The Thou Shalts

[NoIDidn't]

In my reading here, I'm finding that a lot of the resident atheists and other non-Christian or non-Muslim posters can quote almost all of the consequences of not believing. But most seem unwilling and unable to actually acknowledge that these religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial.

 

Why is it that all of the wacky and outdated "thou shalts" can be located by this group, but the beneficial ones are either denied or explained away as some sort of lucky break?

[blind_otter]

First off let me say I personally believe in God, but I just wanted to share my thoughts...

 

Many religions share some fundamental dictates - don't murder, don't steal, don't fornicate. That kind of thing.

 

Some would argue that these are just socially adaptive behaviors that are generally encouraged by most all groups of human beings - things that help keep the group functional and cohesive, tenants that are beneficial to all while requiring a due measure of restraint on the part of the individual who benefits from being allowed to remain within that social group or community. Sort of a "payment for services rendered" thing - you pay by restraining yourself and are served thusly with your comparatively cushy position (versus the loner who does have a greater measure of freedom but has to struggle much much more to maintain themselves).

 

I just think that these "thou shalts" that tend to be socially adaptive (and are also commonalities among various faiths and theologies) are just a reflection a divine internal awareness that we all have, because we are all just extentions of God, we just aren't generally aware of it.

[Moai]

In my reading here, I'm finding that a lot of the resident atheists and other non-Christian or non-Muslim posters can quote almost all of the consequences of not believing. But most seem unwilling and unable to actually acknowledge that these religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial.

 

Why is it that all of the wacky and outdated "thou shalts" can be located by this group, but the beneficial ones are either denied or explained away as some sort of lucky break?

 

It wasn't a lucky break, as humans are smart. Even primitive people can figure a great many things out. Domesticating fire, brewing beer, domesticating livestock, agriculture, metallurgy, even primitive surgery--all have existed for thousands upon thousands of years. None of these things are described in any holy book, nor were they divinely revealed.

 

To say that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is a concept that only god could give man is nonsense, as every other culture has the same rule, and people weren't killing each other with impunity before the Ten Commandments were codified.

 

When you look at "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" for example, that carries as much weight as thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", no?

 

But we know there is no such thing as a witch, yet the author not only thought there was, but that when you find one you should kill him/her. Are we to assume that this author had a bad day, misunderstood the revelation, or threw in a personal belief among the godly ones?

 

Notice, too, that we know the "good" ones because we know more about what is going on, and that is why they are "good". At the time of the writing, they were all good and carried equal weight. And as you say yourself, there are some wacky ones. If the Bible is inspired, there shouldn't be ONE wacky one, should there?

 

Everything in the Bible was written by people living at that time, with their limited understanding of the world and Universe. There ignorance was massive, but that doesn't mean they didn't know ANYTHING.

 

That said, if in fact god was inspiring the authors, why did he withhold basic information that would have benefited humanity exponentially? He could have ended slavery right then and there, but he chose not to. Every civilized person no finds slavery abhorrent. Why let such a horrible institution thrive for thousands of years when you could end it with a few strokes of a pen?

 

What about malaria? "Drain standing pools of water" is an easy enough order, yet it is not in the Bible. Malaria is rampant even today, and it mainly kills children. Removing standing water would not eliminate mosquitos, but it would drastically reduce their numbers. Not a hint about that.

[blind_otter]

 

When you look at "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" for example, that carries as much weight as thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", no?

 

No.

 

The witch thing is not one of the 10 commandments.

 

That said, if in fact god was inspiring the authors, why did he withhold basic information that would have benefited humanity exponentially? He could have ended slavery right then and there, but he chose not to. Every civilized person no finds slavery abhorrent. Why let such a horrible institution thrive for thousands of years when you could end it with a few strokes of a pen?

 

I hate to bring this up again. Free will and all that. I don't think God intended us to be fetal for our entire existence, floating in a pool of warm water while all nutrients and care are taken of our bodies. Come on, man. You know this better if you have a child....you raise your child and hope they can make good choices. You don't wrap them in bubble wrap and do everything for them. They have to figure something out for themselves.

