The Bible encourages Rape!

[Nox]

1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

[ComradeMan]

So because of those passages everyone is encouraged and (justified) to go out and commit heinous crimes? Please....

[Nox]

So because of those passages everyone is encouraged and (justified) to go out and commit heinous crimes? Please....

The Bible is God's word, it must be true.

God encourages and allows rape.

How can you worship that?

[Aleenik]

So because of those passages everyone is encouraged and (justified) to go out and commit heinous crimes? Please....No and that doesn't seem to be what Dzhugashvili is saying. I believe he is saying the bible and God are horrible. I'm an agnostic atheist and I personally dislike all religions.

[Искра]

Don't be stupid. Neither religion based on this (Christianity or Judaisam) dosen't encorugages rape. It's against their moral values and they say it loud. These passages were writen long long long time ago, but hopefuly religions develop with the civilisation.

[Nox]

Don't be stupid. Neither religion based on this (Christianity or Judaisam) dosen't encorugages rape. It's against their moral values and they say it loud. These passages were writen long long long time ago, but hopefuly religions develop with the civilisation.

If you believe in the Bible, you can't just pick and choose which parts are true and which are false just to make yourself look good, that's absurd.

[Aleenik]

Don't be stupid. Neither religion based on this (Christianity or Judaisam) dosen't encorugages rape. It's against their moral values and they say it loud. These passages were writen long long long time ago, but hopefuly religions develop with the civilisation.Christians are suppose to believe the Bible is the word of God. They are suppose to believe it is the ultimate truth.

[Zostrianos]

Those passages are inherently problematic, and Christian apologists have usually resorted to saying that since most of it was in the Old Testament, it no longer applies after Jesus' ministry. They explain God's atrocities by claiming that those were necessary at the time, and that in isolation they might seem evil, but they were part of God's "great plan" for Israel and humanity.
However, during the various religious wars in the Middle Ages and later, the Catholic and Protestant Church used the model of Old Testament savagery in the name of God to justify crime after crime (crusades, Protestants & Catholics killing each other, rape, persecution and massacres of Jews, etc). The persecution of witches was motivated by the Exodus commandment "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
And some modern apologists do agree with many of those passages, especially American fundies, many of whom have publicly stated that they would like to see non Christians, gays and atheists put to death, and that they'd like to turn America into a theocracy governed by Biblical laws.

Old Testament atrocities probably originated out of the tribal culture in the late bronze\early iron age, where war and inter-tribal rivalry was common.
"Kill all the men, keep the women" was a common approach back then during wars.

[Zostrianos]

Anyway, those passages are indefensible and I'm glad they exist, because they're a good source of ammo for refuting Christian arguments and pointing out the deep flaws in organized Christianity

[ComradeMan]

The Bible is God's word, it must be true.
God encourages and allows rape.
How can you worship that?

Well we better not follow the commandments about lying, stealing, murdering and so on either in that case.

[PhoenixAsh]

The commandments don't say anything about rape though.

[Искра]

If you believe in the Bible, you can't just pick and choose which parts are true and which are false just to make yourself look good, that's absurd.
No you can't that pope's job. Religion is a problem, but still there's no christian religion or sect which promotes rape.

[Zostrianos]

No you can't that pope's job. Religion is a problem, but still there's no christian religion or sect which promotes rape.

Actually fundamentalist Mormons in the US force girls into marriage as young as 12, and they're forced to have sex with their husbands (sometimes men over 40)

[PhoenixAsh]

Not entirely true. Many Christians consider the bond of mariage a submissive bond of the wife to the husband in which she is to obey him in all things.

This is based on Ephesians 5:21-33.

Often Christians do not consider sex within marriage without consent of the woman to be rape but her wifely duty.

So technically you are wrong. But they do not condone outright rape outside marriage....yet their holy book does and their God does....and so did the Church itself a few centuries back. The Church also does a whole lot of victim blaming and often painting the victim as a temptress and harlot...so again...technically...you are wrong.

[Nox]

Well we better not follow the commandments about lying, stealing, murdering and so on either in that case.

We won't follow the Bible commandments about those, but we will follow real-world moral values about those.

[hatzel]

real-world moral values

...what are they, and why are they worth following?

[Revolutionair]

...what are they, and why are they worth following?

"The real world values are the values of the proletarian worker. The bourgeoisie along with the joke of the church have so called 'Christian values'. Real world values include the expanding of workers' democracy in the form of a one-party state and a secret police force. They are the true values, and kill every nazi-trotskyite-fascist-bourgeois-capitalist traitor that claims otherwise."
- Ioseb Jughashvili

[hatzel]

I'm not even sure if this is a genuine quote, because it really does sound more like a parody, but okay, I'll suspend my disbelief for a second and engage it as I would any other post, so that the discussion can continue...


