My Bible quote of the day ...

[spin]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New International Version, ©2010)

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (King James Version)

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Ouch!

[JuniperLea]

1. Brutal!

Thank GOD he sent his socialist Son to set all this bullshit right! Sheesh!

[Angry Dragon]

2. We need more of that christian law

[Drale]

3. The old testimate is a conservators dream

If they could only make all the laws in the Bible Laws in the united states they could rule until the people get fed up and over through them, so like one year or so.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Well if the woman grabs the man by the privates I don't think it is to rescue him.

So the woman should be safe from having her hand cut off.

[spin]

5. The Sacred Testicles of Violent Men ...

the best explanation for this law that I could find deals with the fear that the woman might end the man's ability to procreate.

In those days, a tribe needed ALL the violent men it could produce and violent men often produce violent offspring. The woman can punch, kick, bite and scratch to defend her man.

[texastoast]

6. Damned Indo-Europeans

Fucked up everything with their male storm gods.

[ZombieHorde]

7. People actually expect us to be respectful of this shit. nt

[laconicsax]

8. Not expect, demand. n/t

[spin]

9. Most people have never read the Bible ...

It's not the easiest book to digest.

I've always been amazed that some preachers will say that the Bible is the literal word of God when there are two creation stories in the first two chapters of the Old Testament.

Genesis creation narrative

First narrative: creation week
Genesis 1:1–2:3

<9>, begins with the indeterminate period in which God (Elohim) creates the heavens and the earth<10> out of nothing (ex nihilo)<11> or out of primordial waters (tehom)/chaos.<12> Next it describes the transformation of creation in six days from chaos to a state of order that culminates with God's creation of humans in his own image. The seventh day is sanctified by God as a day of rest (Sabbath).

***snip***

Second narrative: Eden
Genesis 2:4–2:25

tells of God (Yahweh) forming the first man (Adam) from dust, then planting a garden, then forming animals and birds for Adam to name, and finally, creating the first woman, Eve, to be his wife. The two stories are linked by a short bridge<10> and form part of a wider unit in Genesis labeled by some scholars as the primeval story.<17>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

[knitter4democracy]

11. We learned about that in my theology class in college.

Conservative evangelical college. It's not like the preachers don't know that particular story issue--they do. They either ignore it or know their followers don't know it.

[spin]

12. I don't go to church often ...

do any preachers ever recommend that their congregation read the Bible?

[knitter4democracy]

21. Constantly.

Of course, they want it to be the right version with the right study guides to make sure people understand it properly, but they do encourage their congregants to read the Bible.

[spin]

23. I used "Don't Know Much About the Bible" ...

by Kenneth C. Davis as my study guide. Somehow, I doubt that this is a recommended guide.

[knitter4democracy]

28. Probably not. :)

They tend to first recommend anything by their church's publishers. That seems to be the same in any church. Then, if you want to learn more from there, they might be okay with something by someone from a similar denomination, but that's iffy.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

13. here's the thing

Most Christians don't know how to explain the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. They literally have no clue. I took a bunch of bible study classes at a state university with a good program in Ancient Neat Eastern Studies, and they know what they're talking about more-so. I've spent a lot of time listening to classes on itunes and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of good Old Testament History professors even at christian schools(or a significant amount) actually get their degrees from secular schools or from Jewish schools.

Here's my thing: Why do people insist on judging something written nearly 3,000 years ago, on the other side of the planet, by western post-enlightenment standards? There's nothing in the bible that's that offensive compared to what anyone else was doing and writing at the time. Not only was it written in a completely different time, it was written by a completely non-western people. And in a lot of cases, the laws in the first five books of the bible are way more liberal than anything else around at the time. Stuff like protecting orphans and widows, mandatory debt forgiveness, the sabbath, making sure people got paid everyday, allowing poor people to eat food that fell from trees on farms. That stuff is way beyond what we have here in America. All the times I've worked like 20 days in a row, and every month I make out my student loan checks...could of used some Torah law.