 

What about malaria? "Drain standing pools of water" is an easy enough order, yet it is not in the Bible. Malaria is rampant even today, and it mainly kills children. Removing standing water would not eliminate mosquitos, but it would drastically reduce their numbers. Not a hint about that.

 

Is there a lot of malaria in the middle east? I didn't they they had much standing water. I mean, we are still talking about the bible, right?

[Moai]

No.

 

The witch thing is not one of the 10 commandments.

 

The Ten Commandments aren't the "!0" commandments. There are about 250 commandments, all of which are equal in their importance. Orthodox Jews follow almost all of them, Christians picked out the "Ten" and ignore most of the rest. There is another group of commandments that are listed in a series of ten, also, in Exodus 34 11-27.

 

I hate to bring this up again. Free will and all that. I don't think God intended us to be fetal for our entire existence, floating in a pool of warm water while all nutrients and care are taken of our bodies. Come on, man. You know this better if you have a child....you raise your child and hope they can make good choices. You don't wrap them in bubble wrap and do everything for them. They have to figure something out for themselves.

 

The great thing is that you can think whatever you want about what god wants and you'd be right. God is funny that way.

 

When you raise your children, you don't deny them medicine until they figure it out on their own, do you? Of course not. Every generation does not repeat the discoveries of the previous one; rather, we build on the discoveries of the past.

 

If your child analogy holds, the most recent generation is god's favorite, since each has the most knowledge and understanding. What you suggest is that god, would rather have millions of his creations live in horrible misery and die painful, lonely deaths as slaves than fix it.

 

Would you do that to your kids?

 

Your free will argument also fails because he found it important to give rules at all. We are commanded to take a day of rest, on pain of death. Is this more valuable information and a greater key to happiness than penicillin is? Humans would still make mistakes and learn from them, it's just they would suffer a great deal less. Given the ability to do so, would you not lessen the suffering of your children? Come on, man.

 

If god exists, he is the sum of all knowledge. Yet in his holy book that gives us a guide into his mind and intentions, it contains nothing that would be revelatory knowledge in 200 BC. In fact, in some ways it is behind the curve, as there were cultures ahead of the Hebrews at that time. How can that be?

 

It

 

 

 

Is there a lot of malaria in the middle east? I didn't they they had much standing water. I mean, we are still talking about the bible, right?

[Moose]

Christians picked out the "Ten" and ignore most of the rest.

Ahem....excuse me....WE don't pick out the "Ten" and ignore the rest. We've come to realize there is no possible way to even hold the, "Ten" in this day and age. We needed a Saviour Who'd take the responsibility for the sin we inherited from our fallen fathers. God sent our Saviour, Himself as man. This was the ONLY way to bridge that gap to renew our Relationship with our Maker.

The great thing is that you can think whatever you want about what god wants and you'd be right. God is funny that way.

Not so. God clearly commands His followers to, "take up your cross and follow Me"....you do know what that means, yes? Just in case, we die within ourselfs and become a living sacrifice so that others will see our lives and how He's blessed them, increasing His Kingdom. It's NOT an easy life, in fact many who are reading my very words may lose his or her life for following Christ. Believe it our not, I would be honored to do so!

When you raise your children, you don't deny them medicine until they figure it out on their own, do you? Of course not. Every generation does not repeat the discoveries of the previous one; rather, we build on the discoveries of the past.

Are you assuming there where no physicians in biblical times? Luke, (One of the apostles) himself was a physician. They had remedies, and they had medication.

If your child analogy holds, the most recent generation is god's favorite, since each has the most knowledge and understanding. What you suggest is that god, would rather have millions of his creations live in horrible misery and die painful, lonely deaths as slaves than fix it.

I believe the poster meant, "Some things" not all. I don't blame you, it's your nature to put words in people's mouths.

Your free will argument also fails because he found it important to give rules at all. We are commanded to take a day of rest, on pain of death. Is this more valuable information and a greater key to happiness than penicillin is? Humans would still make mistakes and learn from them, it's just they would suffer a great deal less. Given the ability to do so, would you not lessen the suffering of your children? Come on, man.

