealed in the incident Midian. In your
walk with God you likely won't have to go through the situation in
Midian again.

That's an interesting statement. Was God's revelation of Himself
increasing or is it merely the record which was increasing?

We are talking of the record, but given the record I think it implies
what you stated.

Did Adam know less about God than - say - Elijah?

Less than either will know in the resurrection, I'd think.

So I agree that by the end of the Old Testament *we* have a fuller understanding of God than we would if we confined ourselves to the
early books of the Old Testament, but does that mean that the authors
of those early books *knew* less about God than the later authors?

I see no reason to believe, from the bible they had a full absolute understanding of God but only through a glass, darkly.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 12:33, Timreason wrote:

On 01/12/2025 23:54, John wrote:

Christians claim Jesus is God, and we have had discussions on that in

the past.

I want to look more closely at the Old Testament God, who in my

opinion did some pretty immoral things.*

Perhaps the most abhorrent thing he did was command the wholesale

slaughter of the Middianites, but alllowed the Israelites to keep the Virgins for themselves, nearly 3 to every soldier.-a Numbers 31:17-19

The other one that springs to mind is forcing a victim of rape to

marry their attacker.-a Deut. 22:28-29

Lots of others that depict God as a Warlord rather than the loving

Father Christians see him as today.

Jesus however, is the exact opposite.-a Love your enemies, forgive

them, turn the other cheek etc etc.

So if Jesus is God, why is He the complete opposite of the God of the

OT?

*Actually I don't, I think the Israelites (including Moses)

attributed to God what they wanted to do.

So the Bible is necessary and important, but so is the question of how
we should understand it and interpret it, in the light of Christ's teachings. For the Christian, Christ is at the core, He is "The Word of God". To be 'Christ Believing' is more central even than being 'Bible Believing'.

<snip>

Putting Christ at the centre being the core of the matter.

Indeed. Not withstanding Ken's point that all we know about Jesus is
what is written in the bible, I do agree with your point above.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 02:53, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 01/12/2025 23:54, John wrote:

Perhaps the most abhorrent thing he did was command the wholesale
slaughter of the Middianites, but alllowed the Israelites to keep the
Virgins for themselves, nearly 3 to every soldier.-a Numbers 31:17-19

The slaughter of the Midianites was punishment for the way the Midianite women led the children of Israel into sin. The women deserved punishment
for seducing the Jewish men, the men deserved punishment for allowing or encouraging their women to do so. Clearly virgins were innocent of
seducing the Jews!

You have heard that it was said, rCyAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.rCO 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.....You
have heard that it was said, rCyYou shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.rCO But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you... Matthew 5:38,43

Almost certainly the Midianite women did not just sashay up to random
Jewish men, waggle their eyebrows and say "How about it, darling?"
Rather they induced the Jewish men to take part in the immoral fertility worship of Baal or his Midianite equivalent. So it wasn't just a bit of hanky-panky, but leading Jews into idolatry which was the reason for the severe punishment.

So the God who cammanded this is the same God who speaks in Matthew 5?
How does that work?

The other one that springs to mind is forcing a victim of rape to
marry their attacker.-a Deut. 22:28-29

This has been discussed many times before. It is possible that genuine
rape is the subject of the law, but far more likely that it is seduction
and the girl merely cried rape after being found. Note the point in v.
27 about the girl screaming for help. Presumably in v.28 she didn't
scream for help!

It mentions if the girl is seized, so hardly seduction!

You're inferring something into the text something that isn't in the
text. Verses 23-24 refer to a girl in the city, who would be put to
death because she didn't scream for help, wheas in the country (verse
25ff) no one would hear her scream. The only difference between verse
27 and 28 is one is betrothed, the other isn't.

It doesn't paint God in a good light though.

1. The girl in the city has to scream to avoid being put to death. What
if she simply freezes, taken by surprise by the attack.

2. A virgin's rape isn't as serious as a betrotheds rape, as the man
isn't put to death in the virgin's case

However notice Exodus 22:16, 17 where the father could refuse to give
his daughter to her seducer. Presumably the girl was not without a
tongue and could influence her father's decision.

Exodus contains the original laws I believe and Dueteronomy expounds on
them. I'm pretty certain that no girl would want to marry her rapist, so Exodus contains a goood restriction. I've just read the Dueteronomy one again, and it's quite specific, no room or objection from the daughter.

Lots of others that depict God as a Warlord rather than the loving
Father Christians see him as today.

Certainly, the Jews were a sovereign nation and war is an unavoidable
part of national life.

So would you agree that the Law was just for the Jews, not the Gentiles?

Jesus however, is the exact opposite.-a Love your enemies, forgive
them, turn the other cheek etc etc.

Jesus was laying down principles for individuals, not for a nation.

It was God who gave the laws for his people. If they are laws akin to
the laws of a nation (similar how the criminal laws we have are for
Britain's inhabitants. then they definitely don't apply to the Christian.

So if Jesus is God, why is He the complete opposite of the God of the OT?

Because Jesus was envisaging a completely different situation. Private morality as opposed to public or government morality.

Well OT God said an eye for an eye, NT God said the opposite, are you
sure they're the same God?



