Tzaia

I'm going to (perhaps) get a bit crass here, but I want to address this highly moral (cough, cough) act of stoning non-virgins. I recently had a discussion with one of my sons who is in his first really, really, serious relationship (at over 30). NOW he is lamenting the fact that SHE isn't a virgin. Come to find out, it's been one of his dreams - to marry a virgin. He, who is an unbeliever since 2002. Come to find out, it is more about the fear of comparison. Could it be that this could be the real reason behind the commandment to stone a non-virgin? Anyway, I appealed to his sense of REASON - as in it being unfair to her to expect behavior in her that he had not applied to himself. I told him that the big question should be is if both of them are committed to monogamy while in this relationship. There is no biblical man equivalent to whore. It's strictly a female thing. In this age, the way this is being handled is to invoke strict segregation of men and women in orthodox and ultra-orthodox judaism - foregoing stoning. Christians go for the purity ring, which just might be the most equitable solution. Muslims have one hour "marriages", multiple wives, concubines, FGM, and child marriage, plus the right to plow the wives anytime they're not on menstruating as a way to alleviate the problems that men have to endure. None of this deals with the shame associated with female sexuality. God given, I might add. God says that a sexually active non-married woman is a whore. He associates sexually active non-married females with most of the evil in the world. WHY?

The idea that only the evil and unscrupulous are in the slave business does a disservice to the truth. The TRUTH is there is biblical justification to slave owning. For BELIEVERS to say that owning slaves is wrong is simply that - WRONG - if the bible is the origin and benchmark of your faith and practice. Now if you juxtapose that with what you as a HUMAN holds to be true - then you have to ask yourself if god is indeed moral.

Yes, and that was immediately taken away. Adam disobeyed god and was "punished" by being thrown out of the garden and given lordship over Eve whom was merely deceived. Perhaps that was the first of many bad ideas. But it's hard to see that when people are told that god can't have bad ideas. And if you think it's a bad idea, then you are wrong. How convenient is that? We are told that disease and death is something we brought on ourselves through our disobedience. Well maybe it's something that simply happens. I don't know if you've noticed, but it appears that a large segment of the population's behavior can be controlled by hanging the carrot of "eternal life" over them. The rest can simply be killed if they step out of line. Back then all of this seems to have had the purpose of protecting the herd (tribe), but are they merely bad ideas? There ARE a lot of good ideas in the bible. But unfortunately when one is required to accept it as a whole, given by a supreme being, then one can't take the good without being accused of cherry picking - if one is to be honest. The REALITY is that benevolent slave owners who tithe, stone to death homosexuals, stone to death non-virgin women, and stone to death mouthy kids while avoiding pork, shellfish, and milk with their meat are the most virtuous people on the planet.

If Yahweh wants to invoke a death penalty, fine. Why doesn't he carry it out? Seriously.

Might I interject that this is about the morality of buying people and considering them to be property. Is there a circumstance where this should take place, EVER? The idea that the "god of the universe" is good with people acquiring other humans regardless of the time in history is ghastly. If it were such a great idea, then why do or why would we push against it now? We gloss over the FACT that this is something that took place up until the mid 1800s in the US. We gloss over the FACT that it is going on today because it is ordered by someone's god. And we especially gloss over the fact that this is a practice that is sanctioned by a supposed "god of love". Not WAS; IS. God has not changed. The attempts to sanitize or justify buying people in any context is just simply astounding. Picking verses apart trying to determine the hidden meaning when no one at the time thought there was any hidden meaning. People owning was a fact of life. People owning was a fact of life that could have been wiped out with a single declaration from the god of the universe. And it didn't happen. EVER. Not then. Not now. NEVER happened. You either agree with god or you reject what god has to say on this issue. Which is it?

God doesn't want defective people around him doing any kind of service in his temple on his behalf. I thought we were all defective. Prick.