Again, more spear throwing. You sound like the pharisee. God gave us intellegience. Christ was caught healing on the sabbath, and what did He say? "If your oxen is stuck in the ditch on the sabbath, would you leave them there to die?" No...you wouldn't. If something has to be done on the sabbath that can't wait, God doesn't expect you to neglect or defer from it. To me, EVERYDAY is the Sabbath because I reflect my thankfulness to Him daily.

If god exists, he is the sum of all knowledge. Yet in his holy book that gives us a guide into his mind and intentions, it contains nothing that would be revelatory knowledge in 200 BC. In fact, in some ways it is behind the curve, as there were cultures ahead of the Hebrews at that time. How can that be?

He does exist, and He is the sum of all Knowledge, in fact He promised all of us, (including you) the very same. Your problem lies in the fac that you lean towards your own understanding, and are fearful to put your trust in an infinite all knowing, all loving God.

 

Everyone wants tangible proof. Believe in Him, and you'll see, you'll feel, and you'll even KNOW He exists, because He will in fact indwell with you and in your heart.

[NoIDidn't]

That said, if in fact god was inspiring the authors, why did he withhold basic information that would have benefited humanity exponentially? He could have ended slavery right then and there, but he chose not to. Every civilized person no finds slavery abhorrent. Why let such a horrible institution thrive for thousands of years when you could end it with a few strokes of a pen?

 

I love sci-fi themed shows. One of the shows that I love is Stargate. The humans from Earth are new to all the technology out there, and some of the cultures that they meet are just not about to give such technology to babes that could use it to destroy themselves because they are just not mentally and emotionally advanced enough to handle it.

 

I take this line of reasoning with much of the Bible. I fully believe that God gave us what we could handle at the time.

 

What about malaria? "Drain standing pools of water" is an easy enough order, yet it is not in the Bible. Malaria is rampant even today, and it mainly kills children. Removing standing water would not eliminate mosquitos, but it would drastically reduce their numbers. Not a hint about that.

 

You like pulling things out of the air and trying to make an argument about them. I agree with B_O, they were in the Middle East. The Bible focuses mainly on the culture that its directed towards. This focus is one of the main reasons for so much misinterpretation of the Bible and some of its laws by western civilizations.

 

For the record, though, my question isn't limited to the Ten Commandments. There is a lot in the Bible about things we should do and things we shouldn't do. I am of the mindset that quite a bit of it is just plain good sense. Many non-religious people have taken to using the wisdom in some of the rules from the Bible and applied them to their lives. The concept of a Sabbath is one. Just taking one day a week to do nothing but relax and chill out. Its refreshing and one doesn't have to be religious to do that.

[FleshNBones]

Saturday is the Sabbath.

Sunday is the "Lord's Day", or the day of Christ's resurrection.

[Moai]

I love sci-fi themed shows. One of the shows that I love is Stargate. The humans from Earth are new to all the technology out there, and some of the cultures that they meet are just not about to give such technology to babes that could use it to destroy themselves because they are just not mentally and emotionally advanced enough to handle it.

 

I take this line of reasoning with much of the Bible. I fully believe that God gave us what we could handle at the time.

 

This is a common argument, and it is inherently flawed. Humans were just as smart then as we are now, and it is obvious looking around even today if god commands something people will follow it.

 

Beyond that, the Jains were around (and still are) since 900 years before Jesus. Their tenets are as follows:

 

Non-violence (Ahimsa) - to cause no harm to living beings.

Truth (Satya) - to always speak the truth in a harmless manner.

Non-stealing (Asteya) - to not take anything that is not willingly given.

Celibacy (Brahmacarya) - to not indulge in sensual pleasures.

Non-possession (Aparigraha) - to detach from people, places, and material things.

 

Those rules are 2900 years old. The first one not only covers murder, but slavery as well. Unless you wish to argue that Hebrews are somehow deficient and could not comprehend rules like this, it is clear that humans could handle any modern concept of morality.

 

You like pulling things out of the air and trying to make an argument about them. I agree with B_O, they were in the Middle East. The Bible focuses mainly on the culture that its directed towards. This focus is one of the main reasons for so much misinterpretation of the Bible and some of its laws by western civilizations.

