Women and the Bible: An analysis by book Just one more analysis before I take a break for a few days. I should mention, in case you haven't already noticed, that when I say "Women," I mean "Insults to women, misogyny, etc." The Bible doesn't have much nice to say about women, but when it does, I put it in the "Good Stuff." The same is true for the other categories, except for "Interpretation" and "Sex." Here is the overall plot.
First Corinthians has the most insults to women in the New Testament, while Genesis, Leviticus, and Ezekiel have the most in the Old. The Women Index is defined in the usual way -- Insults per 100 verses.
First Timothy, Titus, and First Peter have the highest WI in the New Testament, and Hosea is highest in the Old. Here is the log- log plot for Women.
I'll finish the analyses next week when I get back. Posted by Steve Wells at 9/21/2011 08:58:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 7 comme nts:
Vyckie said... Ack. No wonder my desperate struggle to live "biblically" was such a disaster! :(
Thu Sep 22, 05:52:00 AM 2011 nazani said... I was just wondering if you asked a woman to help you find insults, and what her age was. Sat Sep 24, 07:00:00 AM 2011 Fatman said... While I agree with the analysis, one must bear in mind the fact that the Bible was not written in enlightened times. Misoginy and treatment of women as inferiors was prevalent in those days - of course it looks terrible when read from a modern perspective. Of course, this does not make modern-day individuals who choose to live their life in accordance with this ridiculous text any easier to understand. But it does provide some explanation for the observed behavior of religious idiots - most of them hate women and consider them inferior beings, and even those who do not go to such extremes are likely to dismiss disagreement coming from wives, sisters, female coworkers, etc., as "nonsense". Sat Sep 24, 12:40:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said... No, nazani, all of the lists, categories, and annotations at the SAB are mine and mine alone. Oh, I often ask my wife, daughter, and other women what they think about various Bible passages, but in the end I decide what to include and what to leave out. I think it is wrong to cut off a woman's hand as God commands in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 or to stone a rape victim if she doesn't cry out loud enough, or can't prove she's a virgin on her wedding night. I think it's OK for a woman to speak, wear pants, and have authority over men. If you agree with me on these passages, you'll probably agree with me on most of the others that I've marked. If not, that's fine. Make up your own mind and list. Fri Sep 30, 08:37:00 PM 2011 Linus said... I'll support anyone who plots a graph of insults to women/bible verse. You, sir, are a hero! Fri Oct 07, 07:39:00 AM 2011 Abbie said...
Misogyny and treatment of women as inferiors and property of men are commonly attributed to "those days" - as opposed to the ever "loving god" who is the inspiration for all scripture. You know, the "divinely written book". Convenient don't you think? Fri Oct 28, 01:47:00 PM 2011 Matteo Raggi said... How many insults are totally counted on bible? Tue Jan 10, 07:24:00 PM 2012
The Bible and the Quran agree: Stay away from menstruating women But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.... Ezekiel 18:5 They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning me nstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times.... Quran 2:222 Finally, a topic upon which Muslims, Christians, and Jews can fully agree! Women are unclean when menstruating and men should stay the hell away from them. Here's what the Bible has to say. (A women who is menstruating is unclean and should be kept away from everyone else for seven days. Whatever she touches or sits on is unclean. Whoever touches a such a women is unclean. Whoever touches her bed is unclean. Whoever touches anything that she sits on is unclean. And anyone who has sex with a menstruating woman is really unclean -- unclean for seven days.) And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that s he lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. Leviticus 15:19-24 The Bible goes on and on about this, but I think you get the idea. Finally the woman is allowed back into society, when on the eighth day she goes to the priest and sacrifices two pigeons or two doves ("turtles" in the KJV) as a "sin offering" -- "an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness." But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons,
and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. Leviticus 15:28-30 Other passages in the Bible also address menstruation, but this is one of the few topics upon which the Bible speaks consistently and clearly. (Except for the punishment of having sex with a woman during her menses.) Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Leviticus 18:19 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 20:18 In other places, the Bible refers to menstruation in ways that show how God sees it. Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee: for the custom of women is upon me. Genesis 31:34-35 Thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth. Isaiah 30:22 Jerusalem is as a menstrous woman. Lamentations 1:17 They humbled her that was set apart for pollution. Ezekiel 22:10 The Quran says it all in just one verse, but it is in complete agreement with the Bible. They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. 2:222 Menstruation is a sickness. Menstrating women are unclean. Stay away from them while they are menstruating. And, for God's sake, don't have sex with them! Posted by Steve Wells at 1/11/2007 06:50:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 14 comme nts:
beepbeepitsme said... Men are only interested in blood if they cause someone else to shed it. (Ok, I will go and take my HRT tablet now..)
