Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
Aqfaq wrote:
Bonus question: What would the Bible look like, if it was written by common patriarchal men at a time when male chauvinism was prevalent in the society?
Ohhh, I think I know that one! The correct answer is, it would look the same!
:)
Indeed correct, except for perhaps the book of Esther which claims to be written by a woman (at least in part).
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Aqfaq wrote:
Why?
You know, I can write here and tell you that I believe the words written concerning Jesus Christ being the Son of God and having the power to save, and that an eventual change occurred upon me hearing it/reading it, and then knowing it.
As for the "knowing it" part, I can compare it, in a way, to one of my favorite games, growing up:
- In Final Fantasy 4, there was that part in the trial cave (after beating the earth elemental boss) where Cecil, as a Dark Knight, heard that voice saying "My son". From there, he became a Paladin and then became confronted with his former self: The Dark Knight essence. The old nature vs. the new.
Aqfaq wrote:
Apparently, there are only 188 named women characters in the Bible, but a whopping 1181 named male characters. Why?
I'm sure you see it as a gross inequality? From a numbers perspective, I could see that. I would say also, though, that a woman's role in the Bible is very cherished. Their representation in Scripture is not of the same volume, but they hold a lot of weight.
EXAMPLES
Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Just those two verses alone, out of over 31,000 in the entire Bible, bestow a great deal of honor upon women. Not only was it a woman who was initially credited to reproducing the human race, but it was also a woman who was chosen to conceive Jesus Christ.
Aqfaq wrote:
Bonus question: What would the Bible look like, if it was written by common patriarchal men at a time when male chauvinism was prevalent in the society?
Coming from the perspective that men alone were responsible for writing it, I can't say. That would depend on the author(s).
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
But genders are not equal.
I'm not speaking about social status and legislation. I'm not speaking about rank or betterness.
I'm talking about biology. Male brains and female brains are hardwired differently. They focus on different things, and approach things differently.*
Similarly, male and female bodies have different properties.
It is in my honest opinion total nonsense and an utter misguided delusion to think that genders are equal.
*) There's a sliding scale of gender. I mean stereotypical males and females. An individual may be located somewhere along the line. Some males are more feminine and some females are more masculine.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aqfaq wrote:
Nach wrote:
In every society that we know of in history, and including today, women are not the major leaders or dominating characters if represented in leadership at all.
Correct. Why do you think that is?
Men being the stronger half of the species, they took control early on.
Aqfaq wrote:
Can you name a few historical ideas that may have contributed to the fact that only very recently the societies around the world have become to understand the importance of gender equality?
I don't attribute what's currently occurring in societies as gender equality. Rather, Barbarism in the civilized world is at an all time low, and absent societies revolving around macho force, women are able to somewhat compete. The rise of the handgun has also moved control from the strong to anyone who possesses one.
Aqfaq wrote:
1 Timothy 2:12 --> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
The Bible was undeniably written by uncivilized men who had no concept of gender equality.
Don't use a quote from one book as a blanket idea for all the books that make up the Bible. The books in the Bible were written over millennia by different people in different places. Various devout may want to claim they're all in agreement on all points and divinely inspired, but that's clearly false. Precisely because of verses like the one you just quoted, there have been many religious groups throughout the ages who have rejected many of the books and deemed them worse than garbage. Look up Apocrypha and related subjects.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
To counter your above point, did you ever notice how the first few books of the Bible (the most significant part of the old testament) limit those extermination laws to the land of Canaan and its surroundings?
Extermination of people (and in some cases even taking people as spoils of war) doesn't become somehow more morally acceptable if it happens only within a region.
The point is: Christians who point accusingly at the Quran for being violent are whitewashing or even ignoring atrocities in the Bible.
There's a passage in Matthew that talks about not pointing flaws in others, when you have such flaws yourself. Maybe some self-awareness ought to be in place.
To counter your above point, did you ever notice how the first few books of the Bible (the most significant part of the old testament) limit those extermination laws to the land of Canaan and its surroundings?
Extermination of people (and in some cases even taking people as spoils of war) doesn't become somehow more morally acceptable if it happens only within a region.
Who decides morals?
Are not the morals that you take granted, something enforced upon you by the society you live in, and by its history?
Back in the day, Israel was supposed to be a beacon among the nations, so that peoples from other nations wonder, how come these Israelites have so wise and good laws? For instance, the Israelites would have one day each week for resting. No work whatsoever would be done that day, unless to save a live. This was unheard of in other nations. In other nations, you would work every day. In other nations, it was not considered immoral to force workers to work every day throughout the year. In Israel, slaves would be treated hospitably, and given the opportunity to leave or stay at a certain time. Not so in other nations. Laws = morals.
Is it morally acceptable to kill one person, if doing so saves ten?
This is the category of dilemma faced by Israel, and by God of Israel (even if not literally so), when they did wage war, if I read Nach's post correctly.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
I'm talking about biology. Male brains and female brains are hardwired differently. They focus on different things, and approach things differently.
Similarly, male and female bodies have different properties.
It is in my honest opinion total nonsense and an utter misguided delusion to think that genders are equal.
Well said.