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 16:55, Timreason wrote:

God is perfectly just and holy, God is perfectly merciful. God is
perfectly loving. So justice has to be fulfilled, yet God is always merciful. Hence Christ died for us that the law could be fulfilled, and
yet at the same time offering us mercy. We in no way deserve or merit
that, it is God's Grace alone.

I do have a major quibble there Tim. He wasn't merciful to Lot's wife,
Esau or indeed the Midianites.

Sure, in the light of the cross you can say these things, but they
weren't so previous to that.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/12/2025 15:31, Madhu wrote:

* Timreason <10gmmbm$29i71$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:33:58 +0000:

"You have heard it said, but I say..."

The underlying cause of much division is really down to differing
understandings as to what the Bible actually is.

To me, the writers of the many books were inspired to write them, but
were not dictated (most of the time) with what to actually say. So my
view is that the Bible is a record of humankind's interaction with
God, as understood by those people at the time.

It is "The Word of God" in much the same sense as when someone might
ask, "Oh, have you had word of Susie?" That is, it is the words people
have written about God. It would include to some extent their own
understandings, views and biases, as well as the understanding,
knowledge and culture of the times and places in which they lived.

God does not change but seeng that the bible is a record of his
incremental increasing revelation of himself to man, I don't have a
problem like John does with the apparent incogruities, God's nature has
shown to be larger than that revealed in the incident Midian. In your
walk with God you likely won't have to go through the situation in
Midian again.

You think he mellowed with age? (that's tongue in cheek btw)

I'm sure you're right that there is much more to God than the Midian
incident (but as I said there are countless others) It would seem to me
though that when Jesus came it was a 360 degree turnaround.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/12/2025 11:22, Madhu wrote:

So I agree that by the end of the Old Testament *we* have a fuller
understanding of God than we would if we confined ourselves to the
early books of the Old Testament, but does that mean that the authors
of those early books *knew* less about God than the later authors?

I see no reason to believe, from the bible they had a full absolute understanding of God but only through a glass, darkly.

But that's just it! The Bible is merely what they chose to write down,
it is not necessarily the sum total of what they knew about God.

Just to give one example: Job - or Moses speaking through the character
Job - declares "I know that my Redeemer lives and will stand upon the
earth in the last day". But surely behind those words there must have
been a doctrine of sin and redemption, of last days and last day events,
of death and resurrection, yet Job merely gives us a hint at what may
very well have been a complex doctrine.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/12/2025 07:10, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 02/12/2025 16:55, Timreason wrote:

God is perfectly just and holy, God is perfectly merciful. God is
perfectly loving. So justice has to be fulfilled, yet God is always
merciful. Hence Christ died for us that the law could be fulfilled,
and yet at the same time offering us mercy. We in no way deserve or
merit that, it is God's Grace alone.

Amen to the above. I merely point out that complete mercy and strict
justice are often in contradiction. Mercy for the criminal means
injustice for the victim. The sacrifice of Jesus is a work-around, a judicial fudge that allows some of the contradictions to be resolved.

What was wrong with the old system? SDA's and their followers seem to
have likeed it. A workaround sounds messy, and doesn't seem to be the solution.

I would also point out that if God could abolish the law - as so many Christians are fond of claiming - then Jesus need not have died.

Christians claim the written law is abolished for the Gentile. Jesus
himself said not one jot or tittle etc, but only for those under the law.

Paul himself said you are not under law but under Grace.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/12/2025 23:34, John wrote:

You have heard that it was said, rCyAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.rCO 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.....You
have heard that it was said, rCyYou shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.rCO But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...-a Matthew 5:38,43

So? In what way does that constitute a response to what I told you?

So the God who cammanded this is the same God who speaks in Matthew 5?
How does that work?

Well, you tell me. You come home and find a burglar ransacking your
property. You call the police and the police reply by urging you to love
your enemies and not resist evil. Will you be satisfied with their response?

Is it really so difficult for you to get your head around the idea that personal morality and government morality are two different things?

It mentions if the girl is seized, so hardly seduction!

Or possibly the girl *says* she was seized?

1. The girl in the city has to scream to avoid being put to death.-a What
if she simply freezes, taken by surprise by the attack.

Possible - but in a crowded eastern city or village, a bit unlikely.

2. A virgin's rape isn't as serious as a betrotheds rape, as the man
isn't put to death in the virgin's case

It is assumed that the betrothed woman will be fixed on her forthcoming marriage, whereas a virgin is more open to seduction.

Exodus contains the original laws I believe and Dueteronomy expounds on them. I'm pretty certain that no girl would want to marry her rapist, so Exodus contains a goood restriction.-a I've just read the Dueteronomy one again, and it's quite specific, no room or objection from the daughter.

It depends on whether Deuteronomy replaces Exodus or is additional to
it. I believe the latter.

So would you agree that the Law was just for the Jews, not the Gentiles?

It was for anyone who came under Jewish jurisdiction. If you lived in Bethlehem, say, it didn't matter whether you were a Jew or a Gentile,
the provisions of the national law applied. Curiously, the same is true
here in Britain; even if you are just a tourist you are still expected
to drive on the left.

It was God who gave the laws for his people. If they are laws akin to
the laws of a nation (similar how the criminal laws we have are for Britain's inhabitants. then they definitely don't apply to the Christian.

Exactly, which is why the 39 Articles draw the distinction they do
between the civil statutes given to Israel and the moral law of Ten Commandments.

