- Topic
If you take the whole context of the entire bible it isn't as simple as that
Exodus 22:16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
seeing as we have stopped paying dowries at all (in the USA I do not know if Korean culture practices dowries or not) I am not exactly sure how that would work exactly BUT seeing as he DID marry Hwang Wonsun he cannot be said to have broken the applicable law
Dt 22 could only apply when she is "advertised" as a virgin to the husband
Well, let me jump in here for a second. That's what the Bible says, but as you know, the WMSCOG doesn't always does what the Bible says.
In Korea I was taught directly, that sex before marriage was sexual immorality, watching porn was sexual immorality, paying porn sites is the same as prostitution.
If the couple has been together for some time but are not married, it's still sexual immorality, but Mother understands and forgives it as long as they are faithful to each other, but that's only in the case that they live together or that they have children together.
People have been kicked out from the church I used to go to for having sex before getting married. So independently of what the Bible says, IF Ahnsahnghong had sex with Hwang Wonsun before getting married, he was not following what the church teaches today.
Another thing, the Old Testament also says this:
Dt 22:28 – 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.
I don't think we can say based on this verse, that if a guy rapes a girl, that it's ok as long as he pays the fifty shekels of silver.
The Hebrew doesn't say rape it's a reiteration of Exodus 22 in fact 90% of DT is a reiteration of prior statements
I presume we’re all On the same page now.
Dt 22:28 does not exonerate the man of the act itself. It is a solution to the plight of the girl.
Further, whichever way you look at it, it does not negate the fact the the girl alluded to in Dt 22:20-21 is held guilty of sexual immorality on the basis of pre-marital sex.
On another note, consider the fact that the girls were married off quite young at an age where they would be below the age of consent by modern standards. "Seduce and sleeping with" would amount to "r a p e" when the girl is that young.
If Buddhism is not idolatry, Simon, then what does thou shall Not have any strange god besides me mean?
In a way Simon is right about Buddhism as I understand it. There is no God per se. The laughing buddha idol you often see, is more a good luck charm rather than something to be worshipped.
On the other hand, they have concepts like enlightenment and finding god within ourselves. While there is no idol in the sense that is commonly understood, it is also an outright rejection of Yahweh. This is also the basis for much of the new age religions proliferating today.
On another note, I believe that an idol need not be in form or matter that is tangible. I think idol worship includes anything in our lives that gets priority before God. This could include wealth, fame, certain people in our lives, our job, etc. Believing in self as controlling one's own destiny as in Buddhism should be in that list.
Emil,
The WMSCOG holds that same belief. I prayed many prayers in tears because I was told I was committing idolatry by putting my daughter’s needs before Ash and zahng’s commands. I would feed her when we were fasting. I would stay Home from service when she was sick.
emil wrote:
Dt 22:28 does not exonerate the man of the act itself. It is a solution to the plight of the girl.
Further, whichever way you look at it, it does not negate the fact the the girl alluded to in Dt 22:20-21 is held guilty of sexual immorality on the basis of pre-marital sex.
On another note, consider the fact that the girls were married off quite young at an age where they would be below the age of consent by modern standards. "Seduce and sleeping with" would amount to "r a p e" when the girl is that young.
Staturtory rape isn't really rape and not every girl was married off young… and nowhere is the girl held accountable for premarital sex
its the pretending to be a virgin when she isn't not the having sex that is the sin
Sarah2013 wrote:
If Buddhism is not idolatry, Simon, then what does thou shall Not have any strange god besides me mean?
You point out exactly why it isn't idolatry (Buddhism has no gods)
Simon wrote:
its the pretending to be a virgin when she isn't not the having sex that is the sin
Sorry I don't agree. Here's Deut 22:21
she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
That is clearly for indulging in pre-marital sex rather than lying about her virginity. Why don't you face the reality and admit it?
If there is a bride price for nonvirgins it debunks your theory and as there is….
@Simon – the bride price cannot make it a non-sin (sorry if there isn't such a word). It is analogous to the scapegoat or sin offerings elsewhere in scripture. The offering/bride price is reparation. It does not suggest the absence of the sin to begin with. rather it confirms the sin.
Not really it proves it isn't a sin but just another transaction
^ You're saying you reject Deut 22:21?
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
Emil,
The WMSCOG holds that same belief. I prayed many prayers in tears because I was told I was committing idolatry by putting my daughter's needs before Ash and zahng's commands. I would feed her when we were fasting. I would stay Home from service when she was sick.
There is a line between doing your best as a mother and making your child your idol. Your actions above certainly did not cross that line. Your daughter is God's child and God has made you the steward in taking care of this child. You are answerable to Him for taking care of her well. In loving her, you love God. 1 Jn 4:20 – "whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
emil wrote:
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
Emil,
The WMSCOG holds that same belief. I prayed many prayers in tears because I was told I was committing idolatry by putting my daughter's needs before Ash and zahng's commands. I would feed her when we were fasting. I would stay Home from service when she was sick.
There is a line between doing your best as a mother and making your child your idol. Your actions above certainly did not cross that line. Your daughter is God's child and God has made you the steward in taking care of this child. You are answerable to Him for taking care of her well. In loving her, you love God. 1 Jn 4:20 – "whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen."
I agree. Well put, Emil.
Would they really expect you to make her fast also, and bring her to church with you when she was sick?
No I am saying you are ignoring the over all context of scripture to validate what you already believe
Yes they would because God’s command is above all things. They use the example of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. He loved him but because God said to kill him he was going to obey God over his emotions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.