But bigger point: The bible is pretty emphatic that the laws are the laws for Israel. It doesn't say it's for the whole world, it doesn't say you should follow them, if anything, according to the bible, you shouldn't be demanded to follow the law, because it's a law for God's people. So what does it even matter? Why do people get so bent out of shape about some other peoples laws?

[spin]

14. Does Israel chop off a womans hand today ...

if she grabs the testicles of her significant other's opponent while they are fighting?

If not, why?

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

15. Because it's 3,000 years later?

Maybe you missed that part of my post, where I asked why people judge something 3,000 years old by today?

Do they have mandatory debt forgiveness too? Do they let poor people go around farms picking up stuff that fell on the ground?

The nation of Israel that used Deuteronomy as their law has been gone for 2,500 years. Do you think the nation that is going to be on the specific geographical land of the USA in 2,500 years is going to follow our constitution and all other federal, state, and local laws? Probably not, because it's going to be 2,500 years in the future and there will be different people, ideas, and so on. Pretty simple.

[spin]

16. Does God change over the years?

Does he mature with time and moderate his laws? Does he become older and wiser?

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

17. Ah

I think maybe I thought we were having a different conversation than I thought we were.

I personally don't really have a problem with Deuteronomy, as someone who was raised in Christianity and left it, I actually find it a lot more liberal than what Evangelicals tend to believe. As a whole, it's acceptable, in basic philosophy and message to me. There are some things in it that I don't personally like, but there are other things I like a lot. I find it fascinating, as I do all of the Hebrew Bible and other Ancient Near Eastern thought. I was just explaining why Israel doesn't still follow it. There has been a ton of historical development within the religion, the fall of the monarchy, Rabbinic Judaism, diaspora. Christianity of course never really had anything to do with it, I'm not entirely sure why they even have it in their Bible, since they so rarely even preach out of the OT in any meaningful way.

Are you arguing that Israel still should make Deuteronomy their constitution, or something similar? If so, my fault for misunderstanding the conversation.

[Meshuga]

19. ???

Why would Israel have to implement biblical law? "People of Israel" is not the same as "the citizens of the State of Israel." People of Israel is just another name for the Jewish people meaning that Jewish Law is meant for the Jewish people.

Judaism today is derived from Pharisaic Judaism which puts emphasis on the Oral Law. In fact, orthodox Judaism look in the Shulchan Aruch for religious answers as opposed to the Hebrew Bible.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

20. I don't know

I was just wondering if that was what he was suggesting.

[Meshuga]

18. I don't think FamousBlueRaincoat's point is that God personally changes over the years

The point is that people change and their idea of God and religion also change. Biblical Judaism, for example, died out with the fall of the temple because they could not change God's law. Without the temple their religion was dead. Pharisaic Judaism took over because they introduced (and put emphasis on) an open ended oral law. And open ended law gives room to change and to adapt as the world changes.

[spin]

22. As I read the Old Testament ...

I find Yahweh of the ancient Hebrews a brutal warrior God. I realize that the times were different and compared to the other Gods of the time, Yahweh was far more fair and compassionate.

I will use as an example Yahweh's directions to the Israelites for taking the city of Jericho.

15 On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times. 16 The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the army, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! 17 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. 18 But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. 19 All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.”

20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

I know that our civilization has changed over the years and today when the United States attacks a city we strive to avoid collateral damage. I will also admit that if we used Yahweh's approach to handling cities in Iraq such as Fallujah, we probably would have had fewer problems with the Iraqi insurgency. Of course, we would have been hated all over the world for good reason.

Israel is feared as a military force and I believe that they still worship the God of the Old Testament, but they too attempt to avoid unnecessarily killing innocent civilians. Therefore my question, does God change as he ages?

Many people who study religion view Yahweh and Christ as the same God while some don't. If Christ came to save mankind because no one could gain heaven under Yahweh's law, then is God admitting fallibility?