Well OT God said an eye for an eye, NT God said the opposite, are you
sure they're the same God?

Yes, dealing with two different situations: laws for a nation-state,
guidance for a Christian individual.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 04/12/2025 00:02, John wrote:

What was wrong with the old system?-a SDA's and their followers seem to
have likeed it.-a A workaround sounds messy, and doesn't seem to be the solution.

What old system?

Christians claim the written law is abolished for the Gentile.-a Jesus himself said not one jot or tittle etc, but only for those under the law. Paul himself said you are not under law but under Grace.

Do you ever take time to think about the stupidity of your position? If
I, as a Christian, do not have to obey any laws (presumably divine laws;
laws passed by parliament are a different matter) then I am free to
commit adultery with your wife, steal from your house, and murder you if
you object.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/12/2025 23:50, John wrote:

I do have a major quibble there Tim. He wasn't merciful to Lot's wife,
Esau or indeed the Midianites.

Sorry? God sent angels to drag Lot's wife out of Sodom; she chose to
stop and look back and get caught by the spreading destruction.

I'm not sure what Esau has to do with anything.

The Midianites could have remained neutral, because God forbade the Jews
to attack any of the nations east of Jordan - Edomites, Moabites or
Ammonites - on the basis that they were related to the Jews. The
Midianites would have been included in this prohibition, but chose to
attack Israel, first by the magical arts of Balaam, then by trying to
remove God's protection by inducing the Jews to worship other gods.

When a nation is attacked, it responds. I accept that that is a concept
a bit difficult for you to grasp, but that is hardly God's fault.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/12/2025 23:50, John wrote:

On 02/12/2025 16:55, Timreason wrote:

God is perfectly just and holy, God is perfectly merciful. God is
perfectly loving. So justice has to be fulfilled, yet God is always
merciful. Hence Christ died for us that the law could be fulfilled,
and yet at the same time offering us mercy. We in no way deserve or
merit that, it is God's Grace alone.

I do have a major quibble there Tim. He wasn't merciful to Lot's wife,
Esau or indeed the Midianites.

Sure, in the light of the cross you can say these things, but they
weren't so previous to that.

Yes, it is difficult to understand. Lot's wife 'Looked back' and was
turned into a pillar of salt. One might take a message from that about
either not turning away from evil, or about failing to heed warnings.

As for the Midianites, often those in power will justify their actions
by saying 'God is on our side', or 'It is the will of God'. We still see
this today, whether the language of those in power uses the word 'God'
or 'Allah'. We might have reservations about whether God was really
justifying genocide. It's a difficult one, especially as God had also
wiped out everyone except Noah and his family in the past.

I suppose we just don't have the full picture, and I don't think we
should tie ourselves down to a temporal perspective. I believe it is
entirely possible that the work of Christ on the Cross is applied for
all time, that is, both past and present, and although those peoples'
Earthly lives were ended, many of them may still have been saved. Who
knows what God may do?

Tim.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* "Kendall K. Down" <10gtvn6$139k9$2@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 5 Dec 2025 06:56:38 +0000:

Do you ever take time to think about the stupidity of your position?
If I, as a Christian, do not have to obey any laws (presumably divine
laws; laws passed by parliament are a different matter) then I am free
to commit adultery with your wife, steal from your house

Don't you believe Paul? Yes, you are free to do that. But presumably
because of the promptings of the holy spirit, you realise it is not
expedient to do that, and so are not overcome by and brought under the
mastery of those things

, and murder
you if you object.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* Timreason <10gu74t$15p0b$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 5 Dec 2025 09:03:26 +0000:

As for the Midianites, often those in power will justify their actions
by saying 'God is on our side', or 'It is the will of God'. We still
see this today, whether the language of those in power uses the word
'God' or 'Allah'. We might have reservations about whether God was
really justifying genocide. It's a difficult one, especially as God
had also wiped out everyone except Noah and his family in the past.

I suppose we just don't have the full picture, and I don't think we
should tie ourselves down to a temporal perspective.

I agree. While I affirm scripture to be final, I also believe it has a
fair amount of the propaganda of its times, which should not be
considered to be inspired, and have to be filtered out with a propaganda
filter (in an exegetically consistent way)

The prowling troops of Midian would have been a terror to fledgling
israel, you probably shouldn't blame them for some victory propaganda on
that account.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.wodehouse/c/9BLCq04Oo4c https://ccel.org/ccel/neale/easternhymns.H8.html

I believe it is
entirely possible that the work of Christ on the Cross is applied for
all time, that is, both past and present, and although those peoples'
Earthly lives were ended, many of them may still have been saved. Who
knows what God may do?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 09:52, Madhu wrote:

Don't you believe Paul? Yes, you are free to do that. But presumably because of the promptings of the holy spirit, you realise it is not
expedient to do that, and so are not overcome by and brought under the mastery of those things

No, I don't believe Paul - if Paul actually teaches such nonsense. Fortunately, he doesn't. "Shall we sin, that grace may abound? God
forbid!" and again, "Shall we sin, because we are not under the law but
under grace? God forbid!"

"The law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good ... we know
that the law is spiritual."