I'd also add to what you're saying being a religious topic and all that the Bible opens up by saying that God created man and woman together, and did so in the image of God (whatever that means). The Bible's opening remark is clearly claiming that design intended for equality in importance. The Bible also goes on to use lines like "one cannot exist without the other", or "equal but different".
IMO, anyone who tells you women should be uneducated or are dumb animals or somehow less important than men should have their ideas tossed. Thankfully none of the books that I consider important make such claims.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
IMO, anyone who tells you women should be uneducated or are dumb animals or somehow less important than men should have their ideas tossed. Thankfully none of the books that I consider important make such claims.
And that I agree with. In case it remained unclear from my previous post.
As for that passage quoted earlier: What it says in the verse is, that someone says they do not permit something. Gotcha. Next?
Is it wrong to document someone saying something? Lots of people said things in the Bible. It's a documentary of people saying lots of things.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
To counter your above point, did you ever notice how the first few books of the Bible (the most significant part of the old testament) limit those extermination laws to the land of Canaan and its surroundings?
Extermination of people (and in some cases even taking people as spoils of war) doesn't become somehow more morally acceptable if it happens only within a region.
Be that as it may, you can no longer equate the two, they are of an entirely different scope.
Warp wrote:
The point is: Christians who point accusingly at the Quran for being violent are whitewashing or even ignoring atrocities in the Bible.
Indeed the Bible is violent, whoever thinks otherwise hasn't read it. However, nearly every violent section provides moral justification for doing so. Rarely does the Bible use religious justification for killing another.
Warp wrote:
Maybe some self-awareness ought to be in place.
Ever noticed how the Bible is loaded constantly with critique for its own people and characters? More so than any other book I've seen with its own set of "heroes".
Bisqwit wrote:
This is the category of dilemma faced by Israel, and by God of Israel (even if not literally so), when they took out the Cananites, if I read Nach's post correctly.
I believe you did. But further as I mentioned, the Bible mentions again and again that the Canaanites committed evils, man against man, and it's not referring to religious evils. None of us can appreciate what that means exactly, we didn't live back then, we don't have a full picture of what they practiced, although there are a few gruesome hints here and there. It's easy for us to sit in our armchairs and condemn actions people did way back when, but who knows what we ourselves would do in the same scenario. Maybe if we saw with our own eyes what the Canaanites were doing, we'd find it necessary to go and kill them too.
Take a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is what happened to them moral? Was it okay? What would people 5000 years from now be saying about it?
Warp, back to your point about spoils of war, indeed the Bible talks about that in a few places. But then look at the "Bible in Practice" in Joshua and the fall of Jericho, there the military commander severely punished a man for taking spoils. Elsewhere Moses and Samuel vastly chastise other leaders for taking spoils as well. A closer look at the places where it condemns spoils and the places where it promotes spoils (Elisha in Kings), it seems to say that when wiping out a group on moral grounds, spoils should not be taken, but when fighting and winning a war of self-defense spoils of war can be taken.
As Bisqwit said if you think something is morally reprehensible in the Bible, you need to take a step back and ask yourself if you're fully understanding the situation of what you're reading.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I'm no expert, but social equality doesn't mean that as in "men and women are identical", but refers to assigning equal value and treatment of different genders/races/strata/whatever.
In other words, the major argument is that biology shouldn't matter in general social interactions except the very specific cases when it should.
(Also, feminism AND religion in the same thread... I better get outta here.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Thank you all for your interesting comments. For the record, I respect you all a great deal. If something seems even slightly disrespectful, it is due to me writing poorly. If I use the word "you" I am not necessarily referring to anyone in particular. It is a hard word to use correctly in English. Bear with me.
Bisqwit wrote:
It is in my honest opinion total nonsense and an utter misguided delusion to think that genders are equal.
I totally agree with you. That would surely be a poor straw man representation of some feminist argument. I don't think anyone seriously claims that genders are equal in the most literal sense. The real question is whether certain different rights/laws/rules for different genders are reasonable/justifiable. Most often they are not. That is why we have women who vote today, for example. Equal voting is a relatively new thing and I would imagine that we all understand why it is a good thing. Isn't it nice how some societies have developed enough to understand why that is?
Yes, men and women have some differences. So, based on that fact, how do we justify something like this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Why? How are women and men different enough to justify a rule like that? To me it seems obvious that they are not. There is no reasonable justification for that rule. The same is true for many biblical rules. The Bible even has many parts where women are clearly used as mere loot. A woman who has not fucked yet is good loot, but a woman who has already fucked somebody is killable loot: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
How do we justify all that rape stuff? How do we justify evaluating the value of a woman on the basis of her sexual EXP? By saying that men and women have some intrinsic differences? This goes especially to ars4326, who says that the Bible gives great honor to women. How is that compatible with the fact that God and Moses accept the raping and killing of women based solely on an arbitrary attribute that doesn't even have anything to do with gender in the first place, namely the sex EXP? If women are given great honor, how come Jesus did not have even a single female disciple? Surely that would be a great honor. I haven't heard a plausible explanation for this other than that men and women are "somehow" different. That is hardly an explanation, because we can clearly see that the same explanation could have been used to stop women from voting, which we all agree is unjustifiable.
