Talking to an unbeliever.

[Rocketshipper]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this. I asked some people who were hanging out in the chat room and they told me to post this here.

I have a really close on-line friend who I have known for a long time who isn't a Christian (This is the same person who I made a prayer thread about a few weeks ago.) She told me she used to be a Christian when she was in grade school, and then renounced her faith after she read all of the bible. She says she can't believe a lot of stuff in the bible (like Noah's Ark) because science has proven that those things couldn't have happened. However, she says her main problem with Christianity is that their are a lot of things in the bible that are commanded by God or allowed by him that she finds morally reprehensibe. She gave an example of a king who raped and killed a pagan concubine and it wasn't considered wrong, and that the bible says it's alright to stone people who don't believe in God (she didn't have the verses for those examples though). She also specificly mentioned Deuteronomy 22: 23-29, and says she thinks those verses are saying that Rape, itself, is not bad because if a man rapes a woman who isn't pledged to marry his only punishment is to marry her. She doesn't think the bible says anywhere, in old or new testament, that rape is wrong, of itself, and that's a big probem for her. She also believes that the death penalty and killing in war are murder, no matter what, and she can't believe in a God who commanded his people to wipe out other peoples or kill in any circumstance. She also said that she thinks some Christians are hypocrits because the bible says "don't do evil so that good will result" but that war is ALL about doing evil so good will come. Also there are a few things she didn't list as "problems she had with the bible" that still cause her to be in opposition to Christianity. she doesn't believe pre-marital sex or Homosexuality are wrong and she doesn't believe in monogamy, she thinks we should be able to marry as many people as we want.

I'm not a theologian or expert or anything, and I feel really inadequate for the job of talking about these things, but I really feel like I should talk to her. If anyone can offer any advice (or links to helpful websites?) on how I should approach talking to her about her concerns I would greatly apreciate it. Honestly, I too sometimes wonder about some of the stuff in the old Testament, especially wars, since I also believe that War is almost always wrong. Prayers are, of course, welcome too ^^. Sometimes it seems like it would be completly impossible for her to return to Christ, considering the things she believes, but I know I should still try and share my faith with her and pray that God will help me say the right things to her.

[Nate]

As far as her objections about rape, considering the Bible explicitly states that it's a sin to commit adultery, and being that the definition of adultery is sexual relations outside of marriage...I'd say that rape is definitely spoken against. In fact, given that Jesus said a person who even LOOKS at a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery...

I really don't have answers for anything else...and given that a few of her objections are ones that I struggle with too...I guess I'm not the best to answer them. Sorry. ^^;;

[Slater]

w00t! this will be a fun post...

1. Science has not proven that Noah's flood didn't happen. It's like saying that Evolution is proven; it is not. Scientists who say that the flood didn't happen take the evidence that they have and build stories around it that fit their evolutionary model. Christian scientists take that same data and make it fit their Biblical model. Both stories work according to what they are based on, but the bases are not able to be proved by science.

2. The Bible makes it clear that sex is to be for one man with one woman. It says not to commit adultery or fornication, and rape is definitly a form of adultery/fornication. The reason why the man had to marry the woman is because it was very dangerous for a woman to be pregnant without a husband; she could be stoned.

3. The people who the Israelites killed in such brutal fashion were horrible pagans who intentionally rejected God. They knew who the Lord is, (a) because the Lord had created the earth less than 3000 years prior to the Israelite's conquests and so His Name was much more fresh in the earth than it is even today, and (b) because they had litterally made the choice to set themselves against God and side with "gods" (who are demons.). While God is able to forgive any person of their sins no matter what their background is (this is seen many times in the OT; look at the story of Jericho and the harrlot), there is a point at which God decides that a person has moved beyond the point of redemption and lets them suffer the consequenses. Such was the case with those people groups that the Israelites destroyed.

4. God says do not kill, but this is referring to killing without good purpose. The use of killing to pass God's judgement, however, is different. Otherwise, God would be sinning when he killed people with his fire and brimstone.