 

I do not pull anything out of the air. I am also aware of the history of the Bible, and what life was like back then. None of that is the point, however. The discussion is about more than what Hebrews knew and didn't know. Obviously, the Hebrews didn't know very much or they would've put it in their book. And no offense to them, they knew what they knew. Hence me not being surprised at all by the wacky rules found therein, the claims of the dead rising from the grave, or the misogyny. It was written by a primitive people.

 

But the Bible isn't just "a book" or just "a record of their culture." It is considered the Divinely Inspired Word of God. God knows everything, right? If that is so, then why did he not impart any knowledge of real value? The reason that I have brought up other cultures is that God chose not to give the Hebrews benefits THAT OTHER CULTURES ALREADY HAD. The Hebrews are his chosen people, yet he allowed them to remain developmentally far behind Asian cultures of the same period.

 

This is only meaningful AT ALL if the Bible is divinely inspired. If it is not, then it is a great window into a past Middle Eastern culture. And that's it.

 

For the record, though, my question isn't limited to the Ten Commandments. There is a lot in the Bible about things we should do and things we shouldn't do. I am of the mindset that quite a bit of it is just plain good sense. Many non-religious people have taken to using the wisdom in some of the rules from the Bible and applied them to their lives. The concept of a Sabbath is one. Just taking one day a week to do nothing but relax and chill out. Its refreshing and one doesn't have to be religious to do that.

 

Beyond the example you mentioned, I can't think of any others that make good sense, save the obvious of not murdering, not stealing, or bearing false witness against people and those are found in documents older than the Bible.

[NoIDidn't]

Beyond the example you mentioned, I can't think of any others that make good sense.

 

Just because you can't think of them, doesn't mean that others can't find something appropriate that they can incorporate into their lives.

 

This thread isn't only about you, or me for that matter. Someone might find a scripture recommendation that I just skim over extremely helpful to them.

 

I take it though that a "sabbath" makes sense to you?

[clv0116]

.... is that god, would rather have millions of his creations live in horrible misery and die painful, lonely deaths as slaves than fix it.

 

According to the Bible misery was brought on as a consequence of questioning the creators right to rule his creation. Calling in an airstrike and starting over or other forms of quick fix would not have resolved the core question of the benefits and rightfulness of the creator to rule his creation.

[dunstable]

In my reading here, I'm finding that a lot of the resident atheists and other non-Christian or non-Muslim posters can quote almost all of the consequences of not believing. But most seem unwilling and unable to actually acknowledge that these religions do contain some very important commands that are beneficial.

 

Why is it that all of the wacky and outdated "thou shalts" can be located by this group, but the beneficial ones are either denied or explained away as some sort of lucky break?

Glad you admit that the Bible and Koran contain some "wacky" commands. It follows that the holy books are either not the word of God or they are the word of a God who is wacky.

[Moai]

Just because you can't think of them' date=' doesn't mean that others can't find something appropriate that they can incorporate into their lives.[/quote']

 

I never said there wasn't. Obviously millions of Jews don't eat pork, regardless of my feelings on the matter. I can on;y speak for myself.

 

This thread isn't only about you, or me for that matter. Someone might find a scripture recommendation that I just skim over extremely helpful to them.

 

Notice I didn't write, "There aren't any" or "nobody can find any" I just said i can't think of any, and I can't.

 

I take it though that a "sabbath" makes sense to you?

 

Nope. "Sabbath" has religious connotations with which I am uncomfortable. Moreover, the great idea of the "sabbath" really isn't one. I suggest you look at the rules prescribed for what you can and cannot do on the "sabbath." For example, building a fire on the sabbath is punishable by death. Read Numbers 15:32-36. It wasn't as if god said, "hey, take a break, relax, have some friends over and grill out--maybe get a ball game going." On the Sabbath you are forbidden to do ANYTHING but pray and contemplate the Lord.

 

Even today, Orthodox Jews cannot turn on the lights in their apartments, they cannot turn on th oven, they cannot use the phone, they cannot turn on their television, they cannot spend money, no surfing, no working in the yard, no model-building...shall I go on? YOU CAN"T DO ANYTHING. That hardly sounds like "a nice day off" or even remotely relaxing. In fact, it sounds worse than going to work! The have stopped stoning people to death if they screw up, which is nice.