(Hmm, if we agree that women should be allowed to vote today, then our explanation for why Jesus had no female disciples should include better reasons than the ones that were once used to stop women from voting. Otherwise we may end up accepting an explanation that implies that women should not be allowed to vote or that Jesus would not allow women to vote. Maybe all-male-disciples was pure chance? I've actually heard this argument from a Jehovah's Witness: Jesus may have had only male disciples purely by chance. LOL? Maybe it is also purely by chance that the God is referred to as "father" and the archetypal messiah character is always a male and there are 1181 named men, but only 188 named women in the Bible? Sure, it could be by chance, but when we look at it all in any wider context we can see that there are other possible explanations that seem more probable and much more plausible.)
Genesis 2:18 --> The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
ars4326, how is that honoring the woman? Isn't she clearly stated here to have been made for the use of man, a mere tool? This is only one of the 31000+ verses. There are many more verses where it is directly made clear that the woman is the property of man and a tool for creating kids. We can choose the verses any way we like.
Genesis 3:16 --> To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."ars4326 wrote:
it was also a woman who was chosen to conceive Jesus Christ
Indeed. First the childbearing was made to be very painful and then a woman was forced to do that. How's that showing "great deal of honor" to the woman exactly? I don't think you picked the best example here, ars. Also, once again the bonus question: What would the above part of the Bible look like, if it was written by common men who tried to explain the immense birth pains without understanding the evolutionary history of the large mammalian skull? Moozooh knows the answer, but what do you think about it?
ars4236, if we start picking verses, well, it doesn't work well for you, if you try to defend the Bible as something that ultimately honors women. These are allegedly the words of Moses: "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."
If this is "deliberately out of context" or anything like that, then the same applies to your verses where the woman is honored. You abuse the verses to make it look like the Bible honors women, just like I abuse them to make it seem like Moses approves killing and rape. He surely doesn't, does he? He honors the killed women who had been unlucky enough to make love for the first time the day before the raid? Moses was like 4chan. Totally raiding and totally abusing bitches. Do you approve this rape stuff and the owning of women as property? This is all in your favorite holy book. It is nothing controversial or even debatable. We can all read it directly from the book itself. Of course, we can choose to skip these parts and pick the verses that honor women, like you did. Sure, there are parts that honor women. However, if we look at the book as a whole, it clearly shows unjustified male chauvinism from the very beginning to the very end. Only a religiously biased mind can deny it and this sentence. For an additional exercise, just count the number of times the female is called "whore" in the Bible. Or virgin. The most important aspect of most biblical women is their personal sexual history. Is that honorable, nice and wise? The bonus question: What would the depictions of females in the Bible look like, if it was all written by normal horny men?
Surely I am wrong at some point? Please show me my biases. It is always nice to get rid of some. Oh, how many there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cognitive_Biases (I think this list is a top reference to anyone trying to understand anything about anything and themselves. I recommend bookmarking it.)
Also, what do you think about this: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.fi/2010/08/top-seven-ways-christianity-is-debunked.html
All in all, no worries people. You are great. Also, no hurry in answering. I consider most conversations more or less timeless and casual anyway.
As much as the Bible tries to convey a utopian lifestyle
Are we reading the same Bible? All throughout the old and new testaments there's something horribly wrong about society.
(NOTE: All of the following is (1) citing KJV and (2) from an LDS standpoint)
Garden of Eden: No babies; Adam and Eve would by modern people be called "Sheltered Beyond Belief" despite the whole "Married Nudists" thing. Hell, sex isn't even mentioned as being a thing until Genesis 4:1, after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Between the Expulsion and the Flood: No temporal deterrent against crime; Man has to till the ground with tools that won't last. LDS: The only recorded utopia in the Bible is the City of Enoch, which doesn't even get mentioned in the Old Testament - it's only known because of references to Enoch in other scripture. It's a bit easier from the LDS perspective because we get an abridgment of the Book of Enoch within the Book of Moses but we still don't have anything close to the original Book of Enoch. It ultimately got so bad that God/Jehovah/Whoever you believe to be in charge basically said "screw it, we're resetting."
Between the Flood and Abraham: Human Pride leads to the Tower of Babel and the dividing of the languages. LDS: Jaredites split off at this point, not that they have a happy ending. Sodom and Gomorrah, regardless of what you believe to have gone horribly wrong there, goes so horribly wrong that the one named survivor of the two cities is Lot (whose daughters effectively raped him in order to keep his bloodline in the general area); non-Jehovan faiths practiced human sacrifice with such regularity that, in so far as our records go, Abraham did not hesitate to prepare his heir for sacrifice (bear in mind this is after Ishmael was disinherited); Abraham wed his half-sister and had to routinely tell the authorities of the places that he visited that Sarah was his sister out of fear for being killed over her.