The real world values are the values of the proletarian worker.

Sklavenmoral, then, I assume? Glad that's been cleared up...

However, even if we were to pretend that millions upon millions of people actually share a uniform set of values solely due to their socio-economic position (and the fact that proletarian workers sometimes lie, steal or murder without shame suggests that the values we're discussing wouldn't be included in this moral system we've imagined up anyway, but let's ignore that), we're no clearer on whence these values actually come, and how they (supposedly) come to be adopted by the proletarian worker. Nor why the proletarian worker should follow them.


The bourgeoisie along with the joke of the church have so called 'Christian values'.

Eurocentrism ftw. Got anything that applies outside of the Christian world?

Once again we have to ignore the details, though, as even the European bourgeoisie don't really have particularly Christian values. Example: their position as the bourgeoisie is pretty much reliant on the charging of usury somewhere along the line. Which they don't exactly find morally indignant. Terribly unchristian of them. Perhaps if the quote claimed that the bourgeoisie of the Christian world sought to ensure an adherence to Christian values amongst the subordinate classes, but in such a way that they (the bourgeoisie) were somehow exempt from it, so that they could not be judged "christianly," then we might have something to run with here. Perhaps we could even pull some B. Traven out from the corners of obscurity:

"Morals are taught and preached not for the sake of heaven, but to assist those people on earth who have everything they need and more to retain their possessions and to help them to accumulate still more. Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."


One could argue that, for values to be Christian, they would have to be 'for the sake of heaven.' Otherwise they're bourgeois values (once again, we're imagining that millions upon millions of people share a single value system because of their socio-economic position) which just so happen to correspond to Christian values in certain aspects. The same could be said of these proletarian values we speak so much of, if they do, in fact, include not lying, stealing or killing. But perhaps they don't:


Real world values include the expanding of workers' democracy in the form of a one-party state and a secret police force.

I'm not seeing anything about lying, stealing and murdering here, actually. Doesn't seem to me that "real world values" have anything to do with (im)moral behaviour. Or anything, actually. So...why can't we lie, steal and kill? Or can we?


- Ioseb Jughashvili

Oh. That explains it, then...

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

Religion is shit and is the enemy of the people. Not just Christianity.

[kapitalyst]

This is simply being silly... :rolleyes:

The Old Testament is a series of stories originating from ancient Judaic oral tradition. Much of it is based on historical events, and a great portion of it is simply parable. When one reads it, one should not interpret it completely literally. For instance, the story of Adam and Eve is nothing more than an analogy/parable to the Neolithic Revolution, and beginnings of human society... and it was used to teach ancient Judaic values. Throughout history, people have made the mistake of interpreting it literally.

One must consider the historical context of everything he/she reads in the Bible. The OT is full of dreadful stories of warfare, murder and yes, rape. However, those were the harsh realities of life at the time. Rival tribes might creep up on your camp in the night and cut all of your throats. Back then, warfare was different. There was no fighting campaigns until one side relented and begged for armistice. No, you exterminated your foe or bred them out. If you spared your foes, they would eventually rise again and come after you. Human civilization was fragile and dangerous.

Thank you. That will be all... :cool:

[#FF0000]

its not like religious people actually take what they think and do from their holy books anyway lol

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

Dogma either needs to stand up to scrutiny or it fails. The Bible fails, the Qua'ran fails. Neither show any evidence of being anything other than the products of desert dwelling backwater patriarchal assholes.

Both should be read only as literature, and very bad literature at that.

[Susurrus]

A great deal of fundamentalists believe that every part of the bible must be obeyed.

[ComradeOmar]

I hope all of you do realize that the bible is always changing anyway. My point is that no religion encourages disgusting actions, otherwise what is the point of having a religion.

[Nox]

what is the point of having a religion.

That, my friend, is the greatest question of them all.

[Revolutionair]

That, my friend, is the greatest question of them all.

Well according to some:


Religious suffering is ... a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.

[hatzel]

backwater

Feel like explaining how Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Levant, Greece etc. were "backwaters," per chance? I'd be interested in hearing the justification for this claim...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I remember reading the laws God puts out concerning rape as being the final straw for me. Read those passages in Deuteronomy and it was official, no longer believed in that god. How the hell is he the barometer used for Justice by Christians? Get caught raping a girl? Just pay her father and you get to keep her as a wife! Such a horrible consequence right? I thought it would just encourage people to do that really.