Fri Jan 12, 01:55:00 AM 2007 Anonymous said... hey you should find someone who knows arabic to translate that for you. It means youre supposed not to have sex with women when they are menstruating, not literally run away from them:) Thu Mar 15, 02:40:00 PM 2007 isobel said... your site seems to have few links about the Quran I guess more skeptics than muslims visit:) Could you add this one http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_in_islam.htm cheers! Thu Mar 15, 02:47:00 PM 2007 Anonymous said... "They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you." 'Illness' in this sense does not mean 'illness' literally. It means that the blood is a discomfort and dirty - and indeed, I'm sure most women would agree that their period blood isn't exactly the cleanest thing in the world. 'not go unto them' simply means to not have sex. In other words, men are forbidden to have sex with women until they've finished menstruating. And that's all the line means. Therefore, only Christianity belittles women in this manner. I apologize if this should disappoint you, but Islam and Christianity do NOT agree on this topic. Mon Mar 26, 08:09:00 AM 2007 Scott said... I love all the Muslim Apologists posting here. The Arabic translation demeans women far worse than the English translation. They don't like to mention that. GOD, ALLAH, "THE LORD"... NONE of them exist! It's terrifying to see you people
trying to defend your vile delusions. More terrifying is the fact that there are BILLIONS of you! You are all hurting us as a species. NO GOD = LESS SUFFERING! Get a clue, people! Wed Jun 27, 02:53:00 PM 2007 Ryan said... no god = Europe or Russia.. If you do your research.. they're both not happy people.. especially Russia.. Think kid.. think.. Tue Nov 13, 05:23:00 PM 2007 mary said... hey ryan, suppose yer a theist hmm? gods promote hostility like homophobia and wars! europe and russia (which is IN europe) are doing better than amerika! Mon Jan 14, 04:34:00 PM 2008 Nex Necis said... Russia is NOT in Europe. Regardless, it is a religious nation as is most of Europe, so that nulls your point there. Being more clear: Russia=Orthodox and Europe=Lutheran. Wed Jan 30, 04:03:00 AM 2008 Dye said... Actually primative man has always feared menustrating women.Te Native Americans have stories about the many toothed virgina.So even the the Qur'an and bible lack these stories thier taboos r still based on ancient fears. Thu Apr 10, 03:30:00 PM 2008 salina said... christains include all the unclean sex acts. while on the other hand ppl in Arab before Islam use to sociallly cut women when they had their menstration so much so that they even refuse to eat foood cooked by them .