Patriarchs through Jacob: Isaac marries Rebekah (his cousin through Abraham's brother Nahor); Isaac and Rebekah both play favorites with their kids (Isaac preferred Esau while Rebekah favored Jacob); Jacob takes advantage of Esau's inability to think ahead in order to claim his heirship, and through Rebekah's deceptive plan he also takes a blessing that Isaac intended for Esau LDS: This situation gets mirrored in the relationship between the Nephites and the Lamanites, except this one has a somewhat happier ending; Jacob sends himself into exile because he's afraid that his brother will kill him over the deception, then sells himself into slavery for 7 14 years in order to marry Rachael (his second cousin, a granddaughter of the aforementioned Nahor - a bit less related than his parents (and grandparents) were but still a bit too close for modern sensibilities), only to get tricked by Laban (Nahor's son) into marrying Leah first; Jacob eventually ends up married to not only the sisters Leah and Rachel, but due to Rachel's inability to conceive also ends up married to their servants Bilhah and Zilpah (and we know it wasn't daddy's fault Rachel couldn't conceive because he had ten other boys and at least one girl between his three other wives); Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin (it's implied that Jacob went celibate after that out of grief).
Joseph and the Occupation of Egypt: Joseph gets favored by Jacob because he's the firstborn of his beloved Rachel and ultimately gets sold into slavery by his own brothers; said brothers end up preventing an alliance with another nation when they basically massacre a village worth of men for violating said known sister; Joseph gets thrown in jail because he won't be his boss's Wife's Boy Toy. LDS: Joseph was in a no-win situation here regardless of how Potiphar would have reacted to the whole Boy Toy thing because it was either "Get thrown in Jail for refusing" or "Commit Adultery" - the latter would have cost him his priesthood authority and would have ultimately led to someone else being named Zaphnath-paaneah. Ultimately this whole mess ends up with the Hebrew peoples occupying Egypt under that dynasty's rule - and when that dynasty got overthrown, the new boss in town decided to enslave the old dynasty's most vocal supporters (the Hebrews).
Moses and the Exodus: By the time Moses came into play, the Hebrews had been enslaved for at least a century, probably two, and their religion had been intermingled with the Egyptian pantheon to the point that they were effectively worshiping neither Jehovah nor any known Egyptian diety. LDS: There's the Temporal, or Aaronic, Priesthood - the Priesthood authority to perform temporal administrative duties (including baptism), roughly equivalent to being a non-teller clerk at a bank: only handling paperwork, not actually making decisions; then there's the Spiritual, or Melchezidek, Priesthood - the Priesthood Authority at which the Patriarchs, Moses, the Prophets of ancient and modern dispensations, and the Apostles During The Ministry of Christ were ordained, and is the authority required of all saving ordinances beyond Baptism - maintaining the bank analogy, these would be underwriters. The upshot of all this? Moses got his Priesthood Authority from Jethro of Midian, not from any Hebrews in Egypt. Aaron did not have the authority to be a Prophet until after the Exodus. That's how far removed from Jehovah Worship the Hebrews had gotten.. Moses was so far removed from Hebrew society both as an Egyptian Noble and during his Exile to the Ishmaelites in Midian that he had to have his brother Aaron act as interpreter. After the Exodus, the Hebrews were still so embedded in worshiping whatever it was they were worshiping that as soon as Moses left to get Jehovah's Laws that Aaron had them make a golden calf just to shut them up about not having an idol to worship. As punishment for this the Hebrews were cursed to wander the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, living a nomadic lifestyle - meaning that the Hebrews of the Exodus didn't get to see the Promised land, but their children (who were innocent of the Golden Calf incident) did. Moses himself did not get to enter the Promised Land during his mortal life (bear in mind that the first thing we see Moses do is commit murder).
The Occupation (and Conquest) of Canaan: Long story short, the Hebrews were commanded to completely extinguish the Canaanites. This is pointed out in the Book of Judges, as the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Joseph were the ones to comply with the command while the other tribes did not. This meant that peoples left alive in the land continued to worship their dieties, and the Hebrews once again ended up with a corrupted version of Not-Quite-Jehovah-Worship. Eventually. This took far longer than the corruption in Egypt took due to the Hebrews not being continuously enslaved (read: enslaved for three or more successive generations) - it was still Jehovah Worship by the time of what I call The Royal Fuckup, but only just.
The United States of Israel (and their subsequent Civil War): Continuous period of war in one form or another. Samuel was ordained Prophet at a very young age (presumably 15 or 16, possibly as young as 12 but no later than 19) and the previous prophet Eli (along with his sons) were slain in the war as divine retribution for committing Priestcrafts. LDS: Priesthood Authority is summarily defined as "The Authority To Act In God's Name" and is intended to only be used to aid and bless others. This is why you don't see a Mormon blessing himself by the laying on of hands. Priestcraft is a specific crime against God in which one abuses their Priesthood Authority for personal gain and is for that reason a very bad thing to do. Israel rejected the Judges and sought for a King to rule over them, and Jehovah gave them King Saul - righteous at first, but his pride got the better of him. After Saul was King David (who left a trail of bodies to the throne - next time you read 2nd Samuel, remember that the first rule of assassination is to kill the assassin). LDS: King David is an interesting case study in addiction. It's implied that Bathsheba was the last in a long line of... questionable acquisitions, and he fell from grace as a result of trying to cover up his indiscretion with her - the adultery happened while Uriah was still out leading an army (and Uriah would not lie with his wife while his men were afield, so David couldn't say "It's Uriah's kid I don't know what you're talking about SEVEN YEARS DUNGEON!"). There was a degree of faithfulness and peace during Solomon's reign but that only lasted as long as he lived, and he did something that is now applauded in a political leader - he put his nation in debt in order to do some construction projects. I'll grant you the Temple, he was commanded by Jehovah to build that, but he didn't stop there and it caused internal strain. His children split the kingdom into the two-and-a-half southern tribes of the Kingdom of Judah, with the remaining tribes in the northern Kingdom of Israel. I used to know by heart which tribes comprised the southern Kingdom but no longer do - I know it's two-and-a-half because "Joseph's tribe" is the the combination of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and I want to say Manasseh is the tribe that became part of the southern kingdom. I could be wrong though. LDS: 1st Nephi 5 indicates that Lehi, and by extension the Nephites and Lamanites, are descended from Joseph but it does not specify which of Joseph's sons - in fact he may well have blood from both just because of the distance in time.