NAS Leviticus 20:15 'If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. NAS Leviticus 20:16 'If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. Because obviously the animal brought it on Leviticus 20:27 'Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'" <== Witch hunt Leviticus 21:9 'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. <== Honor killing Leviticus 21:17 "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the bread of his God. Leviticus 21:18 'For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, Leviticus 21:19 or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, Leviticus 21:20 or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. Leviticus 21:21 'No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. Leviticus 21:22 'He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, Leviticus 21:23 only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, that he may not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.'" <== Children of a lesser god? Leviticus 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food.

I can see why a woman's virginity is important to a man (not really, but for argument's sake I'll attempt to see). What I can't see is why it's important to a god.

to whom...?

We are told that we must be kind to one another, yet... If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . . (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)

I find the concept of the maximum penalty interesting. However, that doesn't address the morality of assigning those maximum penalties for the particular offenses we've been discussing. I never really gave "Yahweh's" morality a thought until recently when I read the Qur'an. Then someone pointed out that the Bible was the most bloodthirsty book ever written. Is it? Well, yes it is. And it starts right at the beginning when he favors one sacrifice over another - for no readily apparent reason. If Yahweh really needs people to die for transgressions against him, then why doesn't he do it like he did Sodom & Gomorrah? Why does he have people doing it to people?

Mark - my understanding is that people from all over came to Jerusalem during the feasts. Rather than carry their own sacrifice, they bought them locally. Hence the need for animals and moneychangers Perhaps you've missed the point.God commanded the sacrifice of animals without spot or blemish. WHY? It's not like he needed to eat or had any use for burnt offerings. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE? Just think about it. He created the need. People would have to raise animals that would fit the criteria. Jesus gets his shorts in a bunch over WHERE this exchange is taking place, not THAT it is taking place. Animal sacrifice was ridiculous and IMMORAL. Slicing an animal's throat and letting it bleed out to please God? If one were to do that today, that person would be charged with animal cruelty. You don't like the idea of the nation of Israel invoking the law. Neither do I, but they would not be operating outside their religion if they were to do so. Think ISIS and its caliphate. SAME THING.

SHALL, from a legal standpoint, is not a wiggle word. MAY is.

There are several questions I have. How much debt did one need to accrue before one had to pay through being a servant/slave? Since a thief had to pay back several times the value of the theft (apparently God can demand above and beyond restitution), then how did that apply to standard debt? What was the threshold on treatment when it then became mistreatment? Finally, if these standards were applied today would this result in a more moral society?

I don't want to go all anti-TWI on people, but this whole having to resort to looking through commentaries to get the deeper or perhaps the more correct meaning is (IMO) ridiculous. The Bible is written by believers for believers. There is no hidden "truth" that somehow explains the higher moral/greater good aspect of these social constructs. It can be assumed, because they come from "God" and the premise is that all that comes from "God" is "good", that doing all these things to one another is morally good in the sight of God. That means that slavery, stoning for offenses, and all this stuff was a natural, everyday this-is-how-it-is sort of thing. People obviously do not believe this now. The bigger question is WHY? Why was one more holy then who stoned their kids to death over mouthing off to a parent? And why is it not the case now? What changed? It wasn't God. You do get that Jesus, had Mary's family actually followed the law, should have never been born!

I get that you are arguing about how things were, but I think the more important thing to address was WHY. Why were these particular social constructs put into place? Who, exactly, is responsible for the whole idea that selling kids is ok, and why do you think there was EVER a benefit to the individual being used in this way? To me, it would make more sense for the parent to sell himself rather than make a child have to deal with a situation that he/she had no part in creating. How about only having the number of kids you can feed, clothe, and house? Even back in the day. If this is such a moral and godly way to live one's life, then why in the hell aren't we doing it now? Just asking.