when Islam came all the these acts ended . as Islam gave a middle way interm of
cleanliness and also interm of protecting anybody 's right . this is the Islamic Veiw of menstration :Men can't have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.). (The Noble Quran, 2:222)" Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al- Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"
thus u can love them , sleep with them , hold them just don't have sex during the time . Sat Sep 27, 03:58:00 AM 2008 truth said... Anonymous your a liar. because if if you continue to the next verse 2:223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand you can do what you want to your wife...but do somthing God for all first so that when you abuse or approach your wife how you want, you will not be punished for your behaviour towards her. it is the bible that mentions nothing about sex but the quran does. the quran is a directly plagurised from the bible with a few changes here and there and dont forget it Tue Sep 29, 12:14:00 PM 2009 Yasir Niaz Khan said... There are many accounts of Prophet Muhammad touching his wife during this period. Only intercourse is forbidden: (Sahih Muslim): Chapter# 1, Book 3, Number 0577:
‘A’isha reported: When anyone amongst us (amongst the wives of the Holy Prophet) menstruated, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie a waistwrapper over her (body) and then embraced her. Book 3, Number 0578: ‘A’isha reported: When anyone amongst us was menstruating the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie waist-wrapper daring the time when the menstrual profusely flowed and then embraced her; and she (‘A’isha) observed: And who amongst you can have control over his desires as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had over his desires. Book 3, Number 0579: Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. Book 3, Number 0580: Kuraibthe freed slave of Ibn Abbas, reported: I heard it from una, the wife of the Apostle of Allah (way peace be upon him): The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to lie with me when I menstruated, and there was a cloth between me and him. Book 3, Number 0581: Umm Salama reported: While I was lying with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) in a bed cover I menstruated, so I slipped away and I took up the clothes (which I wore) in menses. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Have you menstruated? I said: Yes. He called me and I lay down. Ref: http://www.hadithsahihmuslim.com/prophet/lying-with-one- in-menstruation-abovethe-waist-wrappersahih- hadith-muslim.html Wed Mar 02, 05:48:00 AM 2011 snabby said... Menstrual blood is not unclean, it's the lining of the womb being shed, the womb carries babies, protects them and insulates them from almost all infections. http://www.medicinenet.com/menstruation/article.htm (or just look it up anywhere) As for the argument about the Quran, how is, menstruation is "a discomfort and dirty" not offensive to women? I'm offended. Also, it is certainly not harmful for a man to be exposed to his wife's menses. And if he did have sex with her during this time maybe he wouldn't need to take another wife to satisfy him.
And, why would God create women in such a way that is so offensive to Him and men? He is all-powerful, all-knowing, I'm sure He could have figured out a way to make men's wives less gross to them. I also noticed no one offered an interpretation of 2:223 that won't make me ill (and I don't mean in that monthly way) Thu Sep 08, 06:29:00 PM 2011 dianna miller said... only men consider a women unclean when she is mensturating...God made women this way for the purpose of being fruitful...there is nothing unclean about her during her menses...it is a natural function of womanhood...i notice nothing is said about a virgin's blood being unclean...it seems to me that when a man makes a woman bleed it's okay but when her body performs its natural function the God made her then she is unclean...i' m not saying men and women should have relations during a woman's menses but all this sitting where she sits and lieing where she lies and washing of the clothes and being unclean until the evening only that's a bunch of male oriented foolishness...men are such hypocrites...they don't want anything to do with a menstruating woman but they look forward to bedding virgins...hey you guys virgins bleed they are unclean!!! Fri Nov 09, 08:45:00 AM 2012
Dan Savage is right about the Bible: It's Bullshit A couple weeks ago, Dan Savage discussed the Bible with a group of journalism students. Here is what he said (see video below) -- along with some of the bullshit from the Bible that believers ignore while pretending to believe it. The Bible, we’ll just talk about the Bible for a second. People often point out that they can’t help it – they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13 The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mot hers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind.... 1 Timothy 1:910 In the last days ... men will be ... without natural affection. 2 Timothy 3:1-3 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ... God gave them over to a reprobate mind ... they which commit such things are worthy of death. Romans 1:26-32
We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people. [applause] The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas ... shall be an abomination unto you: ... Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 11:10-11 about slavery, Of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you ... they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. Leviticus 25:44-46 If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and ... he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21 Servants [slaves], be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18 (See here for more bullshit from the Bible on slavery.) about dinner, These shall ye not eat ... swine ... it is unclean unto you. Deuteronomy 14:7-8 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man. Ezekiel 4:12 about farming, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Deuteronomy 22:10 about menstruation, If a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness. Leviticus 15:19-30
If a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman..... Ezekiel 18:5-6 about virginity, If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:1 about masturbation. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. Genesis 38:9-10 If any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall ... be unclean. Leviticus 15:16 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matthew 5:28-30 [applause] We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. Philemon: This short letter was written by Paul to his slave-owner friend and fellow believer, Philemon. Paul was writing about Onesimus, who he had recently converted, and who happened to also be a runaway slave belonging to Philemon. Since Paul was in a position of authority among believers, this would have been a great opportunity for him (and God) to conde mn slavery -- if he (and God) had anything against it, that is. But apparently he didn't. Instead he returned the slave to his owner without so much as a word against the institution of slavery. (Note: Philemon isn't quite "the shortest book in the New Te stament" -- 2 and 3 John are a bit shorter.) And Paul doesn’t say “Christians don’t own people.” Paul talks about how Christians own people. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery, because the Bible got slavery wrong. Tim — ah, Sam Harris, in A Letter To A Christian Nation, points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery! What’re the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100% percent. The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night – if a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night, she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death. If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... And say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And ...