I could go on at length about this, but I think I've made my point thus far (plus I have to go to sleep at some point and I want to do other things in the morning).
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Nach wrote:
If the Qur'an says somewhere that it limits its applicable scope to one area, say Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with you that they're very similar. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Quran does not limit its scope to one location and one set of people, and does convey a message leading towards world domination.
Oh-yes! I actually know something about this one. You're partly right and partly wrong, Nach. According to moderate Muslims (the vast majority of them), some parts of the Quran don't apply anymore. So, it is not about place. It is about time. Just like you say something in the Bible is applicable to a certain region only, Muslims think certain parts of the Quran applied at a different time. It seems that you had the common misunderstanding about the Islamic "world domination" doctrine. (It is a cheap straw man and you should get rid of it.)
Nach wrote:
I don't think the Qur'an ultimately gives you that option.
Yes it does. It just does it a bit differently compared to the Bible. Of course, some people think none of these books give any options while in reality these books are like playing Gradius. People choose to get the "options" in various ways.
Nach wrote:
To conclude, I don't see the Bible sending out a message "go forth and kill the infidels".
The vast majority of Muslims don't see that kind of message applying anymore in the Quran either. When you talk about people who go and kill infidels you are the same kind of person who talks about Christians who suicide bomb abortion clinics. It is not hard to see how reading the Bible can give you that option.
As a side note, from all the various religious strangers I've met, Muslims seemed to be the most hospitable ones. Probably by chance, though. Still, if I would have to choose from three identical houses to spend a night in {Christian, Muslim, Atheist}, I would choose the Muslim house for the guaranteed over-the-top Quranic hospitality. At least the Muslims I met told me that their religion requires them to treat every guest as family. It was almost a bit awkward for me, because I am not used to a such high level of hospitality anywhere. And I am surely an infidel!
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Bisqwit wrote:
Who decides morals?
Are not the morals that you take granted, something enforced upon you by the society you live in, and by its history?
Morals are not necessarily enforced by anything. A moral system can be arrived at by pure reasoning by sentient beings. Nobody forces me to do good things, but I try to do good things, because I understand that I live in a society with other sentient beings who are for the most part exactly like me. At least it would be egoistical for me to assume that I am somehow different or more important than any other person. There is also no reasonable justification for me to think that others do not have the same kind of inner experiences of enjoyment and suffering that I have, some of which are desirable to them and some that are to be avoided. This preliminary understanding alone gives rise to some moral behavior that any sufficiently social species necessarily has to arrive at. Otherwise there would not be any social interaction in the first place. I would say that at least some moral understanding must precede the simple realization that "I am not alone". I might go even further and claim that even the realization that "I am" requires that some moral already exist, but this is a bit too philosophical to have much weight. The point is, we can arrive at some morals by ourselves and by interacting with each other. Isn't that what we have been doing all along from the beginning of humanity? People are mostly good because it is the only way any society can even exist in the first place. Every society has rules, but think about this: Would you behave any differently yourself, if all the Finnish laws were made so that they don't apply to you anymore? "Congratulations! Bisqwit, you are now free to do whatever you want, no legal consequences!"
Would you behave any different in that situation? What would you do? Would you go breaking some law now that you can do it without any legal consequence? I bet you would behave pretty much the same. Morals ≠ Law.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Aqfaq, you have a good amount content in your last post, with many questions and points brought up. I'll try to quote those you addressed to me in the order you gave, and will strive to provide some clarity on each. I condensed some of your quotes down also, for the sake of brevity. If doing so happened to remove some context, I apologize in advance.
Aqfaq wrote:
How do we justify all that rape stuff? How do we justify evaluating the value of a woman on the basis of her sexual EXP? By saying that men and women have some intrinsic differences? This goes especially to ars4326, who says that the Bible gives great honor to women. How is that compatible with the fact that God and Moses accept the raping and killing of women based solely on an arbitrary attribute that doesn't even have anything to do with gender in the first place, namely the sex EXP?
Aqfaq, I am going to need a Scriptural citation here. I do not recall any verse in the Bible which states or alludes to God and Moses accepting the raping and killing of women based on sex, or anything similar to that.
If you can post the Scripture(s) where you believe that's the case, we can go further from there.
Aqfaq wrote:
If women are given great honor, how come Jesus did not have even a single female disciple? Surely that would be a great honor. I haven't heard a plausible explanation for this other than that men and women are "somehow" different. That is hardly an explanation, because we can clearly see that the same explanation could have been used to stop women from voting, which we all agree is unjustifiable.