 

I personally like the idea of two days off, to do with whatever an individual wishes. I am glad that we in the West only had to wait for 2,000 years for that to happen.

[Moai]

According to the Bible misery was brought on as a consequence of questioning the creators right to rule his creation. Calling in an airstrike and starting over or other forms of quick fix would not have resolved the core question of the benefits and rightfulness of the creator to rule his creation.

 

Then why the Flood? He certainly tried the quick fix. It didn't work (How is it a plan of a god wouldn't work?), but he gave it a shot.

[NoIDidn't]

Beyond the example you mentioned, I can't think of any others that make good sense, save the obvious of not murdering, not stealing, or bearing false witness against people and those are found in documents older than the Bible.

 

I asked if the concept of a sabbath was okay with you because of the above. You responded with that when I mentioned the Sabbath as something that even non-religious people have taken away from the Bible (or other religions) as a good thing.

 

Nope. "Sabbath" has religious connotations with which I am uncomfortable. Moreover, the great idea of the "sabbath" really isn't one.

[NoIDidn't]

Glad you admit that the Bible and Koran contain some "wacky" commands. It follows that the holy books are either not the word of God or they are the word of a God who is wacky.

 

Nope, that would be your bias speaking and not what I actually stated.

 

Yes, there are wacky commands in ALL religions, but its only because they are wacky to US in this day and time. Back then, they must have served a purpose. I don't claim to know the purpose, but it had to be something cultural that those commands addressed.

 

Some things have been taken literally when they weren't intended in that way. The verse that I've seen thrown out as crazy is the one where a woman is to have her hands cut off for trying to help her spouse in a fight. That could very well not be intended to be taken literally. If I ask for your help but then make your helping me futile, its common for it to be said that "I tied your hands". But I didn't literally tie your hands, did I?

 

See what I mean?

[Moai]

I asked if the concept of a sabbath was okay with you because of the above. You responded with that when I mentioned the Sabbath as something that even non-religious people have taken away from the Bible (or other religions) as a good thing.

 

The point being that it isn't a "Sabbath" but a day off for recreation, which by any stretch is not what the Bible recommends. The reason it is on the seventh day is because that is when god rested after creating everything. If it had taken god ten days, I am sure the Sabbath would be every tenth day.

 

That is not to say that Hebrews did not have a "day off" that was not religious. Primitive cultures actually work less than modern ones. The !Kung Bushmen work 2 and 1/2 days per week, for about six hours per day. Given their schedule, one wonders if they consider their down time "time off" or just life the way it is.

 

The Babylonians had a "rest day"--though not weekly. Buddhists have a day of rest called Uposatha that is every seven or eight days, and the Han Dynasty (206BC - 220AD) required a rest day every five days.

 

The pre-Christian Romans had an eight-day work week, with the ninth day being for rest. Northern Europeans such as the Norse had similar traditions long before the ever even heard of Hebrews or Jesus.

 

The concept of a "day--off" is universal (labor abuses during the early Industrial Age notwithstanding) and not something that people took away from the Bible. Clearly, the Hebrews felt a holy day at the end of the week is important, as it is listed in the Bible, but that does not mean that Hebrews invented the idea.

[Moai]

Nope, that would be your bias speaking and not what I actually stated.

 

Yes, there are wacky commands in ALL religions, but its only because they are wacky to US in this day and time. Back then, they must have served a purpose. I don't claim to know the purpose, but it had to be something cultural that those commands addressed.

 

Some things have been taken literally when they weren't intended in that way. The verse that I've seen thrown out as crazy is the one where a woman is to have her hands cut off for trying to help her spouse in a fight. That could very well not be intended to be taken literally. If I ask for your help but then make your helping me futile, its common for it to be said that "I tied your hands". But I didn't literally tie your hands, did I?

 

See what I mean?

 

The people at the time the Bible was written DID take that passage literally, as they did the commandments to beat your children, that a woman must marry her rapist, stoning people to death for collecting sticks for a fire on the Sabbath, etc.