5. Homosexuality is wrong; read Romans 1. Poligamy is wrong; read Genesis 2:24. Fornication is wrong; read Exodus 20.

I'm sure that she has other problems with Christianity than those, but the truth is that she may have read the Bible, but she doesn't know the Bible. In the past, she called herself a Christian because she knew about Jesus, but she did not know Jesus. There are huge differences there; and until the Lord opens her eyes to what the truth of His word is, she won't understand it. Best thing that we can do is pray.

[Rocketshipper]

That was fast ^^. Thanks for the prompt responses.

Well, she believes that Evolution is a proven fact, although she also said that she doesn't think believing in evolution means you can't believe in God. She also thinks that the stories in the bible that "couldn't have happened, by science" could be metaphors.

The the main problem she has, as she has presented it to me, is that from her perspective it seems like God IS sinning, since she believes killing for ANY reason, other than self defense, is wrong. She asked me in our last conversation "why does God command his people to do bad things?" She sees the destruction that the Israelites brought on other people as religious intolerance, sanctioned by God. And she'd probably reply that if the guy raped a girl, he's definitly not husband material, so he shouldn't marry her, and should be punished more harshly.

Unfortinitly, just showing her verses that say "adultery/poligamy/Homosexuality are wrong" won't be very convincing, unless she begins to believe the bible again. Until then I'd have to provide non-religious reasoning for why those things are wrong. I have discussed the subjects with her many times and must admit that her arguments are good. At least I havn't been able to counter them completly. She once told me that she doesn't think the bible actully condemns Homosexuality too.

I saved some of our IM conversations and I could copy/paste/attache portions. I didn't do it right away because I didn't know if it would be a violation of her privacy.

[Hephzibah]

Unfortunately, people cannot be argued or debated into accepting the Bible as true. It is only with the Holy Spirit's move in their lives that their eyes can be opened; while you should continue to witness to her, do not rely solely on arguments (whether Biblical or otherwise). We should all pray that the Holy Spirit will soften her heart

[Slater]

The Isrealite killings were due to intollerance of religion. God is not tollerant of other religions; Christianity is not a religion of religious tollerance.

this is a big point because it's the reason why the argument (a) fails.

Argument (a): I'm a good person and do my best to help the world so I'll go to heaven cause God must like me ^_^

[Kura Ookami]

I cant help you because i have my dounts about the bible being the truth myself. Even if it is the truth Satan twists it so much that it then becomes lies. An exampkle is when Satan was tempting Jesus he used a bible verse to support what he was saying. My question is how do you discern between the truth and satans lies which are often hidden within truth?

And secondly why are we to take the whole bible literally and not the song of songs? Why not take the whole bible literally because it is all truth, supposedly anyway. The only thing i know for sure to be true is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that God exists.

Regardless, I'll be praying for you and your friend. I hope you can help her out and bring her back to the faith.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

i definately recommend checking these out

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=xv1td0qBMP&isbn=0310240506&itm=2
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=xv1td0qBMP&isbn=0310234697&itm=1

Also keep in mind, just cause something happens in the Bible, doesn't make it right. King david had sex with Urai's (that right?) wife. Does that make it right? No.

in those books. One section in the case for faith explains "How can a loving God kill people?" and the case for a creator mainly shows scientific evidence towards a creator. I HIGHLY recommend these to. Read and study them

[mitsuki lover]

Remember what St. Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
What is in the Scriptures is there to help us to learn to be faithful and honest
Christians.It is not there as an alternative to historical or scientific truth.
It is there because it is spiritual truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is totally accurate in the way it is depicted
in the Bible.For example it is more likely the flood was local or based on local
flood cycles.
However let us not get into a debate on it.
My point is that you shouldn't be trying to argue from some historical or scientific
pov as your friend will certainly not listen to you if you try it that way;on the other
hand if you tried to get at her from a spiritual pov and showed her the underlying
spiritual meanings maybe she might listen.

[GhostontheNet]

Only penalty for rape? Within that culture, and with the full wording of the text, it would cause the man to be inescapably and indivorcably bound to the obligation to take care of her for the rest of her life. As J.P. Holding, net apologist and Anime fan (better he not show up here, it would be discord) writes,

Of this, our skeptic finds much that is unfair. But knowing the social context does a world of good.