And if Jesus is the leader of the Catholic Church and the Pope is in contact with Christ as his representative on earth, then why does the Catholic church change its view over time? Why did the Catholic church persecute Galileo for his view that the sun is the center of the solar system? Surely if the Pope was actually in contact with God, God would explain elementary astronomy if requested. Why would God lie, and would God lie?

I suspect that the Old Testament was written by priests interested in creating a good society with a side benefit of a great lifestyle for the priesthood. Of course, they portrayed Yahweh as a powerful and vengeful God to get the cooperation of their followers. Some experts call the Bible an exaggeration of actual history and even today we find that our history is often painted in a very favorable light that emphasizes our strengths and ignores our failures and weaknesses.

Many of the stories we read in the Old Testament are very similar to what we call myths of other civilizations that preceded or were around at the time the Bible was written.

As I look at all these myths, I find so much similarity across the world that I wonder if all these myths aren't based on events that actually happened. Of course, a good story deserves repeating and the Bible is a fascinating repository of great tales. Perhaps all we have is the plagiarism of really great tales from culture to culture. Travelers were probably welcomed all over the world for the tales and the entertainment they provided.

For years I have suspected that an alien civilization or civilizations had contact with ancient man far in the past and what we see as religion today is early man's attempt to describe these encounters. An advanced civilization might have even played with our DNA to increase our intelligence. We are doing this today on some animal species.

This doesn't mean to me that there is no creator. I often view God as many of the founding fathers of our nation did. I have an enormous amount of respect for those who fought in the Revolutionary War and wrote our Constitution. If only we could clone them and replace the fools who we elect today and represent the big corporations rather than the voters.

Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)<1><2> in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not to be altered by intervention in the affairs of human life. Deists believe in the existence of God, in a secular sense, without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books.

Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in what is now the United Kingdom, France, United States and Ireland, mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in supernatural miracles or the inerrancy of scriptures, but who did believe in one God.

***snip***

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,<38> and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe).

***snip***

For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he more often referred to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I'm retired and have just started on the journey of questioning and studying religion and mythology. I have just scratched the surface and the more I learn the more questions I have. I'm beginning to realize that this is not an easy task and could easily occupy an entire lifetime. it is, however, interesting and rewarding.

I welcome responses to my questions.

[Meshuga]

24. ...

"Israel is feared as a military force and I believe that they still worship the God of the Old Testament, but they too attempt to avoid unnecessarily killing innocent civilians. Therefore my question, does God change as he ages?"

The State of Israel is a state that does not have a uniform/official belief or consensus on belief (and non-belief). There is a spectrum of beliefs and non-belief from the ultra-Orthodox to atheist Jews in Israel. In fact, the majority of Jews in Israel are secular non-religious Jews so I am not sure what you mean when you say that they worship the God from the old testament. Judaism rejects the anthropomorphism of God so the biblical stories are understood to be the God idea of ancient Hebrews and that Torah is not supposed to be taken literally. The different god ideas have nothing to do with god aging and changing personality with time.

[spin]

27. Interesting... I learn new info each day. Thanks.

[Meshuga]

30. Not a problem Spin

I learn something new each day with everyone here as well. :-)

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

29. sorry for misjudging you spin

I'm new here, so I don't mean to get on anyone's wrong side. I'm fascinated with the Bible, so I assume I'm going to be posting here a lot. I've been lurking for a while, so I know there tends to be hostility all around, and particularly on the religion thing. Since you posted such a long post, I thought I should just let you know where I'm coming from. In short, I was raised a Christian, rejected it early on. I got interested in both Deism and meditation as a teenager. In college I took some bible study classes and became really interested in the Bible, OT and NT. But I found that the OT (Hebrew Bible) a lot more desirable and setting out a philosophy of history and living (particularly the prophets, but you of course have to understand what comes before that to understand them) that had a lot in common with me, whereas I'm interested in the NT more just because it plays such a large role in our society and how people think. So I don't actually know what I am. Some Jewish groups recognize something called Noahides, people who are not Jews but believe and are supportive in Judaism, and I guess that's what I'd consider myself. But I tend to describe myself as a theist to others just so there's no confusion about what I am. I'm not Jewish - I've spent a lot of time listening to rabbis, reading Jewish works, more than any other reason because they are a lot better at understanding their own Bible than others are.