[ComradeOmar]

Dogma either needs to stand up to scrutiny or it fails. The Bible fails, the Qua'ran fails. Neither show any evidence of being anything other than the products of desert dwelling backwater patriarchal assholes.

Both should be read only as literature, and very bad literature at that.
This I feel is a reason people have a bad outlook on communism ( Communism being against religion claim). There is no point in insulting each others religions even if you have none. BTW Im not a christian

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

This I feel is a reason people have a bad outlook on communism ( Communism being against religion claim). There is no point in insulting each others religions even if you have none. BTW Im not a christian

You can feel anyway you want. I choose the religion of the proletariat; reason and logic. Atheism.

The monotheistic desert religions advocate atrocities. Not just rape, but genocide, infanticide, slavery and the dehumanization of women and homosexuals.

As a homosexual woman I'd be retarded to believe in it. Even worse we know where these made up Gods come from, we no longer need to speculate.

I'm more than a little tired of the "hurt feelings" card being used as a hammer for crap.

Religion does two things. It keeps us as a collective people stupid, and contributes to sectarian hatred of others.

[Zostrianos]

This I feel is a reason people have a bad outlook on communism ( Communism being against religion claim). There is no point in insulting each others religions even if you have none. BTW Im not a christian

Not insulting, but pointing out the facts is necessary. In passing, you will notice that religious fundamentalists more often than not insult others, so it's only fair if they taste some of their own medicine

[Zostrianos]

And here are some enlightening quotes from the Church fathers on the subject of women:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/03/10/a-womans-place-in-christianity.htm
Keep in mind that many of these men are considered saints in the catholic and protestant churches

Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?): "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

Tertullian (160?-220?): "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."

Ambrose (339-97): "Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam... it is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability."

Augustine (354-430): "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

Pope Gregory I (540-604): "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74): "[Woman] was made only to assist with procreation."

John Knox (1513-72): "Woman was made for only one reason, to serve and obey man."

John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

Southern Baptist Convention (2000): "A wife should submit herself to the leadership of her husband. Leadership in the church should always be male."

Local church in Holland (2004): "More and more we see women being placed in the position of Elder or Pastor in churches. Is this a good thing? Well, if your goal is to undermine the authority of the Word of God, it's a good thing."

[ComradeMan]

You can feel anyway you want. I choose the religion of the proletariat; reason and logic. Atheism.

So athsism is now a religion? And since when has reason and logic been defined as the religion of the proletariat anyway? (not saying that it isn't but just I would like some clarification on the point).


The monotheistic desert religions advocate atrocities. Not just rape, but genocide, infanticide, slavery and the dehumanization of women and homosexuals.

No, they describe it- they do not advocate it. Learn what "advocate" means..... :rolleyes:


As a homosexual woman I'd be retarded to believe in it. Even worse we know where these made up Gods come from, we no longer need to speculate.

Nice to see that you use a really pc/human first/non-prejudiced word, i.e. "retarded"..... :rolleyes: hypocrite.


I'm more than a little tired of the "hurt feelings" card being used as a hammer for crap.

But that's exactly what you're doing too...


Religion does two things. It keeps us as a collective people stupid, and contributes to sectarian hatred of others.

Yeah, like Soviet Russia was a fountain of learning because Einstein's ideas were considered "bourgeois". Come off it.

[ComradeMan]

----

Because they are canonical? Because they decide what every Christian thinks?

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

Read the Bible then figure it out. If you want to be an apologetic that's fine but don't expect the 21st century mind to buy it.

[ComradeMan]

tr.v. ad·vo·cat·ed, ad·vo·cat·ing, ad·vo·cates
To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

And where does the Bible do that? Where does it "advocate" that? If that where the case how come the "Jewish-Christian" states criminalize all of the things that you mention?


Read the Bible then figure it out. If you want to be an apologetic that's fine but don't expect the 21st century mind to buy it.

By basing your "counter-arguments" on ignorance you too become ignorant.

Could you explain empirically what the 21st century mind is? Reification is often the sign of weak argument....

However it seems you zealous fight against ignorance does not include prejudice against the "retarded". :rolleyes:

[DarkPast]

This is simply being silly... :rolleyes:

The Old Testament is a series of stories originating from ancient Judaic oral tradition. Much of it is based on historical events, and a great portion of it is simply parable. When one reads it, one should not interpret it completely literally. For instance, the story of Adam and Eve is nothing more than an analogy/parable to the Neolithic Revolution, and beginnings of human society... and it was used to teach ancient Judaic values. Throughout history, people have made the mistake of interpreting it literally.