First, our subject objects that the victim may not want to marry the rapist. In modern times this would be a sensible objection; but for the ancients, this was a highly viable and indeed merciful solution. The victim would no longer regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. The rapist is here being required to provide that support. It is quite unlikely in this social context that the victim would refuse this arrangement; indeed, they might well demand such an arrangement. This is not a matter of having the rapist be one's loving partner, or cohort for further sexual relations.

Second, it is asked why the father gets money rather than the victim. This is related to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she goes on to support of her own means, and now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return - hence the dowry. The effect of the dowry was to make up for that loss of essential support, and in light of the first item above, payment to the father is quite fair, for it is his family that must now continue to support the girl for the rest of her life.

Some may still find the above objectionable; certainly our subject would continue to rail about the unfairness of it all! But this is naught but, as we say, skeptical chauvinism. Our subject has no right to make moral judgments of any kind upon those whose shoes he hasn't the room to fill. (Note as well, as one reader added, that as closely guarded as women were by their families, it may be that the WOMAN here was the initiator, and that the "rape" is not a rape at all; the Hebrew word merely means "lie with" and forced intercourse is only assumed by implication.) http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.html#dt2228

[Rocketshipper]

i definately recommend checking these out

I think I may have that first book ^^. I havn't read it yet though. A while ago I found a website with all of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and asked her to read some of it. She said she agreed with him that everyone deep down knows that right and wrong are objective, even if they don't admit it, but she disagreed with what he specificly believed was right or wrong. Like, in ch. 1 he talked about how cultures have often agreed on more things than disagreed and said "Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." And she said she disagreed and though that "not having any woman you want" is a restriction imposed by the culture to control people.

Also keep in mind, just cause something happens in the Bible, doesn't make it right. King david had sex with Urai's (that right?) wife. Does that make it right? No.

Of course not everything that happenes in the bible is right. People did bad things back then. But the concern she voiced to me was about the places where she felt the Bible was saying that GOD did bad things or ordered humans to do bad things.

Anyone have an idea about which passage she could be refering to when she was talking about a king who raped and killed a pagan concubine and God condoned it???

and that's a cool website Ghost ^^. Thanks for the link.

[Fireproof]

Personally, I don't literally believe some of the earlier Bible stories. In my eyes, they exist to prove a point, not historically narrate.
EDIT: To actually talk with them about Christianity, etc., find their arguments and take them on one at a time. Be precise, cite your sources, and don't be combative.

[Yojimbo]

[quote="mitsuki lover"]Remember what St. Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
What is in the Scriptures is there to help us to learn to be faithful and honest
Christians.It is not there as an alternative to historical or scientific truth.
It is there because it is spiritual truth.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it is totally accurate in the way it is depicted
in the Bible.For example it is more likely the flood was local or based on local
flood cycles.
However let us not get into a debate on it.
My point is that you shouldn't be trying to argue from some historical or scientific
pov as your friend will certainly not listen to you if you try it that way]

Exactly. It's a fact that the Earth is not a dome, on top of Sheol, with water over it. The book of Genesis wasn't even written till David's time. Evolution to an extent can be accepted with Christianity. Dinosaurs, ancient mammals, ancient homo species all existed. We can't presume to understand how God works or how he created the world. And just about every ancient civilization has a great flood story, though not all at one time, so he is right there. Anyway Mitsuki is right arguing historically or scientifically for the Bible will not win you any arguments in the realm of reason. The overall message in the Bible inspired by God is more important than how many cubits such and such was. People get too wrapped up in trying to prove every last word of the Bible happened exactly at this time, in this place, that they forget what's more important the message behind it all.

It's true the Israelites killed thousands upon thousands of people, but those were different times. Every culture understood that violence proved you were right. To make the people understand that "He would be their God" it had to be done the way they understood it as humans as well as to seperate them from the rest of the world.