If I am spiritual, then I will be obedient to the spiritual law. And in
case you still want to argue your silly idea, Paul defines which law he
is talking about in Romans 7:7: it is the law which says "thou shalt not covet". Would you like to have three guesses as to which law contains
that particular commandment?

[ ] The Code of Hammurabi
[ ] The laws of Amenhotep III
[ ] The Ten Commandments

Go on, did you get it right?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 09:03, Timreason wrote:

Yes, it is difficult to understand. Lot's wife 'Looked back' and was
turned into a pillar of salt. One might take a message from that about either not turning away from evil, or about failing to heed warnings.

My picture of it is that the fire fell from God, possibly igniting
sulphur which is very prevalent around the Dead Sea. By walking quickly
Lot and his daughters were able to keep ahead of the gas as it crept
across the landscape around Sodom, but his wife stopped to look back and
was caught in it.

Anything which falls into the shallow water is very quickly covered in
salt crystals, so when people - possibly Lot himself -went back to look
for her a couple of days later, they found her body so covered in salt
that "a pillar of salt" is a reasonable description.

https://www.geologyin.com/2019/07/mystery-of-bizarre-salt-crystals-in.html
The picture says it all.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 10:01, Madhu wrote:

I agree. While I affirm scripture to be final, I also believe it has a
fair amount of the propaganda of its times, which should not be
considered to be inspired, and have to be filtered out with a propaganda filter (in an exegetically consistent way)

Which basically means that you put yourself above Scripture, because you
are the one who is deciding what is inspired and what is not.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.wodehouse/c/9BLCq04Oo4c

I like the reference to P.G.Wodehouse.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 06:52, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 03/12/2025 23:34, John wrote:

You have heard that it was said, rCyAn eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth.rCO 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.....You
have heard that it was said, rCyYou shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy.rCO But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you...-a Matthew 5:38,43

So? In what way does that constitute a response to what I told you?

So the God who cammanded this is the same God who speaks in Matthew 5?
How does that work?

Well, you tell me. You come home and find a burglar ransacking your property. You call the police and the police reply by urging you to love your enemies and not resist evil. Will you be satisfied with their
response?

Is it really so difficult for you to get your head around the idea that personal morality and government morality are two different things?

It mentions if the girl is seized, so hardly seduction!

Or possibly the girl *says* she was seized?

Oh, you're part of she asked for it brigade are you? That's not what
the text says at all. It is (allegedly) God speaking and the text says,
quite plainly, seized.

1. The girl in the city has to scream to avoid being put to death.
What if she simply freezes, taken by surprise by the attack.

Possible - but in a crowded eastern city or village, a bit unlikely.

How little your understanding of rape. I confess that as a man I do not
share that experience either, but I've read countless accounts of rape
where the woman has frozen rather than screamed out.

"This is a common reaction to rape and sexual violence. Freezing is not
giving consent, it is an instinctive survival response"

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight

2. A virgin's rape isn't as serious as a betrotheds rape, as the man
isn't put to death in the virgin's case

It is assumed that the betrothed woman will be fixed on her forthcoming marriage, whereas a virgin is more open to seduction.

Seduction is a funny definition of rape.

Exodus contains the original laws I believe and Dueteronomy expounds
on them. I'm pretty certain that no girl would want to marry her
rapist, so Exodus contains a goood restriction.-a I've just read the
Dueteronomy one again, and it's quite specific, no room or objection
from the daughter.

It depends on whether Deuteronomy replaces Exodus or is additional to
it. I believe the latter.

So would you agree that the Law was just for the Jews, not the Gentiles?

It was for anyone who came under Jewish jurisdiction. If you lived in Bethlehem, say, it didn't matter whether you were a Jew or a Gentile,
the provisions of the national law applied. Curiously, the same is true
here in Britain; even if you are just a tourist you are still expected
to drive on the left.

So the Jewish Law is not for Jews living anywhere other than Israel?

It was God who gave the laws for his people. If they are laws akin to
the laws of a nation (similar how the criminal laws we have are for
Britain's inhabitants. then they definitely don't apply to the Christian.

Exactly, which is why the 39 Articles draw the distinction they do
between the civil statutes given to Israel and the moral law of Ten Commandments.

That's not what the 39 articles say, but having checked it, it's fine,
because the 4th commandment isn't about morality

Well OT God said an eye for an eye, NT God said the opposite, are you
sure they're the same God?

Yes, dealing with two different situations: laws for a nation-state, guidance for a Christian individual.

Strange then that Acts 15 came about because some Jews were insisting
the Gentiles should be circumcised, even if not in the land of Isreal.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

* "Kendall K. Down" <10gue7v$18p03$3@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 5 Dec 2025 11:04:32 +0000:

On 05/12/2025 10:01, Madhu wrote:

I agree. While I affirm scripture to be final, I also believe it has a
fair amount of the propaganda of its times, which should not be
considered to be inspired, and have to be filtered out with a propaganda
filter (in an exegetically consistent way)

Which basically means that you put yourself above Scripture, because
you are the one who is deciding what is inspired and what is not.

Not at all. Any talk at all about scripture is exegesis. I'm just
suggesting a principle which should you should apply when doing it to do
it right.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 06:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 04/12/2025 00:02, John wrote:

What was wrong with the old system?-a SDA's and their followers seem to
have likeed it.-a A workaround sounds messy, and doesn't seem to be the
solution.