One must consider the historical context of everything he/she reads in the Bible. The OT is full of dreadful stories of warfare, murder and yes, rape. However, those were the harsh realities of life at the time. Rival tribes might creep up on your camp in the night and cut all of your throats. Back then, warfare was different. There was no fighting campaigns until one side relented and begged for armistice. No, you exterminated your foe or bred them out. If you spared your foes, they would eventually rise again and come after you. Human civilization was fragile and dangerous.

Thank you. That will be all... :cool:

And the question is: why is any of this relevant today? Why should we let our social norms be influenced by those of primitive, violent societies? Many ideas we hold as progressive, such as democracy, gender equality, the abolition of slavery etc. do not originate from the Bible at all.

[ComradeMan]

And the question is: why is any of this relevant today? Why should we let our social norms be influenced by those of primitive, violent societies? Many ideas we hold as progressive, such as democracy, gender equality, the abolition of slavery etc. do not originate from the Bible at all.

In the English speaking world the abolitionists had their roots in the Quaker movement. Apart from the fact that "Biblical" slavery is not comparable to modern ideas of slavery, i.e. the Confederate States etc at all.

1 Peter 2:13-14 : "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors" Therefore if democracy is instituted by people it is also the will of G-d.

See what the Judaeo-Christian traditions with women really are... start with Rosh Chodesh. :rolleyes:

[dinoantifaru]

what about this theory :

God made Christianity,Islam,Buddism,Judaism ,Hinduism etc. so he could see the relations between these religions. every religion has some holes, and these holes are not made accidently, because we are Gods experiments and he tests us every day. The religion fanatic see only the holes in religion, and he changes the religion from good to bad using the methods from the holes of religion. you see in every religion it says : help to other man no matter what, do not hurt him , make him good instead of bad etc. and God says he is the most merciful creature in world, so he will surely forgive the sins between human and him, but between human and human, he will never forgive. so i think if u are good to other humans, u will be good with God also.

p.s it says that Bible, Quran, Tora and other holy books are made with Gods language. Gods intelligence is way bigger than humans, so we could not understand some things that he says, and then we understand it wrong. I just wish that he made holy book that says 2 things : be good with human and u will be rewarded in other world, and the second thing is :do not kill human no matter what, if you do it u will be punished in other world.

[hatzel]

So why have neither Dzhugashwhatever and Ryan replied to my questions? What's the point of forums if people just ignore the questions? :( All is see is talk about outdated Enlightenment concepts of reason and logic, but still this reason and logic isn't applied to the questions posed...

[DarkPast]

In the English speaking world the abolitionists had their roots in the Quaker movement. Apart from the fact that "Biblical" slavery is not comparable to modern ideas of slavery, i.e. the Confederate States etc at all.

I was talking about the Bible. Which never condemns slavery, and indeed allows a regulated practice of it in both the OT and NT. The difference between the types of slavery is irrelevant here; it was always a horrible, reactionary institution. To quote the Bible:

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Yes, there are some warnings not to treat slaves too badly (like blinding them), but these do nothing to challenge the legitimacy of slavery itself. Also note that non-Hebrew slaves were to be treated even more harshly.

Besides, the opposition to slavery in the western world can in fact be traced as far as ancient Greece, as Aristotle notes in Politics, Book I (he supported slavery, but mentions the viewpoints of some of his contemporaries he was arguing against - this means some ancient Greeks did oppose slavery).


1 Peter 2:13-14 : "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors" Therefore if democracy is instituted by people it is also the will of G-d. This is a non-argument. It instructs people to submit themselves to all authority, regardless of its character (and the example given seems to imply the author had a monarchy in mind). You can just as easily use it to say the Bible supports Apartheid.


See what the Judaeo-Christian traditions with women really are... start with Rosh Chodesh. :rolleyes:Doesn't even begin to justify all the oppression and discrimination women suffered in those societies (and the Bible is full of examples of said oppression). Not to mention there were contemporary or older societies which have a far better record regarding gender equality. And we haven't even touched the Judeo-Christian stance towards homosexuality.

[Zostrianos]

"The real world values are the values of the proletarian worker. The bourgeoisie along with the joke of the church have so called 'Christian values'. Real world values include the expanding of workers' democracy in the form of a one-party state and a secret police force. They are the true values, and kill every nazi-trotskyite-fascist-bourgeois-capitalist traitor that claims otherwise."
- Ioseb Jughashvili

Then again, a one party state and secret police forces were also characteristic of Nazism and Fascism

[chimx]

If you believe in the Bible, you can't just pick and choose which parts are true and which are false just to make yourself look good, that's absurd.

except you are just quoting old testament passages that are generally inconsequential to christian theology.