 

All of the rules in the Old Testament are intended literally, as are the punishments.

[clv0116]

Then why the Flood? He certainly tried the quick fix. It didn't work (How is it a plan of a god wouldn't work?), but he gave it a shot.

 

According to the Bible the flood destroyed wicked humans, the Garden of Eden, the hybrid sons of demons and also removed the curse that had been placed on the ground. The primary purpose was (according to the Bible) to rid the earth of the hybrid sons of angels gone bad, with further extra-curricular breeding activities disallowed.

 

It doesn't have to be TRUE for it to be the given reason after all.

[NoIDidn't]

The people at the time the Bible was written DID take that passage literally, as they did the commandments to beat your children, that a woman must marry her rapist, stoning people to death for collecting sticks for a fire on the Sabbath, etc.

 

All of the rules in the Old Testament are intended literally, as are the punishments.

 

We see this now coming back in Israel and it never left many Muslim communities. Wasn't there a youtube video with a little boy having his arm ran over by a truck for stealing food recently? Forget the fact that the Torah practically forbids punishment for stealing food by hungry people - it commands that the poor be allowed to "glean" in the fields. I don't know about the Quran in this regard, but since the cultures they both sprang from are so similar, I imagine it should be similar in this as well.

 

You know, I still think that much of what is taken literally from biblical texts was not meant literally - even if someone is foolish enough to think so.

[Moai]

We see this now coming back in Israel and it never left many Muslim communities. Wasn't there a youtube video with a little boy having his arm ran over by a truck for stealing food recently? Forget the fact that the Torah practically forbids punishment for stealing food by hungry people - it commands that the poor be allowed to "glean" in the fields. I don't know about the Quran in this regard, but since the cultures they both sprang from are so similar, I imagine it should be similar in this as well.

 

You know, I still think that much of what is taken literally from biblical texts was not meant literally - even if someone is foolish enough to think so.

 

If one reads the Code of Hammurabi, much of the crimes described are punishable by death. That is not a religious text, either. It does show that primitive people are often brutal, and by modern standards immoral.

 

The books that Abrahamic religions are based on are primitive, written by primitive peoples. To suggest that 2,000 years ago the Hebrews should have seen particular passages as metaphorical is to ignore history entirely, as well as the point f the book..

 

Consider the Inquisition. They honestly thought that torturing a confession of witchcraft or blasphemy was a good, righteous thing. If you read the Malleus Maleficarum or "The Witches Hammer" you can see that 500 or so years ago, people took the idea of witches very seriously.

 

The fact is that modern readers, in the hopes of saving the Bible from legitimate criticism as well as hoping to remove it from its historical context and its real meaning--a religious text written by ignorant shepherds--they twist and turn the passages to glean any sort of "good" they can find, and there is little.

 

I am not making the "shepherds" comment as a dig. They were primitive, and knew little of the world around them. Their book reflects that. To indite them for their morality then would be unfair and wrong--just as it would be wrong to bring that morality forward.

 

History shows us that as mankind progresses his sense of morality changes, and culture changes with it. Then, people scramble to find passages that, if tortured enough, could be made to back up the current moral climate.

[NoIDidn't]

The fact is that modern readers, in the hopes of saving the Bible from legitimate criticism as well as hoping to remove it from its historical context and its real meaning--a religious text written by ignorant shepherds--they twist and turn the passages to glean any sort of "good" they can find, and there is little.

 

I am not making the "shepherds" comment as a dig. They were primitive, and knew little of the world around them. Their book reflects that. To indite them for their morality then would be unfair and wrong--just as it would be wrong to bring that morality forward.

 

History shows us that as mankind progresses his sense of morality changes, and culture changes with it. Then, people scramble to find passages that, if tortured enough, could be made to back up the current moral climate.

 

You might have a point in this. But it doesn't change my view that some things were taken literally that should have been metaphorical.

 

I definitely give you that the people were primitive in the time of the writings of most of the world's oldest religions. And most religions were brutal at the time.

