Slashdot Mirror

Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!

What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!

Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

Leviticus 1-5:
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!

Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!

I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!

What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!

Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

Leviticus 1-5:
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!

Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!

I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

Ok, I try to avoid getting involved in religious conversations like this, but you are coming across as a typical ignorant elitist here, sneering down at things you clearly don't understand. We all get that you aren't religious, but that doesn't give you the right to present skewed information taken out of context. So, I'm going to completely waste my time here and present some *actual* information on each one of your points in the vain hope that in the future you will temper your snark.

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!

What you aren't saying, is that at the time selling children into slavery was a common practice throughout much of the "civilized" world. This 'law' was put in to place to *protect women*. The reason why is that normally when a child was sold into servitude, they would be freed after a period of time. Since (by far) the reason that women were taken as 'servants' or ('hand-maidens' depending on the interpretation) was as second wives or concubines, it was grossly unfair to the woman to then release her from service after she had been used as a sex object for years. No one would want to marry her, and she was essentially screwed. To protect against that, this law was put into place saying essentially, that if you're going to take this woman on, you have to care for her forever, you can't just have sex with her for a few years while she's pretty and then kick her out once she gets older.

2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!

Again, you're totally cherry picking here. Leviticus rules of cleanliness were generally *good* things. At the time, they simply didn't understand biology, and sanitary practices were spotty at best. This was the origin of laying down some rules for sanitary practices, which is a good thing, even if they seem strange to us now. And by the way, Leviticus' admonishments were by no means limited only to women:

Leviticus 1-5:
"Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in regard to his discharge; whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening."

This was relating to abnormal discharge, no one really understood STD's, they were just doing their best at the time. But great job completely misrepresenting Leviticus as anti-female in order to push some sort of agenda.

3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!

Again, you're totally misrepresenting the law here. A the time, this was incredibly progressive. Slavery was rampant and commonly accepted, to limit the bounds of slavery and who could be enslaved was a great step in the right direction. Considering that even the U.S. still hadn't worked out slavery issues as of only 140 years ago, applying 21st century morals to a progressive law created to put bounds and limits on slavery thousands of years ago... well, that's just childish.

4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!

I don't even understand your point here. Are you saying this is still a problem? I mean, I agree - we need to stop the rampant slaughter of all the people who work on Sundays in America. Oh wait... you mean, this doesn't happen? At all? So, clearly it was a law intended for another time - a time that penalties were pretty damn harsh for just about any infraction. There's some question about how tightly this was int

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

I've got a good book that I can recommend that answers all these questions and more....

Questions like:

1. Can I sell my daughter into slavery? Yes!
2. Should I avoid all contact with women during her period? Yes!
3. Can I buy slaves from neighbouring nations? Yes!
4. Should I kill someone who works on a Sunday? Yes!
5. Can I eat shellfish? No!
6. I have a lazy eye. Can I go to church? No!
7. Can I get a haircut? No!

Yup, good book that.

Nothing new there, it was known to the ancients.

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. -- John 15:13

But I say to you not to resist evil

it's well within the biblical-defined 6,000 year age of the universe.

Creationists rejoice!

Actually the Bible doesn't define a 6,000 year old universe. The age is indeterminate for both the age of the universe, and the earth itself. If you read the relevant passage below it attributes creation of the heavens (universe) and the earth to God, but there is no timing involved. At some indefinite time after the universe and the earth were created God performed the seven days of creation noted after that. The Bible allows for both a universe and earth that are billions of years old.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. -- Genesis 1:1-3

There is a further interesting point to make in this regard. When the "Big Bang" was proposed it was controversial. Some scientists found it highly disagreeable to contemplate that the universe wasn't infinite in time, but rather had an actual beginning, just as the Bible indicates.

Which is extra funny since that sort of behavior is specifically prohibited of them: Matthew 6:5.

Yeah, about 1800 years old to be exact, since its from Paul's letter to the Galatians (6:7).

Many of Jesus' contemporaries believed the second coming would be within their lifetimes.

To be fair, that's the most direct interpretation of this passage. Fundies don't like that one very much, because you have to go through gyrations to explain it away.

Legends like the Wandering Jew don't play well in modern churches, and only Elijah and Enoch (both OT) are cited as having been taken directly to heaven without dying (so that's out too).

I can continue listing other domestic terrorism by Christians.

And don't even try the "they aren't true Christians" nonsense.

A random dictionary's definition of christian:a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

I would *add* that "believing" is not enough, and practicing is where the true follower is...
But Jesus gave his own litmus test, so why must you and I try to define "true" christian and waste time with the "no true scottsman fallacy": "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35)
There is no "love" in blowing people up and doing what some of these churches are individually doing to blemish the name of who they claim to follow. Jesus knew this about the wolves entering the flock. See Acts 20:29. The net result? false doctrine and interpretation create a rift between people and God.

And there's plenty more. Genesis 19:30-36 (NIV; choose your own path at http://biblehub.com/genesis/19.htm, look for "Lot and his Daughters")

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children--as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father." That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I slept with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

While not as risqué as your verses, it involves both rape and incest, but still no outcry to remove Bibles...

Really? Because I remember a story where a women caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus and He basically said "Don't judge her, you have no right. Then asked her to stop doing it." Very little murder was involved.
Reference:
http://biblehub.com/nlt/john/8.htm

...and this from the same guy who totally hated fig trees...?

http://jesushatesfigs.blogspot.com/

Really? Because I remember a story where a women caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus and He basically said "Don't judge her, you have no right. Then asked her to stop doing it." Very little murder was involved. Reference: http://biblehub.com/nlt/john/8.htm

If they were Christians, they'd both still fit the description of "rich right-wing religious crazy guy".