[kapitalyst]

And the question is: why is any of this relevant today? Why should we let our social norms be influenced by those of primitive, violent societies? Many ideas we hold as progressive, such as democracy, gender equality, the abolition of slavery etc. do not originate from the Bible at all.

The OT, as I've already said, is not exactly a moral compass. The Jews have other texts for that sort of thing, and none of them advocate the things falsely attributed here to their religion.And according to Christian theology, Christ overturned all of the "old laws" and set a new standard. Things like "love thy neighbor as thyself", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Judge not lest you be judged" and "The only religion which God the Father accepts as true and faultless is to look after the orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world". Yeah, these are just terrible ideals to live by... :rolleyes:

I really grow tired of people insulting each others' religions (or lack thereof). I hate listening to bitter atheists ranting about how religion is to blame for everything, and hate listening to fundamentalists tell everyone they will burn in hell if they don't accept their nonsensical dogma.

Of what relevance is this anti-religious soapbox evangelism? Leave people's religions alone. If someone kills, steals, rapes, etc then that's a different matter. But you're just as guilty of trying to force your ideals down peoples' throats as fundamentalists...


Could you explain empirically what the 21st century mind is?

Here is this so-called "21st century mind"... :laugh:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/pics/marx.jpg


Not insulting, but pointing out the facts is necessary. In passing, you will notice that religious fundamentalists more often than not insult others, so it's only fair if they taste some of their own medicine

You're not going after fundamentalists' actions, you're simply attacking all religious people. What makes you any better than they are? Gimme a break...

[Zostrianos]

You're not going after fundamentalists' actions, you're simply attacking all religious people. What makes you any better than they are? Gimme a break...

Actually I'm only concerned about fundamentalist Christianity. I admire religious mysticism, but fanatical Christianity is a plague that needs to be combated

[Nox]

...what are they, and why are they worth following?

Common sense values, e.g. not killing people, loving your family, not stealing from others, etc

There isn't a single moral value out there that originated in the Bible.


what about this theory :

God made Christianity,Islam,Buddism,Judaism ,Hinduism etc. so he could see the relations between these religions. every religion has some holes, and these holes are not made accidently, because we are Gods experiments and he tests us every day. The religion fanatic see only the holes in religion, and he changes the religion from good to bad using the methods from the holes of religion. you see in every religion it says : help to other man no matter what, do not hurt him , make him good instead of bad etc. and God says he is the most merciful creature in world, so he will surely forgive the sins between human and him, but between human and human, he will never forgive. so i think if u are good to other humans, u will be good with God also.

p.s it says that Bible, Quran, Tora and other holy books are made with Gods language. Gods intelligence is way bigger than humans, so we could not understand some things that he says, and then we understand it wrong. I just wish that he made holy book that says 2 things : be good with human and u will be rewarded in other world, and the second thing is :do not kill human no matter what, if you do it u will be punished in other world.

That's ridiculous, you have zero proof for that whatsoever, the annoying thing about theists is that their arguments often involve finding any loophole, however unrealistic/unlikely, to try and justify their beliefs. It really is delusional.

except you are just quoting old testament passages that are generally inconsequential to christian theology.

The whole Bible is full of shit, I just picked some of the parts involving rape.

If you don't want to associate your beliefs with the old testament, why do you believe that God made everything?

If you are a Christian, you believe in the Bible, you can't just choose which parts you believe and which you don't, including the anti-scientific rubbish and the homophobia/sexism/rape/murder in there.

[ComradeMan]

....

Slavery in the Old Testament/Tanakh was nothing like slavery in the rest of the ancient world nor can it be compared to modern ideas of slavery based on the Atlantic slave trade (which would have been totally forbidden by Jewish law Exodus 21:16). Even the word slave "eved" is problematical with its translation as it can cover a whole number of things that we would not consider today to be slavery, Exodus 21:2-6. See also Genesis 17:13; Exodus 21-; Leviticus 22:11; 25:46; Deuteronomy 5:14; 15:12-14).

1 Peter 2:13-14 : "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors" Therefore if democracy is instituted by people it is also the will of G-d.

It does indeed state that one should submit to authority, but the proviso is that it is just authority. In the Old Testament/Tanakh, i.e. the Jewish background of the early Christians, it was implicit that authorities should be just and that they were not above the Law. Otherwise it would completely invalidate the Prophets who attacked the corrupt and unjust governments of Israel and Judah, John the Baptist and also Jesus, wouldn't it?