You're right in that Jesus did not have any women as part of the 12 disciples. I do not, however, see that as any kind of justification to stop women from voting, for example.
With that stated, the Bible does state that Jesus had a number of women who followed Him. Particularly, after the account of His crucification and before His resurrection, it is recorded that a group of women went to visit His tomb. Here are a pair of citations:
MATTHEW 28:1-10
(1)In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (2)And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. (3)His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: (4)And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. (5)And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. (6)He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. (7)And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
(8)And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. (9)And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (10)Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
MARK 16:1-11
(1)And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. (2)And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. (3)And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? (4)And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. (5)And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. (6)And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. (7)But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. (8)And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
(9)Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. (10)And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. (11)And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
^ To sum these citations up: While women indeed weren't part of the 12 disciples, women were also the first individuals that Jesus revealed Himself to upon His resurrection. I would say that is a very considerable honor to be given.
Aqfaq wrote:
Genesis 2:18 --> The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
ars4326, how is that honoring the woman? Isn't she clearly stated here to have been made for the use of man, a mere tool? This is only one of the 31000+ verses. There are many more verses where it is directly made clear that the woman is the property of man and a tool for creating kids. We can choose the verses any way we like.
She wasn't stated there to have been made as a mere tool, no. The reason I can say that is because the term "tool" is also found in the Bible, as well (four times, according to a basic word search). As for the used term "help" (KJV), here's how a concordance source translates that term from the original Hebrew:
Hebrews `ezer ke-negdo; i.e., "a help as his counterpart" = a help suitable to him, a wife.
Aqfaq wrote:
Genesis 3:16 --> To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
I placed this citation in a separate quote because I wanted to expand upon the context of that verse, as the Bible records it. I believe that in doing so, people who read this will be able to better understand the depicted events surrounding that, and why God stated that to Eve:
Genesis 3:1-24
(1)Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (2)And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (3)But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (4)And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (5)For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
(6)And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (7)And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
(8)And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (9)And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (10)And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (11)And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (12)And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (13)And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
(14)And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (15)And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (16)Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
(17)And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; (18)Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; (19)In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (20)And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
(21)Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (22)And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23)Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
(24)So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
^ Again, I believe that context is an important element in better understanding events depicted in the Bible.
Aqfaq wrote:
ars4326 wrote:
it was also a woman who was chosen to conceive Jesus Christ
Indeed. First the childbearing was made to be very painful and then a woman was forced to do that. How's that showing "great deal of honor" to the woman exactly? I don't think you picked the best example here, ars. Also, once again the bonus question: What would the above part of the Bible look like, if it was written by common men who tried to explain the immense birth pains without understanding the evolutionary history of the large mammalian skull? Moozooh knows the answer, but what do you think about it?
If we go by the account given in Genesis 3 (included above), painful conception was the result of Eve's sin in the garden of Eden.
I'm also just not a believer in the theory of evolution.
Aqfaq wrote:
ars4236, if we start picking verses, well, it doesn't work well for you, if you try to defend the Bible as something that ultimately honors women. These are allegedly the words of Moses: "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."
If this is "deliberately out of context" or anything like that, then the same applies to your verses where the woman is honored. You abuse the verses to make it look like the Bible honors women, just like I abuse them to make it seem like Moses approves killing and rape. He surely doesn't, does he?
I would say that "abuse" is quite strong of a term, here. While I did cite singular individual verses to support examples where the Bible honors women, I didn't deliberately isolate them from any context.
For Genesis 3:20, I went ahead and quoted the entire chapter, above, to also expand upon Genesis 3:16.
As for Matthew 1:16, that was the ending part of a listed genealogy in the beginning of the chapter (whole chapter included here).
Aqfaq wrote:
...Moses was like 4chan. Totally raiding and totally abusing bitches. Do you approve this rape stuff and the owning of women as property? This is all in your favorite holy book. It is nothing controversial or even debatable. We can all read it directly from the book itself. Of course, we can choose to skip these parts and pick the verses that honor women, like you did. Sure, there are parts that honor women. However, if we look at the book as a whole, it clearly shows unjustified male chauvinism from the very beginning to the very end. Only a religiously biased mind can deny it and this sentence. For an additional exercise, just count the number of times the female is called "whore" in the Bible. Or virgin. The most important aspect of most biblical women is their personal sexual history. Is that honorable, nice and wise? The bonus question: What would the depictions of females in the Bible look like, if it was all written by normal horny men?
If this is indeed the case Aqfaq (concerning unjustifiable male chauvinism, etc.), can you provide the Scriptural citations to back your claims up?
As for your second bonus question, much like the last one, I can't really say. Again, if one were to go by the perspective that men alone were responsible for writing the Bible, it would depend on the author(s) on how women are depicted.