say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. ... But if ... the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-17 Callista Gingrich lives. [applause] And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they’re not virgins. At least not yet. We don’t know where the GOP is going these days. [audience laughs] People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle. They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality. One other thing I wanna talk about is — [chuckles] — so, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I’m done beating up the Bible. [applause] It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back. [applause] <p><p& gt;<p&a mp;amp;amp;gt;<br /> </p&amp ;amp;amp;gt;</p>&lt ;/p> And here's a great video on the subject by Zinnia Jones. Posted by Steve Wells at 5/01/2012 11:11:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 11 comme nts:
krissthesexyatheist said... Wow, made of awesome. Kriss Tue May 01, 11:22:00 AM 2012 Stephen said... A bunch of people walked out on him, I suppose because they were (exceedingly) offended by his remarks critical of selective bible interpretation. Check out the girl at 1:35 wearing the crucifix. Actually, I don't remember Dan saying anything critical about
Jesus or christianity, just old-testament stuff. The comments on the original article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018110513_savage01m.html ) show a diversity of responses, but it's clear that a lot of people thought he was out of line. Not me. :-) Steve Weeks Tue May 01, 12:37:00 PM 2012 Mormon411 said... Dear Steve Wells, I love this blog! How do I follow you? Can't find a link anywhere! Tue May 01, 02:11:00 PM 2012 LanceThruster said... Hear, hear! Tue May 01, 04:05:00 PM 2012 Steve Wells said... Thanks Mormon411. I'm glad you like it. As for links and whatnot, you can follow me on twitter (@SteveWellsSAB) and there's an RSS feed on the sidebar. Tue May 01, 05:13:00 PM 2012 Leonidus the Great. said... interesting piece and nice blog as a whole. Tue May 01, 08:55:00 PM 2012 nazani said... I wonder how many of these so-called journalism students later watched him on YouTube. I wonder how many actually considered what he said. "it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Is this metaphor, or yet another example of ideas about the
afterlife, of flesh v. spirit, not being quite settled when various books of the bible were written? Thu May 03, 11:13:00 AM 2012 nazani said... "it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Is this metaphor? Or yet another example of confusion about the nature of the afterlife and the nature of the soul? I wonder how many of the walk-outs watched themselves on YouTube. Wonder if they felt proud of themselves or if some of his remarks actually got through. Thu May 03, 11:15:00 AM 2012 Ian said... I used to think that Christian fundamentalists would demonize homosexuality because, unlike say, adultery, it was the one "sin" they'd never be guilty of. And while that may still be true, I'm convinced that a large chunk of the demonization comes from self- loathing closet cases. See Haggard, Ted; Craig, Larry; Long, Eddie; Bachmann, Marcus; Ratzinger, Joseph. (I realize neither Pope Benedict or Marcus Bachmann have been caught in the act, but come on...) Sat May 05, 08:16:00 AM 2012 Labratus1 said... He looks so sad trying to put a spin on homosexuality and trying to justify it. But little that he knows its still wrong freak. Flame, Flame, Flame that's what he's going to get. The devil is so stupid when he's trying to compete with God. Next. Flamers. How GROSSSSS! Mon May 28, 09:08:00 PM 2012 LanceThruster said... Labratus1 - Your god's arms are too short to box with me. Sorry. Tue May 29, 11:23:00 AM 2012
Judith is blessed above all women (for cutting off a sleeping man's head)