As for gender equality, well the ancient world was pretty un-equal but whereas women did have, albeit limited rights, in the Old Testament/Tanakh they had virtually none in most of the other societies including the later Greek and Roman societies. It also ignores the fact that some of the most important figures of the Old Testament/Tanakh were women, Ruth, Esther and the female judge of Israel Deborah.

As far as LGBT issues are concerned, it is unclear what the Old Testament is talking about and although the interpretations have been generally negative there is growing consensus that what was forbidden was temple prostitution and pederasty.
....

To the others in the thread, there seems to be this idea- probably promulgated by fundies, that just because it is mentioned in the Bible it is somehow advocated, condoned or required of believers. This is absolute nonsense. If we take a look at some other religions, for example Greco-Roman religion. The King of the Gods, Zeus, was a rapist and kidnapper- yet Roman and Greek society did not advocate this as part of their law did they?


If you are a Christian, you believe in the Bible, you can't just choose which parts you believe and which you don't, including the anti-scientific rubbish and the homophobia/sexism/rape/murder in there.

No, if you are a Jew or a Christian then you believe in the G-d of Israel and the Bible also carries a warning, in my opinion, about the citing of scripture for negative ends Jeremiah 8:8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD, when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?".

[DarkPast]

Slavery in the Old Testament/Tanakh was nothing like slavery in the rest of the ancient world nor can it be compared to modern ideas of slavery based on the Atlantic slave trade (which would have been totally forbidden by Jewish law Exodus 21:16). Even the word slave "eved" is problematical with its translation as it can cover a whole number of things that we would not consider today to be slavery, Exodus 21:2-6. See also Genesis 17:13; Exodus 21-; Leviticus 22:11; 25:46; Deuteronomy 5:14; 15:12-14).

1 Peter 2:13-14 : "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors" Therefore if democracy is instituted by people it is also the will of G-d.

It does indeed state that one should submit to authority, but the proviso is that it is just authority. In the Old Testament/Tanakh, i.e. the Jewish background of the early Christians, it was implicit that authorities should be just and that they were not above the Law. Otherwise it would completely invalidate the Prophets who attacked the corrupt and unjust governments of Israel and Judah, John the Baptist and also Jesus, wouldn't it?

As for gender equality, well the ancient world was pretty un-equal but whereas women did have, albeit limited rights, in the Old Testament/Tanakh they had virtually none in most of the other societies including the later Greek and Roman societies. It also ignores the fact that some of the most important figures of the Old Testament/Tanakh were women, Ruth, Esther and the female judge of Israel Deborah.

We could go back and forth on this one forever, so, other than to point out that the bit about women having virtually no rights in other contemporary societies is untrue*, I will not argue about this further because it is ultimately beside the point.

My question was simply this: Should our modern society subscribe to the ethical and social norms provided in the Bible? Should we, say, accept the authority of a king, provided he is "just"? Is slavery (in the Biblical sense) OK?


To the others in the thread, there seems to be this idea- probably promulgated by fundies, that just because it is mentioned in the Bible it is somehow advocated, condoned or required of believers. This is absolute nonsense. If we take a look at some other religions, for example Greco-Roman religion. The King of the Gods, Zeus, was a rapist and kidnapper- yet Roman and Greek society did not advocate this as part of their law did they?The problem with this is that the Bible provides explicit examples of God condoning such actions.

The Greek gods were based on completely different concepts: they were not supposed to be moral authorities, instead being exaggerated reflections of the full spectrum of human actions and emotions. So Zeus acted like a powerful king - of course everyone knew rape was wrong, but hey, he was the most powerful being in existence so what are you going to do about it? (and mind you his wife is not shown to be very happy with him).


* in Sparta women could hold great wealth, had the same rights to education and could go where they pleased. Also there were ancient Greek schools of philosophy who insisted on equality or near-equality, such as stoics and cynics. Furthermore the existence of influential women does not imply anything resembling equality (history gives us many examples of wealthy, powerful and/or intellectually influential women in even the most patriarchal societies).

[hatzel]

Common sense values, e.g. not killing people, loving your family, not stealing from others, etc

An appeal to common sense? Well they've always been terribly convincing...

What makes you believe that common sense precedes the establishment of social mores, rather than common sense coming as a result of individual enculturation and the internalisation of social expectations? Remembering, of course, that different cultures often have vastly different ideas of what could be considered 'common sense,' which would suggest that a morality based on this unanimous common sense you speak of would vary greatly between different cultures. Which kind of challenges your theory, inasmuch as it seems to suggest a cyclic justification, that 'real world' morality is based on...well, preexistent morality...which you seem to think just appeared out of nowhere in the form of common sense...

