Yeah. There's some weird stuff in there. I think Leviticus had a problem with cloth made of more than one type of facbric. What up w/dat? If you're going to believe this stuff cause God said it you shouldn't just stick with the ones you like you nasty ass hypocrites.

Maybe if they are going to cherry-pick the bible, they ought to use actual quotes, because, they seriously abuse the plain meaning of the scripture here. Deut 22:13-20 is a long discourse on protections for married women falsely accused of adultery by their husbands, i.e. the exact opposite of what the quote suggests. 21 is inflated, conflated and exaggerated to incorporate most of the chapter.

Which is why exegesis of holy scripture isn't really a meaningful pasttime for unbelievers.

UR DOIN IT RONG.

E, there are a number of models in the Bible that use common elements to illustrate to the people of God the importance and meaning of his holiness (which means separateness from earthly things.) The restrictions on fabric are one such illustration.

I'm always amazed at how non-believing people think they know more about the bible than those who have not only read it, but have devoted their lives to its subject and study. They are like tourists who insist there's a basement in the Alamo because they half-remember learning about it from a respectable guy in a crewcut who wore a red bow tie.

I looked the quote up Swayze. Virginity and stoning is mentioned. Can't say it made much sense though.

"Maybe if they are going to cherry-pick the bible, they ought to use actual quotes"

That's a good idea, a billboard at a rally should contain several paragraphs, that'll surely stop people in their tracks for a good read.

Sheldon

The tokens of virginity are the bloodied bedsheets from the wedding night.

I love the way a man gets fined for wrongly accusing his wife of being a whore, but a woman gets killed if she's right.

This would have made my divorce sooooo much easier.

p.s. Echo, your bike got eaten by the T-Rex in the alamo's super secret basement. Sorry.

You guys are completely missing the point. Before these requirements, a man could/would stone or divorce his wife on any grounds, citing some non-codified property rights or some such. This was a restriction of lawlessness, not an uneven application of justice.

This would have been a restriction to men who would accuse their wives of adultery so they could have excuse for an "honor" killing (which is a tribal, not a biblical, tradition) and a protection for women who had not done anything wrong.

You've got to understand that the culture was more similar to modern Saudi Arabia than our more familiar license - married women would be under very watchful eyes, and the temptation to commit adultery would be minimized by the soul-crushing pressure and potential for ostracism/honor killings.

I know this is hard for all of us to get our perverted, modern minds around, but we are totally misreading the ancient document. It placed restrictions on executions and spousal abuse.

Believe it or not.

What's even sadder is that you are taking a bible lesson from me.

Deuteronomy is an ancient set of rules specifically for the Hebrew tribes wandering in the desert looking for a homeland. If you choose to preach that one verse is the law for everyone, you must follow the entire code. Ham and cheese, anyone?

Maggs,

You fail to mention that the primary engine for the abolition of slavery in the U.S. and England was inherently a Christian one. So if you are going to blame the Bible for the actions of a bad group of people, you had better credit it for the actions of the good guys, too.

The point is this: I wouldn't begin to quote Buddhist teachings to a Tibetan monk, even if he was arguing, from a Buddhist perspective, something I deeply opposed. Why on earth would I so arrogantly venture onto his territory, where I'm at distinct intellectual advantage?

Gay people misquoting the bible just because gay bashers misquote the bible is downright stupid, especially when any thinking Christian is going to engage those people and de-rail them from their point. It certainly isn't going to work to convince bible-believers that somehow, all of a sudden, a faith they've studied for years is somehow contradictory or ridiculous.

After all, if a PETA person stands outside a McDonald's with a sign that says "Big Macs are Made of Chicken," is anyone going to get think they are anything but nuts?

Message matters, and the only message these protesters have delivered is that they are not only not straight, but that they aren't bible scholars, either. What's even more ridiculous is that they think they are being clever, when they only demonstrate their ignorance of the subject matter to anyone who might actually care.

Of course, to those who could care less about facts, it has, like a lot of things these days, the appearance of cleverness, so I guess, in that regard: Mission Accomplished.

I agree with Miss C. when she paraphrases Jesus, in saying that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away. The Law, which exists for three important reasons: to demonstrate the holiness of God, to guide humans to live in a way that is pleasing to Him, and to demonstrate every person's inherent inability to achieve perfection; isn't something that can be cherry-picked to win arguments.

It is something that everyone is called to follow, and that everyone falls short of honoring.

Getting derailed by seemingly obscure (and as evidenced above, hopelessly misinterpreted, if not down right fallacious) details cause us to trudge along in parallel lines, never coming to see truth for what it is.

"I know this is hard for all of us to get our perverted, modern minds around, "

I was gonna object to being called a pervert but then I thought about all the caption competitions and realized it's a fair assessment.

As Emily Litella would say - never mind.