Aqfaq wrote:
I looked at that page. What I basically saw were strong opinions (some, of which, were openly very ridiculing toward those who believe in God) along with support for the theory of evolution. I didn't see any actual debunking of Christianity, though. If you'd like to list some of those points listed here on the forum to discuss further, feel free.
edit: I also hope that none of my responses come off as condescending, or rude, etc. I do find it challenging to maintain a conversational tone while attempting to answer multiple questions.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Oh-yes! I actually know something about this one. You're partly right and partly wrong, Nach. According to moderate Muslims (the vast majority of them), some parts of the Quran don't apply anymore. So, it is not about place. It is about time. Just like you say something in the Bible is applicable to a certain region only, Muslims think certain parts of the Quran applied at a different time. It seems that you had the common misunderstanding about the Islamic "world domination" doctrine. (It is a cheap straw man and you should get rid of it.)
I don't think these have to do with the books themselves.
Aqfaq wrote:
Yes it does. It just does it a bit differently compared to the Bible. Of course, some people think none of these books give any options while in reality these books are like playing Gradius. People choose to get the "options" in various ways.
Can you describe it in details?
Aqfaq wrote:
Would you behave any different in that situation? What would you do? Would you go breaking some law now that you can do it without any legal consequence? I bet you would behave pretty much the same.
I don't know what will he do, but I'm sure quite some people won't behave the same way.
Indeed the Bible is violent, whoever thinks otherwise hasn't read it. However, nearly every violent section provides moral justification for doing so.
Bisqwit wrote:
Who decides morals?
Need I say more?
Extremist Muslims also believe that imposing sharia law, forcing dhimmis to pay jizya, stoning adulterers, and so on, is morally right.
The point is still: It's a bit hypocritical to accuse the Islam (or any other religion for that matter) of immoral atrocities, when Christianity has such atrocities in its holy book as well. All religions defend their own holy book in the same way, and condemn other religions in the same way.
One thing that makes modern Christians better than extremist Muslims is that they filter the Bible's commands through a secular morality filter, and thus they don't eg. stone people to death for being unruly drunkards, or think that slavery is acceptable. Extremist Muslims do not, which is why they still keep stoning and killing people even today.
How do we justify all that rape stuff? How do we justify evaluating the value of a woman on the basis of her sexual EXP? By saying that men and women have some intrinsic differences? This goes especially to ars4326, who says that the Bible gives great honor to women. How is that compatible with the fact that God and Moses accept the raping and killing of women based solely on an arbitrary attribute that doesn't even have anything to do with gender in the first place, namely the sex EXP?
Aqfaq, I am going to need a Scriptural citation here. I do not recall any verse in the Bible which states or alludes to God and Moses accepting the raping and killing of women based on sex, or anything similar to that.
Probably referring to the Law of Moses as given in the book of Leviticus. Bear in mind the context in which the Law of Moses was given.
The Hebrews had just proven themselves incapable or unwilling to live the first code of laws given in Exodus (the Golden Calf incident), so Jehovah had to give them a more temporal law that explicitly told them "Yes you can do this" or "No you can't do that".
The Hebrews hadn't had a prophet since the dynastic upheaval in Egypt that led to their enslavement, so they wouldn't have been on target for Jehovah worship anyway.
People in general are dumb and look for any excuse they can to not think; a large part of the Law of Moses was explicit instructions on what can and can't be done because the Hebrews weren't willing to think to themselves "okay, why would Our Lord require us to do this?"
The Hebrews had been slaves (property) during the last half of their tenure in Egypt and would have needed a code of laws regarding slaves and other human property just because, well, that was the culture at the time.
And really, anybody who calls themself a Christian yet still looks to the book of Leviticus for their code of conduct has rather missed the point of Christ's teachings.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aqfaq wrote:
Genesis 2:18 --> The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
That's a mistranslation.
A more accurate English translation would be: It is not good for man to exist alone, I will make another against him.
The first confusing word at the end there is referencing what is later known as a "wife", and therefore commonly translated as a "helper" or "companion", but it most correctly just means "another". The translation "helper" is also popular because that would convey a meaning directly opposed to the word following, of which there is much exegesis about the dual nature of humans. The word itself can also be seen as a combination of two other words which means "strong willed" and "foreign". Make of that what you will.
The second difficult word there throughout the bible is used to mean "against" and generally refers to an enemy. However it can also mean "opposite" in the positional sense. The word has also taken on the meaning of "corresponding to", which may or may not fit in here.
"helper suitable" however, is twisting and imposing its own meaning onto the verse.
Aqfaq wrote:
Genesis 3:16 --> To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
Are you disagreeing that women have pain in childbirth?
Are you disagreeing that for most of history in most places, the men have indeed ruled over the women?
Both statements in this verse are factual, whether we like it or not. Whether this verse was written or not you have to ask yourself, why is the world this way? The "answer" provided in context here is that all women were punished because the prototype woman forced her husband to die. In measure for measure, the alternative to immortality now carries with it pain as punishment for needing to switch to this system, and whereas the woman forced her man around, now the man will force the woman around.
Looked at from another light, this verse is not condoning pain or rulership, both of those are bad things, which is why they are listed as punishments. Being that Genesis portrays this as it does, it's clarifying that neither of these things are ideals.
Also note the recipient here, God is not telling the man he must ensure his woman is in pain during childbirth, or that he should rule over his wife. The recipient is the woman where she is being told the facts of the world as they are (will be).
Pokota wrote:
As much as the Bible tries to convey a utopian lifestyle
Are we reading the same Bible? All throughout the old and new testaments there's something horribly wrong about society.