Just so we get it straight - A landlord and tenant enter into a mutual agreement. Failure to pay rent results in eviction and a trip to small claims court to cover the owed money, not indentured servitude. There is no current similar context EDIT - to ancient and not-so-ancient slavery, unless you count what is going on in Syria and Iraq right now. But the point I believe Raf has been trying to make is that "God", in all his wisdom, had the ability to not make slavery and murder for what we see as minor offenses all a part of his "law", and he chose not to. IF he is a god for all time, doesn't it make sense that his laws would be laws for all time? At some point in time, people realized that these laws were ghastly. But mind you, according to scripture it should be happening right now. It could be said that the Jews have turned away from "G-d" by not implementing the fullness of the law. However, no Jew in his/her right mind would advocate such penalties. Furthermore, ISIS is FAITHFULLY carrying out "god's" will, and the ONLY correct CHRISTIAN response to that is to LET them. Muslims receive glory in dying while killing the infidel. Christians receive glory in dying at the hands of persecutors. It is this kind of insanity that has made me fully question whether any of it is worth it. Monotheistic religions have the end result of people being pitted against one another, because the whole point is that the worshiper is worshiping the only god worthy of worship and everyone needs to get with the program outlined in their "holy" books that are to be studied and implemented under harsh penalty for failure to do so. The Jewish god put laws in place, which when followed offer salvation, and a superior nation. The Christian god sent a son to die for sin, which if you follow Jesus, one will be superior. Allah got all ....ed off and said to convert or kill them all, and that's what makes Muslims superior. These are all supposedly the same god bringing peace to mankind, but NOTHING remotely like that has happened. ONLY when man became "humanistic" did we begin to realize there had to be a better way than what "god" has provided through his "word". Ironically, man has kicked back against this since the beginning of time, and all we are told is that "evil" was being done when they were, with nothing said about what that evil looked like. Sincerely, I can't imagine anything more evil than implementation of Jewish or Sharia law. And the world couldn't have been that "evil" because some of the best of the world was given to us by pagans. So maybe the "evil" was the lack of monotheistic worship to a jealous god.

I reject the Book of Mormon based only on the ridiculous notion that it was written on gold tablets that no one else has ever seen, which basically negates everything about it. I reject JW on the ridiculous notion that Jesus preexisted as an angel. The prophesies were just icing. I reject Islam because it's simply ghastly from cover to cover. L Ron Hubbard made no secret that he basically made up Scientology. I have seriously struggled with Christianity all my life. I see no reason why Jesus is waiting in heaven for a future comeback. I see no reason why he couldn't be actively moving around in his new body. Why was his resurrection only seen by the faithful? Wouldn't it have made sense for him to greet the people who wanted him dead? Why was his ascension "witnessed" by so few? If he lives, why must I pray? Can't we just have a two way conversation where I know he's heard me as opposed to being told he hears me? I went to the works of Josephus for some answers. Jesus gets a mention. The single most important thing that ever happened in the world gets a mention in outside history books? So the only backup for this historic event is a single sentence that simply confirms he existed? So news of these miracles from a "global standpoint", is a well kept secret. That makes no sense. Then I went back further in my research all the way to the giving of the law. On stone tablets. That are nowhere to be found. And apparently no one is looking for them that hard. But then I look at the laws and with some exceptions about food (which is a cross between neurotic and obsessive/compulsive), it isn't all that different from the pagans of the day. The treatment of women, children, animals, and outsiders is essentially the same. The only difference was the one god concept and the notion they were chosen (which royally ....ed off the pagans because it interfered with all the god festivals). <-- I got that from taking a humanities class, which then answered the question as to why so many college freshmen leave religion. At 53, it was the first time I truly analyzed monotheistic religions and the effect on pagan society. It turns out that pagans were far more willing to coexist than the monotheists. Then there's Paul. He's chief persecutor who's gone blind with revelation and suddenly he's the end all know-it-all of the Christian religion. (Which if you do a close comparative study, he teaches a different Jesus, which is understandable since he never knew the guy). The only thing Paul (and Jesus) bring to the table is the notion of not killing people over differences. That IS a new concept, which is promptly forgotten. Finally, you HAVE to love this quote from CS Lewis: "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." So there you have it: God or a lunatic. No middle ground there. The overriding theme is that only the incredible makes something credible. It couldn't be Moses sitting down with a few smart people and devising a set of laws. It HAD to come miraculously from a higher power. Jesus couldn't be a great teacher or highly charismatic man. He had to have a miraculous birth, a horrific death, and a miraculous resurrection and bodily ascension to give him credibility. Mohammad justified every act by way of "revelation". Same thing with Joseph Smith. Both charismatic men. You see the same thing with Victor Barnard. No one looking from the outside thinks the guy was anything but a sociopath, yet few on the inside see him that way at all. The more I look at religion from purely an outsider's perspective, the less credible I find it as a tool for right living.