Still, what is to be said of the dissenters, those who hold differing ethical views? Do they lack this 'common sense'? What would be the implications for the supposedly nonsensical in a society governed by this common sense morality?


There isn't a single moral value out there that originated in the Bible.
I don't remember that being at all relevant to the discussion at hand, the question here not being where they didn't come from, but where they did come from, and why they should be followed as normative moral guidelines...

[ComradeMan]

We could go back and forth on this one forever, so, other than to point out that the bit about women having virtually no rights in other contemporary societies is untrue*, I will not argue about this further because it is ultimately beside the point.

Why is it untrue? I am afraid it is important, if you make the assertion then the burden of proof is with you. Women in both Roman and Greek society had virtually no rights at all. Both the Greeks and later Romans were shocked and disgusted by the fact that Etruscan women ate at the same banquet tables as their husbands and had some sexual freedom too. Even though women did have an important but legally separate role in religious affairs the instructions of the Oracle at Delphi, in the name of Apollo, warned to keep women "under control". Only the far earlier period of Ancient Egypt gave women anything like an equal footing in society although there were warnings against women in government too.

Middle Kingdom (c2200 BCE) The Instructions of the Ptahhotep:
When you prosper and found your house and love your wife with ardor, fill her belly, clothe her back; ointment soothes her body. Gladden her heart as long as you live; she is a fertile field for her lord.
But next comes a jarring statement,
Do not contend with her in court. Keep her from power, restrain her--her eye is her storm when she gazes. Thus will you make her stay in your house.


The Greek gods were based on completely different concepts: they were not supposed to be moral authorities, instead being exaggerated reflections of the full spectrum of human actions and emotions. So Zeus acted like a powerful king - of course everyone knew rape was wrong, but hey, he was the most powerful being in existence so what are you going to do about it? (and mind you his wife is not shown to be very happy with him).

Not so fast. Piety, respect for the gods was a value in ancient Greece and Rome, charges of blasphemy could be brought, as were the accusations I believe against Socrates at one point, and later on a lack of respect for their gods "atheism" was also levelled at other religious groups.


in Sparta women could hold great wealth, had the same rights to education and could go where they pleased....

If, and only, if they were not helots for example. Spartan women had no right to vote and generally the role of women was powerful only in the sense of the pseudo-fascist idea of bearing strong Spartan men to protect the state. Sparta was also a bit of a strange and anomalous case in ancient Greek society and by no means reflects the norm nor a society that, ultimately, survived.

[DarkPast]

@ComradeMan: You're evading my question and trying to drag me into a debate about how ancient Hebrew society was somehow more progressive than its contemporaries. I oppose such a view, but have no desire to discuss it because, like I said, I think it is irrelevant to my aforementioned question.

In other words, I don't care much about whether the Bible was a good moral/social guide 2000 years ago, I want to know do you think it can fill this role in modern society?

[ComradeMan]

@ComradeMan: You're evading my question and trying to drag me into a debate about how ancient Hebrew society was somehow more progressive than its contemporaries. I oppose such a view, but have no desire to discuss it because, like I said, I think it is irrelevant to my aforementioned question.

I'm not trying to drag you into a debate other than to ask you why you make your assertions and provide some argumentation to support them. I don't think that's unreasonable...


In other words, I don't care much about whether the Bible was a good moral/social guide 2000 years ago, I want to know do you think it can fill this role in modern society?

All holy books have their wisdom and their value for today, providing we also use our intellect and sense - Psalm 119:105: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”

[DarkPast]

I'm not trying to drag you into a debate other than to ask you why you make your assertions and provide some argumentation to support them. I don't think that's unreasonable...


To quote myself, " have no desire to discuss it because, like I said, I think it is irrelevant to my aforementioned question." It seemed certain to me that we will not see eye-to-eye on these matters, and that we are very unlikely to modify our opinions, so it is my desire to avoid what I would consider a wholly unproductive - and likely unpleasant - debate. At the same time, I considered it rather rude to completely ignore a part of your post, so I wrote what I did. I trust I have now made my stance on this matter clearer now?


All holy books have their wisdom and their value for today, providing we also use our intellect and sense - Psalm 119:105: [I]“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”There is no such thing as a "holy" book as far as I'm concerned (if you want to consider an object or person holy, be my guest, but don't force your beliefs onto me). While I do consider some parts (not many, mind you, but they do exist) of the Bible in line with my own moral and social views, the Bible as a whole strikes me as highly conservative and - from a modern, Marxist standpoint - reactionary, as well as often being vague or contradictory. Furthermore, I do not think those Biblical ideas I do endorse (such as "thou shalt not murder") to be all that unique.