[Rocketshipper]

First, our subject objects that the victim may not want to marry the rapist. In modern times this would be a sensible objection; but for the ancients, this was a highly viable and indeed merciful solution. The victim would no longer regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. The rapist is here being required to provide that support.

But isn't it unfair to consider someone "unmarriable" because they were raped?? It wasn't their fault, they didn't choose to have sex in the first place.

ooh, something else I need to ask too!!

As far as her objections about rape, considering the Bible explicitly states that it's a sin to commit adultery, and being that the definition of adultery is sexual relations outside of marriage...I'd say that rape is definitely spoken against. In fact, given that Jesus said a person who even LOOKS at a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery...

I thought the definition of Adultery was having sex with someone other than your legal spouse. I had never thought of defining all sex outside of marriage as Adultery. But anyway...would you say then that it's impossible for a husband to rape his wife? Many people would say it is possible. Usually isn't rape defined as "forcing someone to have sexual intercourse against their will" regardless of if the people are married or not?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I believe it was actually Moses who wrote Genesis. And that was much earlier than the time of David.

Evolution and Creation don't mix. The corrupted theory of man does not mesh with the purity and majesty of God and his Works of Art (Creating the world and everything in it).

[GhostontheNet]

But isn't it unfair to consider someone "unmarriable" because they were raped?? It wasn't their fault, they didn't choose to have sex in the first place.

ooh, something else I need to ask too!!

Simply because it isn't fair does not mean the people will simply abandon the concept, one can imagine Yeshua saying another piece about "Because of the hardness of your heart Moses...". I believe the EVER-LIVING's dealings with people may be likened to efforts at cat herding, if you understand the metaphor, and must be treated and thought of as such. Besides, the Biblical culture is one of arranged marriages, a factor that must be taken into account.

Warrior: Is that supposed to be an actual dilemma? Not being able to see the work of art through the brush strokes unless it conforms to your definition of the way painting should be done?

As an aside, I think it wise here that we not get bogged down in stuff like the dating of the Torah, or the JEPD hypothesis.

[mitsuki lover]

I think we better be alert to the fact that we might end up getting off topic here and
turning it into one of those threads that gets locked because of obvious differences
in Biblical interpretation.

[Naga Kisaki]

You know, I often asked alot of question that girl asked. In fact, A while ago I couldn't pick up the Bible because it would make me cry everytime I read something that made it seem that God seemed a little harsh to women. But, that was in the old testement, back when the punishment for sins was death. I think some things have changed, since Jesus died. Thats why The sinner no longer has to be stoned. I think your friend should examine the New testement, I know from exsperiance, if you focus only on the parts of the bible that are difficult to accept, THen it'll be very difficult to accept God. You need to look at the good with the bad. She seems to be focused on God's wrath, Maybe she should look up God's love...

But that's just my opinion.

[lostlamb99]

Well is tehre still room here for me to comment? Well in those days (again taking into consideration teh history of teh Israelites) When God told Abraham to leave his country and follow Him as his God, it wasn't taht easy. Why? At the time all otehr ppl were worshipping idols and take note Abraham himself had a "collection' of idols. BUt he smashed those statuettes to follow teh LIving God. Of course we can't expect all of teh Israelites to be like Abraham and as we say old habits die hard. Most of teh ppl tehn including Israel were stubborn so God continuously punished tehm to soften there hearts. Read teh book of Judges for example in Chapter 2 it explains how teh Israelites broke a promise with God that they shouldn't spare any of teh nations in Canaan so God used these nations to teach tehm a lesson.

Now why did God use wars? To make this thing simple why not ask your self and think of even just one time when God used something bad to turn it into good. You see you shouldn't focus on teh bad things but instead remember that EVERYTHING WORKS FOR TEH GLORY OF GOD. No one can be able to truly understand how God works unless they accept Jessu into tehir lives. The best move would be to keep witnessing to her and a very crucial factor in taht is let Christ shien in your life. When she sees taht she'll start believing since what better proof can you have other tahn a living proof and taht living proof of how Jesus can change lives is YOU.

[Eriana]

I will definately be praying for your friend Rocketshipper.
I hope everything turns out for the best.
~Eriana~