If you are interested in reading the Bible in this way, I think the best thing I ever did (or was actually forced to do for college) is buy the Jewish Publication Society's Jewish Study Bible. Published by Oxford Press. It's the pretty standard version for secular scholars, I think. It's what the Christians call the Old Testament, but it has wonderful notes that often compare stories to other religions, and also tend to examine a text from a secular scholarly or Jewish perspective depending on the specific text. Anyway, there's a ton of stuff to learn about religion and mythology, so it's not the most important thing to do in your life. But it sounds like you might find it interesting.

As far as Yahweh and Jesus - Christians believe that Jesus was that god, because it's what their religion is based on. In my opinion, what Christians refer to as the Old Testament is extremely adamant that God is not a person, never has been a person, never will be a person, and isn't going to change his mind about that or anything else. Christianity caught on with Greek people, who would have been interested in a religion where a person is a god, or a person is the son of a god. A lot of their mythology is based on gods being very human, and there are people who are sons of gods. But anyway, Christianity was a new religion significantly different than Judaism, so yes, in order to base it on Judaism it would have been necessary for god to have "changed his mind". Which is also the reason why most early converts were Greeks and other non-Jews - because Jews didn't think God would change his mind (long story short). If you are interested in this aspect, I can provide you links to writings and/or podcasts about this. But if you're not, that's cool.

In case you didn't notice, I'm a lot better at telling people what they shouldn't believe than what they should believe - which I suppose is rare among people who consider themselves religious.

[Meshuga]

31. Oh, I see that god had to "change his mind" in the Christian story

"...Christianity was a new religion significantly different than Judaism, so yes, in order to base it on Judaism it would have been necessary for god to have changed his mind."

I guess that in the Christian point of view that is a yes. Christianity, in part, came from the Pharisaic idea (at the time) that people achieved a place in the world to come by following the twofold law. On the other hand, biblical Jews of the time didn't believe in the world to come (and the twofold law) and their religion was temple based by offering sacrifices to god as a form of thanks, forgiveness, and asking for good things to happen (i.e., a good harvest, no natural disasters, etc.). I guess Christianity borrowed its idea from both opposing Jewish sects claiming that Jesus saved humanity from having to follow the law by being the ultimate sacrifice. In other words, people from that point were saved just by accepting Jesus as the sacrificial lamb as opposed to following the law. Anyway, I am dumbing this down to make it short but I think that was at least Paul's logic. Noting that Paul was a Pharisaic Jew and that he would think like a pharisee and share their fears of god, etc.

You would probably like Saturday Torah classes/discussions at Reform Jewish synagogues (and conservative shuls as well) since the Hebrew Bible is discussed in a critical way. I mean, they are usually not religious "praise the lord" discussions but academic discussions about the Hebrew Bible. You probably know this from seeing Hebrew Bible translations with commentary from publishers such as the JTS and the URJ. The commentaries usually attempt to show where the ideas and the original language/context come from.

Welcome to DU, BTW!

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

32. thanks

I've often wondered about going to a synagogue. I never really knew if I should be going - I e-mailed one once, and they seemed sort of confused as to why I would want to be there. Here in Philadelphia though there are quite a few academic resources on Judaism though, which I really ought to check out.

One of the most interesting people I've ever heard talk about the difference of the New Testament from the Hebrew Bible is Rabbi Toviah Singer. Now, he's Orthodox. But he's a counter-missionary, attempting to convert "Jews for Jesus" back to Judaism. And while he's not academic in any sense (he takes the bible quite literally) he's really good at de-programming people from Christianity. He examines a lot of the often quoted verses from the OT that Christians use in a manner very differently than how they are meant to be read. For example, he'll talk for like an hour and a half about Isaiah 7:14, which if you're like me and grew up in a Christian church you have heard over and over and over again, but never in any context and never even attempted at explaining.