What old system?

The one in place before Jesus came. Repentance once a year and you went
to Heaven if you were a good boy (or girl)

Christians claim the written law is abolished for the Gentile.-a Jesus
himself said not one jot or tittle etc, but only for those under the law.
Paul himself said you are not under law but under Grace.

Do you ever take time to think about the stupidity of your position? If
I, as a Christian, do not have to obey any laws (presumably divine laws; laws passed by parliament are a different matter) then I am free to
commit adultery with your wife, steal from your house, and murder you if
you object.

No, but do you refrain from such activities because of some words in a
book or because you have the spiritual law written on your heart?



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 09:52, Madhu wrote:

* "Kendall K. Down" <10gtvn6$139k9$2@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 5 Dec 2025 06:56:38 +0000:

Do you ever take time to think about the stupidity of your position?
If I, as a Christian, do not have to obey any laws (presumably divine
laws; laws passed by parliament are a different matter) then I am free
to commit adultery with your wife, steal from your house

Don't you believe Paul? Yes, you are free to do that. But presumably because of the promptings of the holy spirit, you realise it is not
expedient to do that, and so are not overcome by and brought under the mastery of those things

I've pretty much said the same thing, having not seen your post.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 05/12/2025 10:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 05/12/2025 09:52, Madhu wrote:

Don't you believe Paul?-a Yes, you are free to do that.-a But presumably
because of the promptings of the holy spirit, you realise it is not
expedient to do that, and so are not overcome by and brought under the
mastery of those things

No, I don't believe Paul - if Paul actually teaches such nonsense. Fortunately, he doesn't. "Shall we sin, that grace may abound? God
forbid!" and again, "Shall we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid!"

"The law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good ... we know
that the law is spiritual."

Christians have the spiritual law written on their hearts. Paul says
here that the written law, despite being good and holy, led to death,
because it couldn't be upheld by sinful man.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/12/2025 14:40, John wrote:

Oh, you're part of she asked for it brigade are you?-a That's not what
the text says at all. It is (allegedly) God speaking and the text says, quite plainly, seized.

It does happen.

How little your understanding of rape. I confess that as a man I do not share that experience either, but I've read countless accounts of rape
where the woman has frozen rather than screamed out.

Was she in an eastern city with dozens of people within earshot?

Seduction is a funny definition of rape.

It doesn't specify rape, merely that the couple were found in delicto.

So the Jewish Law is not for Jews living anywhere other than Israel?

Well, put yourself in the case of a Jew in the 1st century AD. If he was
in Israel and stole a sheep, he had to repay four sheep for each animal stolen. If he was in Rome he got thrown to the lions.

That's not what the 39 articles say, but having checked it, it's fine, because the 4th commandment isn't about morality

The 4th commandment is one of the ten which make up the Moral Law.

Strange then that Acts 15 came about because some Jews were insisting
the Gentiles should be circumcised, even if not in the land of Isreal.

Certainly - and the council decided that those Jews were wrong.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/12/2025 15:53, John wrote:

Christians have the spiritual law written on their hearts.

Now if God writes His law on your heart, that doesn't really sound as if
He has abolished His law, does it?

Oh, and the promise to write the law on your heart was given to the Jews
in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31). So Jews too would have the spiritual
law written on their hearts.

Paul says
here that the written law, despite being good and holy, led to death, because it couldn't be upheld by sinful man.

Certainly - and that applies whether the law is written on your heart or
not. The only solution is Romans 8:1 "There is, therefore now, no condemnation".

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/12/2025 15:10, John wrote:

The one in place before Jesus came. Repentance once a year and you went
to Heaven if you were a good boy (or girl)

Actually, you had to offer sacrifices (which called for repentance) more
often than once a year. And when a couple of chaps came to Jesus at
different times and asked how to be saved (go to heave) the answer was,
Keep the commandments. So obviously Jesus endorsed the old system.

No, but do you refrain from such activities because of some words in a
book or because you have the spiritual law written on your heart?

Both. I know the spiritual law which is written on my heart because I
have read it in a book. Of course, because the law is written on my
heart, when I see it in a book I recognise it instantly as God's will
and determine to obey it.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/12/2025 14:48, Madhu wrote:

Not at all. Any talk at all about scripture is exegesis. I'm just suggesting a principle which should you should apply when doing it to do
it right.

So long as you accept that *all* Scripture is given by inspiration of
God and is profitable, that's fine. It's when you start saying "This
verse" or "this chapter" is not from God and I can disregard it that you
get onto dangerous ground.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 09/12/2025 19:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 06/12/2025 14:40, John wrote:

Oh, you're part of she asked for it brigade are you?-a That's not what
the text says at all. It is (allegedly) God speaking and the text
says, quite plainly, seized.

It does happen.

Please define what you mean. I hope you don't mean that a woman asks to
be raped?

How little your understanding of rape. I confess that as a man I do
not share that experience either, but I've read countless accounts of
rape where the woman has frozen rather than screamed out.

Was she in an eastern city with dozens of people within earshot?

Why do they need to be in an Eastern city? Are you suggesting that if a
woman is dragged off the street and the man has sex with her and she
doesn't cry out, then it's not rape?

Seduction is a funny definition of rape.

It doesn't specify rape, merely that the couple were found in delicto.