 

But I think its equally nonsensical to bring up all the brutality of yesteryear to the forefront as a way to refute a religion. I will admit to looking at it in a more gentler way, but you have to admit to trying to make it out to be the most brutal thing you've ever seen when you have not been to a public stoning before even though many people practice this "brutal" religion.

[dunstable]

You might have a point in this. But it doesn't change my view that some things were taken literally that should have been metaphorical.

NID, you may be right that some parts were metaphorical (or maybe allegorical?). But I'm sure a lot was meant literally. It may have been a mix of the two and the perceived mix may have changed through the ages. Even today there are many people especially in the Southern USA who argue it has to be accepted as 100% literal truth. I'm slightly familiar with the Bible having been raised as a Christian. I find some beautiful poetry in places but not much by way of ethical philosophy that makes sense. For the latter I would turn to the ancient Greeks or to more recent works of philosophy.

[Moai]

You might have a point in this. But it doesn't change my view that some things were taken literally that should have been metaphorical.

 

You seem to think that the laws given down in the Old Testament were given out all at once and had no basis in cultural reality. The fact is that the practice started first, and then was codified into the law. Hence it being impossible for the hebrews to have taken it metaphorically, as they were already stoning people and gouging out eyes and such.

 

I definitely give you that the people were primitive in the time of the writings of most of the world's oldest religions. And most religions were brutal at the time.

 

They sure were.

 

But I think its equally nonsensical to bring up all the brutality of yesteryear to the forefront as a way to refute a religion. I will admit to looking at it in a more gentler way, but you have to admit to trying to make it out to be the most brutal thing you've ever seen when you have not been to a public stoning before even though many people practice this "brutal" religion.

 

It is not nonsensical in the least. If the Bible is the Word of God, as many millions purport it to be, why is there so much immorality in it? The Old Testament describes genocide, misogyny, rape, brutal slavery, and horrible suffering--all at the hands of said deity. God kills exponentially more people than Satan.

 

In the text, god sends two bears to kill children for laughing at a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24). The usual response to this--and it is an empty one--is that god was responding the way people were aware of at the time. This falls flat, simply because god is all-knowing and all-loving, and as such should support the highest moral choice. Is there any sane person anywhere who would suggest that death by dismemberment is a worthy punishment for children laughing at a bald man?

 

And in the New Testament, we see Jesus cast demons into some pigs, and the pigs run off and drown themselves. This is found in three of the Gospel accounts. Is this moral? The pigs were innocent, being they are not human, and they were someone's personal property. Certainly, Jesus would have had the power to cast the demons out entirely without using the pigs, no? What purpose or lesson is learned by his using the pigs?

 

Today, if I kill my neighbor and claim that I was possessed by a demon, would that be a viable, logical defense? Of course not, as we know there is no such thing as demons. It is obvious, though that this is not meant to be taken as a metaphor, but a literal event in the ministry of Jesus.

 

Lastly, consider your statement about public stonings. While I have not attended one in person--nor would I, I have seen them online, the most recent being a nine year old whose hymen was broken and determined to be unclean. Must I attend personally to determine the horror of such behavior? I have not been incarcerated in a death camp, I have not worked as a sonderkommando and cleaned out the remains of my family and friends from the ovens, yet I can make the judgment that such was at the limit of human endurance and horror. I have not drawn my sword and exterminated an entire town (save the virgin girls, whom my comrades and I will rape), as the Hebrews did to the Midianites, yet I can surmise that such acts are abhorrent and evil.

 

It is as if you suggest that stonings weren't that bad, or because I haven't been stoned I cannot comment on their morality. I leave it to you to consider the inanity of that statement.

[NoIDidn't]

NID, you may be right that some parts were metaphorical (or maybe allegorical?). But I'm sure a lot was meant literally. It may have been a mix of the two and the perceived mix may have changed through the ages. Even today there are many people especially in the Southern USA who argue it has to be accepted as 100% literal truth. I'm slightly familiar with the Bible having been raised as a Christian. I find some beautiful poetry in places but not much by way of ethical philosophy that makes sense. For the latter I would turn to the ancient Greeks or to more recent works of philosophy.

 

Thanks. I meant allegorical. LOL.