I know. You just sound a lot like him.

We all come with a set of premises - including Sam Harris, Raf. I sincerely do not know when people got the idea that it was morally wrong to enslave another human; stone a person for any offense; or any of the other head shaking things that were done in the name of god, but I'm glad that I came late enough to see it in my lifetime.

In order to "enlighten" myself a bit, I read the Qur'an. And I read it with the grain of salt I felt it deserved. It was appalling. Absolutely appalling. Who would be stupid enough to think this was anything but an immoral capricious god? Then I decided to read parts of the OT with the same grain of salt. Same response. I can't read the OT with any sense of anything but moral outrage. If anything, I think the "law" of the OT very much mimics the social and moral constructs of the day, not set a standard. I do not believe that it goes as far as the Qur'an in its uncanny ability to fix Mohammad's moral dilemmas of the moment, but it most certainly reflects a need to maintain the patriarchy culture.

Just so you know, people raised prices significantly to cover the lack of paying interest. People could and were made slaves to cover debt. So I'm not sure how this is necessarily better.

It was 39 when I took it, and it was even more mind numbing. I sat through it 1 (one) other time as a helper and honestly tried to figure out what all I had to do to not actually be in there. It was worse than I remembered. I read all the books when I first went through in 79, then when we left in 87, I read them all again and couldn't believe how badly written they were.

Sudo - he and most others in leadership were very impressed with those who managed to get advanced degrees while being a part of TWI. Mostly for the money and legitimacy provided. Education doesn't automatically disqualify someone from being stupid, particularly in matters of religion, which defies reason anyway.

My journey away from the Bible has been long. For a long time, I would get sucked back in by the convenience of it all. Sometime in 2008, I had an epiphany. It has been increasingly harder for me to accept any "holy" book as being holy and mostly due to what adherents tend to adhere to within those books. One of the nails in the coffin for me was how god "punished" the willful disobedience of Adam by making him head over Eve, who was deceived. I can't make sense of that. In the meantime, women have been subjected to centuries of abuse and marginalization and basically told to suck up and live with it, because it's written in a book that is "holy" and "god breathed". As I told my husband one time, "How convenient is that?" You want to hate sexual encounters outside of marriage yet be ok with wife rape? It's in there. You want to hate same sex marriage? There isn't a verse for that, but we'll pretend there is. You want to support slavery, polygamy, wife and child abuse within the structure of being "godly". It's in there. You want to believe in a god who has a hand in all that happens, but picks and chooses based on no criteria that is discernible as to who or what's going to get intervention and who or what's not? "He's" your god. I've come to believe that strict literal adherence to a holy book makes an arrogant hater out of you. I just know that when I stopped taking it literally, I became a more tolerant and respectful person towards other people in general. What I have not been able to do is have that conversation with anyone besides one of my sons, because it would upend my personal life to an extent that I don't think I could bear it. So I'm at church every week and do a fair amount of volunteering, but not really caring whether I do or don't. I do feel a certain amount of relief due to the not caring.