Seized means to take forcibly.

So the Jewish Law is not for Jews living anywhere other than Israel?

Well, put yourself in the case of a Jew in the 1st century AD. If he was
in Israel and stole a sheep, he had to repay four sheep for each animal stolen. If he was in Rome he got thrown to the lions.

Ah right, so the Jewish laws only apply to the nation of Israel, which
is pretty much what I said at the start of our conversation.

That's not what the 39 articles say, but having checked it, it's fine,
because the 4th commandment isn't about morality

The 4th commandment is one of the ten which make up the Moral Law.

Really? I've looked again at the 10 commandments and I can see nothing
to indicate that they are moral, or binding on everyone who isn't
Jewish. Some of the 10 are moral, some are not.

Obviously Christians follow a moral code that will include the moral
aspects of any of the Jewish laws, as well as adopting an empethatic undrstanding of other people. For instance I would adopt Exodus 22:21
and 23:9 but because it's the right thing to do, not because I was
instructed to. Christians follow a spiritual law written on their
hearts, not a written set of rules.

Strange then that Acts 15 came about because some Jews were insisting
the Gentiles should be circumcised, even if not in the land of Isreal.

Certainly - and the council decided that those Jews were wrong.

So why do you insist Christians are bound by certain aspects of Jewish
law when they aren't.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 09/12/2025 19:50, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 06/12/2025 15:53, John wrote:

Christians have the spiritual law written on their hearts.

Now if God writes His law on your heart, that doesn't really sound as if
He has abolished His law, does it?

Galations 3 explains it better than I can.

Oh, and the promise to write the law on your heart was given to the Jews
in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31). So Jews too would have the spiritual
law written on their hearts.

Do you think it applied then or a future event? Hint: the answer is in
verse 31 onwards.

Paul says here that the written law, despite being good and holy, led
to death, because it couldn't be upheld by sinful man.

Certainly - and that applies whether the law is written on your heart or not. The only solution is Romans 8:1 "There is, therefore now, no condemnation".

But Christians don't have all 613 laws written on their herats do they?
The good ones follow the Spirit's guidance, they don't obey just because they're supposed to.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 09/12/2025 19:53, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 06/12/2025 15:10, John wrote:

The one in place before Jesus came. Repentance once a year and you
went to Heaven if you were a good boy (or girl)

Actually, you had to offer sacrifices (which called for repentance) more often than once a year. And when a couple of chaps came to Jesus at different times and asked how to be saved (go to heave) the answer was,
Keep the commandments. So obviously Jesus endorsed the old system.

Obviously Jesus couldn't count, cos He missed 5 of them out.

No, but do you refrain from such activities because of some words in a
book or because you have the spiritual law written on your heart?

Both. I know the spiritual law which is written on my heart because I
have read it in a book. Of course, because the law is written on my
heart, when I see it in a book I recognise it instantly as God's will
and determine to obey it.

So, without the book you wouldn't know how to follow God's laws?

Yet you believe other people can come to faith in God, even if they
don't know Christ as their Saviour and haven't read the laws you refer to.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 12/12/2025 13:47, John wrote:

But Christians don't have all 613 laws written on their herats do they?
The good ones follow the Spirit's guidance, they don't obey just because they're supposed to.

God says He will write His laws on our hearts. He does not specify which
laws. I would say that it is the moral principles contained in the Ten Commandments. I would also say that there is virtue in obeying just
because you are supposed to. Morality isn't a question of feelings.
Adultery is wrong, whether you feel that it is or should be.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 12/12/2025 13:55, John wrote:

Obviously Jesus couldn't count, cos He missed 5 of them out.

He enumerated the laws from the second table and I believe He had
reasons for doing that.

So, without the book you wouldn't know how to follow God's laws?

That is what St Paul says when he remarks that he had not known sin
without the law.

Yet you believe other people can come to faith in God, even if they
don't know Christ as their Saviour and haven't read the laws you refer to.

That's because you are not saved by law-keeping but by your relationship
with God.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 12/12/2025 13:30, John wrote:

Please define what you mean. I hope you don't mean that a woman asks to
be raped?

I mean that women have been known to cry "rape" when in fact the sex was consensual but they later regret it.

Why do they need to be in an Eastern city? Are you suggesting that if a woman is dragged off the street and the man has sex with her and she
doesn't cry out, then it's not rape?

Because eastern cities are rather more crowded than western ones. Here
you could drag a woman into your semi-d and no one would hear her cries
for help. In Saharanpur there's the extended family of twelve packed
into the same area and even in the rich man's house, there are a dozen servants dotted around the place.

If she doesn't cry out when there are people nearby, one has to wonder why.

Ah right, so the Jewish laws only apply to the nation of Israel, which
is pretty much what I said at the start of our conversation.

The civil laws only apply to the nation of Israel. The Ten Commandments
are universal, as the 39 Articles acknowledge.

Really?-a I've looked again at the 10 commandments and I can see nothing
to indicate that they are moral, or binding on everyone who isn't
Jewish.-a Some of the 10 are moral, some are not.

Go on then, which ones aren't moral?

Obviously Christians follow a moral code that will include the moral
aspects of any of the Jewish laws, as well as adopting an empethatic undrstanding of other people.-a For instance I would adopt Exodus 22:21
and 23:9 but because it's the right thing to do, not because I was instructed to. Christians follow a spiritual law written on their
hearts, not a written set of rules.