If you were to ask Paul Ryan (or any other Catholic) who is the most blessed of all woman in the Bible, he'd say, without the slightest hesitation, Ayn Rand. OK, just kidding. Ayn Rand isn't in the Bible (not even Paul Ryan's Bible). Every Catholic (even Paul Ryan) would say that Mary the mother of Jesus is the most blessed of all woman. And there's some evidence for that. Here, after all, is how the angel Gabriel addressed Mary in gospel of Luke: Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28 It's the first part of the "Hail Mary" that Catholics say 53 times when saying the Rosary. But there are two other women in the Bible that could qualify for the Most Blessed of All Women award. Remember Jael? You know, the one that drove a tent stake through a sleeping man's skull? Here's what the Bible said about her: Blessed above wome n shall Jael ... be, blessed shall she be above women ... She put her hand to the nail ... and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples. Judges 5:24 So Jael is blessed above all women -- including Mary, I guess. But there's one more competitor -- Judith. Her story is found in the Book of Judith, which is in the Catholic Bible, but is considered apocryphal by Protestants. Here's her story. Judith was a beautiful widow who fasted all the time (except on the sabbath) and wore haircloth on her loins. And she wore haircloth upon her loins, and fasted all the days of her life, except the sabbaths, and new moons, and the feasts of the house of Israel. And she was exceedingly beautiful. Judith 8:6-7 She asked God to help her kill her enemies the way he helped Simeon slaughter the newly circumcised Hivites in the Dinah/Shechem love story massacre. O Lord God of my father Simeon, who gavest him a sword to execute vengeance against strangers, who had defiled by their uncleanness, and uncovered the virgin unto confusion: And who gavest their wives to be made a prey, and their daughters into captivity ... who were zealous with thy zeal: assist ... me. Judith 9:2-3 And the prayer worked. God, the great beautician, made Judith even more beautiful, so she could seduce and murder the Assyrian general, Holofernes. The Lord also gave her more beauty ... so that she appeared to all men's eyes incomparably lovely. Judith 10:4 The heart of Holofernes was smitten, for he was burning with the desire of her. Judith 12:16 She lied to him about her intentions, partied with him in his tent; then, after he fell asleep in a drunken stupor, she cut off his head.
Holofernes was made merry on her occasion, and drank exceeding much wine, so much as he had never drunk in his life. Judith 12:20 Holofernes lay on his bed, fast asleep, being exceedingly drunk. Judith 13: 4 Judith stood before the bed praying ... Saying: Strengthen me, O Lord ... that it might be done by thee. And when she had said this, she ... loosed his sword ... And ... she took him by the hair of his head ... And she struck twice upon his neck, and cut off his head. Judith 13: 6-10 And for that act, Judith is declared to be blessed above all women upon the earth. Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth ... God ... hath cut off the head of all the unbelievers this night by my hand. Judith 13:23-27 So now you see my problem, don't you? Who is the most blessed woman to ever live? Mary, Jael, or Judith? I think it has to be Judith. Mary and Jael are "blessed among women," but Judith is "blessed above all women." So I think Judith wins the gold. But maybe someone should ask Paul Ryan just to make sure. Guess I have to add another killing to God's list! God's next killing: The Judith massacre Posted by Steve Wells at 8/14/2012 10:56:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 13 comme nts:
Jonathan Booth said... How can the book of Judith be accepted by some christians and not by others? Tue Aug 14, 01:18:00 PM 2012 Steve Wells said... Good question, Jonathan. There's always been debate among believers about which books should be included in the Bible. The Catholics and Orthodox went with the Septagint (a 3rd century BCE greek translation of the Jewish scriptures) for the Old Testament canon, while the Protestants didn't. So there are seven more books in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible than there are in the Protestant Bible. Tue Aug 14, 01:49:00 PM 2012