Nope, neither one even TRIES to be a Christian; it takes more than lip service, going to church, and tithing so that you can say you paid taxes. Read the bible, Christ lambasted both Romney and Obama. Luke 16:19-31 damns Romney, and Luke 11:46 damns Obama. All the men who Romney threw out of work during his corporate piracy at Bain Capital are Lazarus, and Obama is a lawyer. Both worship money and power, and No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens.

Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.

Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

Ah yes, that conservative wellspring, the Bible. Proverbs 31, verses 10 and onwards has much to say about the place of women. Typical fundamentalist things, like owning land, buying and selling the produce from her land, having money to spend at her own discretion, being praised by the men of the household, and all these things being a source of pride and esteem for her husband. Or was that not what you were expecting? Sure, it mentions a bunch of other, more traditional things, too, but the roles aren't much different from what you'd find in a farming household of today.

I will grant you that far too many people who profess to follow the Bible happily neglect verses like these and others of equal value. But how is that different from any other ideology out there? One could say that the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution are much shorter documents, and it appears the majority of people who profess to uphold that will happily go against one or more of its tenets on a regular basis. Hell, I can pick just two elements of the constitution and probably get 75% of the population to disagree with at least one.

People like to bash religion, and there is good reason to bash it. But the core issue is people. People will do stupid and evil things, and they will use whatever tools most closely fit their beliefs to achieve the ends they desire. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the tool used.

Perhaps they just pissed-off God. This suggests that airport waiting-lounges are what happened to Eden, which, IMHO, puts flaming swords to shame ...

Perhaps they just pissed-off God. This suggests that airport waiting-lounges are what happened to Eden, which, IMHO, puts flaming swords to shame ...

But god is guilty of jealousy, one of the 7 deadly sins.

Exodus 20:5 New International Version
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Punishing people for crimes their ancestors committed is also incredibly unfair, some might say evil.

Point being, since god is a sinner, and Jesus is god, then Jesus was not perfect. Imperfect, he could not be a perfect sacrifice to himself.

Even if you don't buy "Jesus wasn't perfect" you run afoul of the fact that he was sacrificing himself to himself to save humanity from a curse he put on humanity to begin with. As a sacrifice unto himself his death was a suicide, the second highest sin only less than blasphemy which incidentally perma-bans you from heaven.

Also banned by default are the following:

Ammonites and Moabites
Men of illegitimate birth
Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child
Eunuchs by crushing or mutilation (includes vasectomies)
Nothing impure
Anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful

In fact it explicitly states in revleation

... but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Incidentally the "book of life" is only referenced 9 times total in only 3 books of the bible, once in Psalm 69:28, once in Philippians 4:3, and 7 times in Revelation. As such I'm comfortable tossing the whole "book of life" idea out the window because it's obviously not a key point, but if you're going to talking about what the scriptures actually teach I feel it's relevant to address the point that the bible does not say what you believe it says. How about having a little less faith and cracking the damned book open for once?

There's no quicker path to atheism than reading the bible.

"people didn't live as a long, so there was a lot of pressure to start breeding as soon and as many as possible"

Common misconception. Lots of young people died (in childbirth or as infants), bringing down the average life expectancy. But once a person reached adulthood, the maximum lifespan was about the same as it is today. Bible Psalm 90:10: "Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away" (as written ~500 BC).

http://biblehub.com/psalms/90-10.htm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral18.cfm

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-9.htm

http://biblehub.com/james/5-16.htm

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-9.htm

http://biblehub.com/james/5-16.htm

Speak for yourself. I plan on going up in the rapture with Jesus...

Meh, no doubt so did most people present during the monologue of Matthew 16:27-28.

Ha ha, but clearly the joke was on them because Jesus must have known that the Wandering Jew was standing just behind the disciples. I mean, that's basic Occam's Razor, right?

Right?

Lasts for centuries - Unless he is very angry. http://biblehub.com/exodus/32-19.htm

Marriage gives you certain benefits - taxes, insurance rates, access rights, etc - that no other 'grouping' does.

You're never going to get government out of all of the things that marriage gives benefits to.

Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.

Your phrasing was clumsy, e.g. in the American system government is only supposed to defend your inherent natural rights, so it's not like the government is giving you new rights out of the goodness of its heart. However, your meaning was spot on. There are many areas of life such as adoption, child custody disputes, and the others you reference that are profoundly affected by marriage, which the legislatures and courts must necessarily arbitrate in some fashion.

And I join you in disagreeing with @ganjadude saying "Let the churches deal with marriage" also for the following reason: In the Christian Bible, marriage was a civil matter. There is no verse anywhere that says anything about a church or pastor officiating marriages, which were organized by families in Bible times. Church marriages were a relatively modern invention of the catholic churches which declared marriage a sacrament and thus tried to assert inappropriate control over the whole of society. It's kind of funny that there are Protestants today who realize as an abstract idea that the catholic sacrament of marriage is bunk, but who superstitiously still think that their wedding has to be performed by a minister. Here's a real Bible wedding ceremony for you: "Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death."

It's too bad Romans chapter 14 doesn't get to be a superseding rule the like you claim Acts is, it would fix pretty much all the problems with the church.