I'm glad to hear that you would not oppress the stranger - which of
course comes under "love your neighbour as yourself". Your position
seems to be that of the Nicolaitans: if it feels right to you, go do it, because you are Spirit-led so any impulse must be right.

So why do you insist Christians are bound by certain aspects of Jewish
law when they aren't.

I agree with the 39 Articles. In fact, I agree with just about every
Christian thinker. I've read commentaries and books of exegesis and they
all say that Christians must keep the Ten Commandments - right up to the
point where you point out that commandment 4 requires you to keep
Saturday instead of Sunday and all of a sudden antinomianism rules.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 13/12/2025 06:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 12/12/2025 13:30, John wrote:

Please define what you mean. I hope you don't mean that a woman asks
to be raped?

I mean that women have been known to cry "rape" when in fact the sex was consensual but they later regret it.

That is true, but it's certainly not the norm.

Why do they need to be in an Eastern city? Are you suggesting that if
a woman is dragged off the street and the man has sex with her and she
doesn't cry out, then it's not rape?

Because eastern cities are rather more crowded than western ones. Here
you could drag a woman into your semi-d and no one would hear her cries
for help. In Saharanpur there's the extended family of twelve packed
into the same area and even in the rich man's house, there are a dozen servants dotted around the place.

If she doesn't cry out when there are people nearby, one has to wonder why.

One really doesn't. Try frozen in fear, or scream and I'll slit your
throat as a couple of reasons.

Ah right, so the Jewish laws only apply to the nation of Israel, which
is pretty much what I said at the start of our conversation.

The civil laws only apply to the nation of Israel. The Ten Commandments
are universal, as the 39 Articles acknowledge.

The 39 articles are not the bible. Where in the bible does it say these
are universal commandments?

Really?-a I've looked again at the 10 commandments and I can see
nothing to indicate that they are moral, or binding on everyone who
isn't Jewish.-a Some of the 10 are moral, some are not.

Go on then, which ones aren't moral?

The first 5, although I could let you squeeze the 5th one through at a
push. Maybe your definition of moral is different to mine?

That's not to say you should gnore them, becuase having come to Jesus
you will of course only want to follow God, not want to use a graven
image, not want to take His name in vain (even as an ex-Christian I
can't utter Oh My God or use the JC word as an expletive) I would of
course honour my mum, and hopefully my dad had I known him. Is that
because they're written down so I must obey them or is that because they
were something that was instilled in me when I became a Christian?

Which brings us to the fourth one. I know you and I have discussed this
in the past but there will be very few Christians who will follow this commandment. Are they obliged to? Well it's certainly not something the
Holy Spirit impressed upon on me when I became a Christian, although, as recalled upthread, I no longer wanted to work on a Sunday because I
believed that was the day to worship Jesus and rest. The same applies to millions of others.

Obviously Christians follow a moral code that will include the moral
aspects of any of the Jewish laws, as well as adopting an empethatic
undrstanding of other people.-a For instance I would adopt Exodus 22:21
and 23:9 but because it's the right thing to do, not because I was
instructed to. Christians follow a spiritual law written on their
hearts, not a written set of rules.

I'm glad to hear that you would not oppress the stranger - which of
course comes under "love your neighbour as yourself". Your position
seems to be that of the Nicolaitans: if it feels right to you, go do it, because you are Spirit-led so any impulse must be right.

Tell me, do you believe Christians receive the Holy Spirit on true
conversion? If yes, do you believe the Holy Spirit will guide them in
what's right and wrong, and that if they choose wrong, will guide them
back to the right?

So why do you insist Christians are bound by certain aspects of Jewish
law when they aren't.

I agree with the 39 Articles. In fact, I agree with just about every Christian thinker. I've read commentaries and books of exegesis and they
all say that Christians must keep the Ten Commandments - right up to the point where you point out that commandment 4 requires you to keep
Saturday instead of Sunday and all of a sudden antinomianism rules.

Why do yo think that is? If the 4th commandment applies to all
Christians, why isn't God steering the church to that understanding,It
seems to me He only lets certain churches like SDA and the Church of God receive that understanding. Even stranger, that understanding unly came
about in the 19th century (although I'm sure there was the odd Christian
who did obey the commandment.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 13/12/2025 06:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 12/12/2025 13:55, John wrote:

Obviously Jesus couldn't count, cos He missed 5 of them out.

He enumerated the laws from the second table and I believe He had
reasons for doing that.

So, without the book you wouldn't know how to follow God's laws?

That is what St Paul says when he remarks that he had not known sin
without the law.

Yet you believe other people can come to faith in God, even if they
don't know Christ as their Saviour and haven't read the laws you refer
to.

That's because you are not saved by law-keeping but by your relationship with God.

Which is a contradiction of your previous sentence.

Are people without a knowledge of the bible without sin, and therefore
saved?



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 15/12/2025 17:33, John wrote:

Are people without a knowledge of the bible without sin, and therefore saved?

Paul covers that in Romans 2:14. Even those without a knowledge of the
Bible have moral standards imposed by their culture. If they knowingly
and wilfully transgress those standards, they are guilty of sin.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 15/12/2025 17:18, John wrote:

That is true, but it's certainly not the norm.