That there is something wrong with society has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a utopian lifestyle.
The laws and prophesies in the Bible mention that keeping the law and its spirit will lead to a tranquil secure utopia for every single person within it. This is the lifestyle the Bible is promoting and wants people to aim for. The truth is, there is no considerable amount of time where any society kept the laws and its spirit, or had a utopia.
I would also point out that half your examples of bad societies precede the Bible's mentioning of a utopian vision and aren't the recipients of this vision.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Aqfaq wrote:
Nach wrote:
If the Qur'an says somewhere that it limits its applicable scope to one area, say Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with you that they're very similar. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Quran does not limit its scope to one location and one set of people, and does convey a message leading towards world domination.
Oh-yes! I actually know something about this one. You're partly right and partly wrong, Nach. According to moderate Muslims (the vast majority of them), some parts of the Quran don't apply anymore. So, it is not about place. It is about time. Just like you say something in the Bible is applicable to a certain region only, Muslims think certain parts of the Quran applied at a different time. It seems that you had the common misunderstanding about the Islamic "world domination" doctrine. (It is a cheap straw man and you should get rid of it.)
I hear what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing with it. But is this the plain meaning of the Qur'an? Or is this the meaning of liberal interpretation?
To put differently, what is the correct interpretation, are the moderates correct or are the "extremists" correct?
Aqfaq wrote:
Nach wrote:
To conclude, I don't see the Bible sending out a message "go forth and kill the infidels".
The vast majority of Muslims don't see that kind of message applying anymore in the Quran either.
Does the Qur'an explicitly limit its message to time or place?
In regards to the Bible, it is quite explicitly limiting ideas to place and to particular peoples. Further, every "evil" nation mentioned in the Bible no longer exists, making any command in the bible to go annihilate some specified nation a moot point now.
Is the Qur'an explicit in this sense, or are various "followers" reading into it what they want to? Are the points of the Qur'an now moot, or does it appear a violent vision for today to be an understanding just as reliable as the more moderate one?
Aqfaq wrote:
When you talk about people who go and kill infidels you are the same kind of person who talks about Christians who suicide bomb abortion clinics. It is not hard to see how reading the Bible can give you that option.
I'd very much like to see where the Bible allows for suicide or for attacking abortion clinics. Any sources you provide would be much appreciated.
Aqfaq wrote:
As a side note, from all the various religious strangers I've met, Muslims seemed to be the most hospitable ones. Probably by chance, though.
I doubt it's by chance. Abraham and his direct family in the Bible is listed as the paragons of hospitality. Such is repeated in the Qur'an too. Those claiming decent from Abraham and adhering to his ideals usually find hospitality to be a key trait to have.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
Indeed the Bible is violent, whoever thinks otherwise hasn't read it. However, nearly every violent section provides moral justification for doing so.
Bisqwit wrote:
Who decides morals?
Need I say more?
Extremist Muslims also believe that imposing sharia law, forcing dhimmis to pay jizya, stoning adulterers, and so on, is morally right.
Not disagreeing with you on an internal level, but on an external applies to the rest of the world level, does the Bible say one must kill other nations for not serving the God of the Bible? Does the Qur'an say one must kill other nations for not serving the God of the Qur'an?
When the Bible says to go annihilate some other nation, that other nation is always mentioned along with moral justifications that still make sense to us. Unless you're telling me you feel that it's not morally reprehensible to perform child scarifies, mass castrations, cannibalism, and that any people as a whole performing such should be left alone.
Warp wrote:
The point is still: It's a bit hypocritical to accuse the Islam (or any other religion for that matter) of immoral atrocities, when Christianity has such atrocities in its holy book as well. All religions defend their own holy book in the same way, and condemn other religions in the same way.
I'm not condemning Islam for Sharia Law, every point I made here was regarding relationship with treatment towards other religions.
Warp wrote:
One thing that makes modern Christians better than extremist Muslims is that they filter the Bible's commands through a secular morality filter, and thus they don't eg. stone people to death for being unruly drunkards
Where does the Bible say one should be stoned for being a drunkard?
Warp wrote:
or think that slavery is acceptable.
Plenty find slavery to be acceptable, and is very much still in practice.
Warp wrote:
Extremist Muslims do not, which is why they still keep stoning and killing people even today.
Christians today still have a death penalty in various countries.
You may dislike it, but it is not something that society as a whole has condemned, and many of all kinds of religions find it morally just.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
ars4326 wrote:
Aqfaq, I am going to need a Scriptural citation here. I do not recall any verse in the Bible which states or alludes to God and Moses accepting the raping and killing of women based on sex, or anything similar to that.
Numbers 31:17-18 --> 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.
How is this not calculating the value of a human being based on her sexual history?
ars4326 wrote:
I'm also just not a believer in the theory of evolution.
Which part of the theory of evolution you think is false? You can quote some false statement from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
This naturally goes to everyone else, too.
Where does the Bible say one should be stoned for being a drunkard?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21: "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
(Notice who makes the judgment. Not judges, not priests. The parents, and the elders of the town.)
That is why on a mechanical level, not why humans MUST be this way on an intellectual level.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