[spin]

33. As I mentioned ...

I'm just really starting the journey of researching the beliefs I was raised with. It's far easier to just believe than to question.

To me, at this point, the Old Testament is a collection of interesting tales many of which come from earlier civilizations. The New Testament is also an interesting collection of stories and parables about a man who may or may not have existed and who may or may not have had unique powers. Once again many of the stories of Christ are similar to what we call myths about other Gods. For example Christ was born from a virgin as was Krishna, Dionysus and Buddha and a host of other Gods and religious figures. Christ's death by crucifixion also seems common to a number of other Gods as well as his "rising from the dead". Of course, these assertions are contested and open to debate.

I tend to believe in a creator or a celestial "watchmaker". I do not believe that this entity lives on a cloud floating over earth. I wonder if he has any interest at all in mankind or we are just one of an uncountable number of civilizations he has fostered through the universe. If he exists, there is no way we can understand him any more than my cat can understand me. In fact a better comparison might be an ant or a flea understanding a human.

As I mentioned, I do suspect we were visited by aliens from another star system in the past and they may have not only observed us but played around with our DNA to make us more intelligent. It's a far fetched idea but not an impossible one. Currently we are starting to genetically alter animals to grow faster and larger.

Studying mythology and religion is fascinating but can be exasperating.

[DeSwiss]

10. K&R

So even if her "seizing" of said private parts results in aiding her husband to defeat his enemy, her reward is to STILL have her hand chopped off!


- So ya see? Sometimes his ways ain't so mysterious, they're just fucked-up!

[Amaya]

25. what a loving happy god

:7

[dimbear]

26. FWIW, might as well know the present OT is only accidentally in the Christian Bible.

In attempting to cobble together a palatable 'history' the later compilers of the book for the Christians went straight to the then current Jewish scriptures. They cared more for the prestige value of that than for their own writers' sources, who had relied on a much different set of writings. This accounts for the NT citing books which don't occur in the OT, etc.

By the time this borrowing occurred, the Jews had already been editing their own texts to make sure Christianity didn't get any extra traction. That's another story.

To understand the NT writers, it's far more important to understand books like Enoch and Jubilees than Deuteronomy.

[RandomThoughts]

34. I was going to post a long article on the topic of heavenly wives

And I noticed your posts, so figure I would post it here. Not about TSA, but about the concept of 'wives' and 'heavenly areas' spoken of in a few places.

In older culture wife was thought of as servant, that is much of the idea of pure wives in heaven or ideas in Christianity about people becoming 'wives'. So without gender, but with explanation of translation. It also apears in a few other places like female and male and 2 and 1, servant and soldier, and a few other things.



There is a huge problem with the concept of some Master saying you should serve him, and you will be in heaven to serve him. And the concept that the person should serve the master first then sit down to eat.

There is a huge, huh? why should someone do that, that is quite a claim?


The problem with that is people think of it as serving Christ the man, not the idea of serving the spirit of God that was with Christ. And it was explained both in Old Testament where the angels were told to serve people, and in the new testament where it is said how you treat the poor, naked, hungry, and prisoners, is how you treat Christ.

So when a 'wife in heaven' helps someone, really that is saying helping people in the concept as explained in many places.

I did not look up the verses you quote, but they are an interesting contradiction of the orders of the angels in heaven in the same books, and the concepts in the New Testament also. So I think their could be a translation issue there.


That also explains the comment of how people in heaven are like angels, because they also cheerfully find ways to help people, and presumably each other, it is what is in their heart.




Anyways, that 'wife' thing in the Bible is not thought on by many people. I think of it as heavenly angels that like to help people and each other. Thats how I think of it. So the only entity that would not be a wife would be the better spirit of God, that is also part of people, that is helped by all that are all part of the better spirit of God. So it makes sense that there is only 1 God, and everyone else is 2, but part of the better spirit of God.

Or that's how I think of it. So in that case, any heavenly help would be from a wife. :shrug: So I think there is a translation problem in that verse compared to some other ideas.