Nor did I ever claim that it was.

One really doesn't.-a Try frozen in fear, or scream and I'll slit your throat as a couple of reasons.

Indeed. It is an area that is a positive minefield. Which is why God
made the provision that if the father refused to give his daughter to
the alleged rapist, the penalty was a financial one.

The law forcing the couple found "in delicto" to marry was, in my
opinion, directed against the cad who seduces women and then abandons
them. If it really was rape and the girl detested the perpetrator, then
the father would refuse the marriage and he would be fined or, in other
cases, put to death.

The 39 articles are not the bible. Where in the bible does it say these
are universal commandments?

No, but the 39 Articles represent a standard Christian understanding.
The Ten Commandments are quoted by Jesus, Paul and James as continuing requirements whereas the other laws lack such endorsement.

The first 5, although I could let you squeeze the 5th one through at a push.-a Maybe your definition of moral is different to mine?

Possibly. I would certainly regard having only one God and not
worshipping idols as moral requirements.

That's not to say you should gnore them, becuase having come to Jesus
you will of course only want to follow God, not want to use a graven
image, not want to take His name in vain (even as an ex-Christian I
can't utter Oh My God or use the JC word as an expletive) I would of
course honour my mum, and hopefully my dad had I known him. Is that
because they're written down so I must obey them or is that because they were something that was instilled in me when I became a Christian?

I would say it is because they are moral principles that all nations
adhere to. Murder, for example, is universally condemned, though the definition of murder may vary: some cultures accept blood feuds, others
accept duelling. Adultery is universally condemned but again,
definitions vary: some cultures allow multiple wives, others multiple husbands, others concubines, and so on.

Even Hindus, who are surrounded by idols, discourage idol worship.
Rather like catholics, they claim to be worshipping the god represented
by the idol, not the idol itself.

The Sabbath is the exception to this universal morality. Its position in
the heart of the Ten Commandments stamps them as peculiarly God's (YHWH's).

Which brings us to the fourth one. I know you and I have discussed this
in the past but there will be very few Christians who will follow this commandment. Are they obliged to?-a Well it's certainly not something the Holy Spirit impressed upon on me when I became a Christian, although, as recalled upthread, I no longer wanted to work on a Sunday because I
believed that was the day to worship Jesus and rest. The same applies to millions of others.

I believe the Sabbath is important as the celebration of God as our
Creator. In my opinion, it is not as important as dealing with pride or
lust or some other things, which may be why the Holy Spirit did not
trouble you over the issue as there were other things you needed to deal
with first.

I believe that all Christians should keep the Sabbath, but I do not
judge those who don't. It is up to them to defend themselves on the Day
of Judgement.

Tell me, do you believe Christians receive the Holy Spirit on true conversion?-a If yes, do you believe the Holy Spirit will guide them in what's right and wrong, and that if they choose wrong, will guide them
back to the right?

Certainly - but as noted above, the Spirit has priorities. A person who scrupulously keeps the Sabbath but is as proud as lucifer is, in my
opinion, less acceptable to God than a person who is humble and godly
but mistakenly keeps Sunday.

Why do yo think that is?-a If the 4th commandment applies to all
Christians, why isn't God steering the church to that understanding,It
seems to me He only lets certain churches like SDA and the Church of God receive that understanding.-a Even stranger, that understanding unly came about in the 19th century (although I'm sure there was the odd Christian
who did obey the commandment.

As noted above, there are other things more important than the Sabbath.

However God is steering Christians in the right direction. I don't have
the figures to hand, but there are many more than the two denominations
you mention which keep the Sabbath. After all, SDA got the idea from the Seventh-day Baptists!

I have a photograph of the tomb of Dr Peter Chamberlain in Woodham
Mortimer, Essex. See https://www.nwtv.co.uk/pages/travel/britan/englnd/essex/forcep.htm

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 16/12/2025 07:06, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 15/12/2025 17:18, John wrote:

snipped, but thank you for an interesting debate. You kept it reasonably
civil and that's how it should be, even if we disagree. Ditto goes for
the rape subthread. Also I'm not dismissing your arguments out of hand,
I may well be wrong.

However God is steering Christians in the right direction. I don't have
the figures to hand, but there are many more than the two denominations
you mention which keep the Sabbath. After all, SDA got the idea from the Seventh-day Baptists!

I have a photograph of the tomb of Dr Peter Chamberlain in Woodham
Mortimer, Essex. See https://www.nwtv.co.uk/pages/travel/britan/englnd/ essex/forcep.htm

Your website isn't secure and Chrome blocked me (as did Opera but not
Edge strangely) from viewing it for that reason. I bypassed it as I know
your site is safe, but others visiting your site may not know that. I
would suggest adding an SSL certificate to the site, I'm not sure
whether your webhosting company will charge you for that but definitely
worth having.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/12/2025 10:40, John wrote:

Your website isn't secure and Chrome blocked me (as did Opera but not
Edge strangely) from viewing it for that reason. I bypassed it as I know your site is safe, but others visiting your site may not know that. I
would suggest adding an SSL certificate to the site, I'm not sure
whether your webhosting company will charge you for that but definitely worth having.

Thank you for the tip. I'll look into it. I wasn't aware that it was an
issue.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2