Now don't get me wrong - I do find the Bible to be a fascinating book in its own way - I enjoy reading about the history of different cultures, particularly first-hand accounts written by people who belonged to those cultures. Besides, I did read the thing after all (though I admit skipping most of those long genealogies :p). However, like I said, my interest in the book is purely from an academic standpoint - I do not consider the Bible as a whole to be an appropriate moral guide for our modern society.

Now that I have written all this, I would like you to understand that my original question was not to provoke or mock Christians (like kapitalyst's post implies), but to try and gain an insight into beliefs that are quite alien to my own world-view.

(Phew, I never thought I'd end up writing such a long post on this thread!)

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

If you believe in the Bible, you can't just pick and choose which parts are true and which are false just to make yourself look good, that's absurd.

Arguably, half the passages you quoted don't genuinely match up to claims you have charged against them, number one, number two, I have to ask, copy and paste from the "evil bible," site? I would also like to point out that (correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the old testament is merely a recorded history of the Israelite nation not a moral treatise as you seem to be implying. You can't merely lay down the claim of "it's God's word, you must follow it!" It's all comes down to one thing; context, context, context.

[hatzel]

Arguably, half the passages you quoted don't genuinely match up to claims you have charged against them

...that's true, actually. A couple of them don't even have anything to do with rape :confused:

[ComradeMan]

To quote myself, " have no desire to discuss it because, like I said, I think it is irrelevant to my aforementioned question."

Well, okay- but in a discussion if you make a bold assertion people are going to include it. There is no need for any discussion to become unpleasant- even if people disagree.


There is no such thing as a "holy" book as far as I'm concerned (if you want to consider an object or person holy, be my guest, but don't force your beliefs onto me).

You are entitled to your opinion but that is not definitive as a conclusion in the discussion. We could end up here dicussing now what is meant by the word "Holy"- the Vedas, the Tanakh, the Qu'ran, the Avesta and so on...

Secondly, am I forcing something on you? I am not even forcing you to participate in this discussion.


While I do consider some parts (not many, mind you, but they do exist) of the Bible in line with my own moral and social views, the Bible [I]as a whole strikes me as highly conservative and - from a modern, Marxist standpoint - reactionary, as well as often being vague or contradictory. Furthermore, I do not think those Biblical ideas I do endorse (such as "thou shalt not murder") to be all that unique.

So far you are using your subjective opinion only as carrying weight in a debate. So may I ask you where you draw your moral and social views? Furthermore how could you justify those moral and social views to another person- rationally. Could you also tell me what Marxist morals/ethics are please and on what basis they are formed that they could reasonably be "imposed" on others, at they have been done historically, who may not share the same "Marxist standpoint"?


I do not consider the Bible as a whole to be an appropriate moral guide for our modern society.

Again, your argument is very I-centric. However is anyone here arguing for such a thing? Are people demanding Halakhic law in full force? Do people go out and slay their tens-of-thousands because David did? Do rabbis and priests condone stoning adultresses? Context, context, context... Even in Biblical times and from there onwards both Jewish and Christian theologies have developed commentaries, homilies, books of interpretation and "norms". This is also the issue that a lot of religious/spiritual people themselves have with fundies, but fundies will be fundies and really I don't think it matters what they hook onto to be honest.


Arguably, half the passages you quoted don't genuinely match up to claims you have charged against them, number one, number two, I have to ask, copy and paste from the "evil bible," site? I would also like to point out that (correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the old testament is merely a recorded history of the Israelite nation not a moral treatise as you seem to be implying. You can't merely lay down the claim of "it's God's word, you must follow it!" It's all comes down to one thing; context, context, context.

You took the words from me! It's the same mentality that quotes Marx, chapter and verse, and because it's written it must be so....

[Zealot]

It's nothing new that the bible contains this sort of rubbish and it led a few sects to throw out the OT altogether, most famously Marcion who concluded that the NT god came to save the world from the tyrannical god of the OT. It's fine to argue that the bible was simply reflecting the social conditions and morality of the period it was written, but don't try and tell the world that it was a divine revelation. It gets worse when people use the "where do you get your morals from" argument, because if God is the one giving out moral lessons I'd rather read Mein Kampf. If this was divine, we can conclude only one thing: God is shit when it comes to teaching morality and that we are better lawmakers ourselves than the one who made us.