Stephen said... Well, he wasn't really *asleep*, he was drunk, but what the heck. The thing that piqued my interest was this: 13:11 And afte r a while she went out, and delivered the head of Holofernes to her maid, and bade he r put it into her wallet. What the heck kind of wallets did they have in those biblical times?!?!? Steve Weeks Tue Aug 14, 08:23:00 PM 2012 Steve Wells said... Well, it 13:4 says he was "fast asleep" and "exceedingly drunk." So I guess he was both. And yeah, that wallet thing is kind of cute. My wife has some purses that'd be big enough to stuff a head in. She might even have one or two in there. I should check. Tue Aug 14, 08:38:00 PM 2012 Steve Wells said... In my comment to Jonathan, I misspelled Septuagint. Sorry about that -- and thanks to Stephen Weeks for the correction. Tue Aug 14, 08:43:00 PM 2012 skanksta said... You haven't done the apocrypha/REAL books yet for god's killings ? :) So excited..., does that means we get to look forward to some more bible stats on which is more evil per line of holy book - Catholic or Protestant ? And more blogging ! Get to work Steve - no rest for the wicked ! Wed Aug 15, 03:28:00 AM 2012 Jonathan Booth said... Thanks for the reply Steve - by the way, I love this site! I always wanted to believe in the bible but the more I read it, the more confused and doubtful I became! Any information
on why a book would be cut vs included and who had the authority to do such a thing? It seems like they could have cut quite a few more out of the old testament for sure. Wed Aug 15, 08:34:00 AM 2012 Stephen said... Jonathan Booth said... "Any information on why a book would be cut vs included and who had the authority to do such a thing?" If you haven't read any of Bart Ehrman's works, I recommend sta rting with "Misquoting Jesus- the story behind who changed the bible and why". (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060738170/?tag=mh0b20&hvadid=50469747&ref=pd_sl_61wa3ybwz6_e ) Steve Weeks Wed Aug 15, 03:39:00 PM 2012 Steve Wells said... Jonathan, About the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books - there's a good introduction in the New Oxford Annotated Bible that includes a discussion of the debate over whether or not these books should be included in the Bible. Thu Aug 16, 08:34:00 AM 2012 bittersweetend said... Interesting post I never read the book of judith but this is a good topic Thu Aug 16, 07:01:00 PM 2012 www Bible said... There is a difference between the blessing on Mary which was a divine blessing by God and the blessing on Jael which was the elevate her as heroic above the other tent dwellers. "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent (Judges 5:24)." The translations of the Hebrew words tell the difference. Sat Sep 01, 10:07:00 AM 2012 Stephen said...
WayWhoppingWacky.Bible said: There is a difference between the blessing on Mary which was a divine blessing by God and the blessing on Jael which was the elevate (sic) her as heroic above the other tent dwellers. This is just more made-up bullshit, cherry-picked and interpreted to suit your delusion. Sorry. Steve Weeks Sat Sep 01, 07:35:00 PM 2012 Komadori said... "What the heck kind of wallets did they have in those biblical times?!?!?" Steve Weeks Reminds me of the credit card commercials. All we need now is Jud ith looking to the camera as she dangles a human head ala Game of Thrones or Clash of the Titans, "What's in Your Wallet?" :> I just came across your blog. It's great! I'll be following, from here on. :) Sun Sep 09, 05:35:00 AM 2012
The Bible's War on Marriage There's a war on out there. A war on marriage. But the attack is not from gays or atheists, or even from academic feminists. It's from the Bible. Consider these verses that: Encourage polygamy. If he take him another wife.... -- Exodus 21:10 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated.... -- Deuteronomy 21:15 Encourage adultery. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms. -- Hosea 1:2 Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.... So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley. -- Hosea 3:1-2 Encourage the buying and selling of wives. And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.... And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well.... Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. -- 1 Samuel 18:25-27
Discourage marriage. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. -- 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 For I would that all men were even as I myself.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. -- 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 Discourage sex in marriage. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -- 1 Corinthians 7:29 Encourage divorce. If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her.... -- Deuteronomy 22:13 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. -- Deuteronomy 24:1-2 So in the war on marriage, the republicans are fighting the wrong enemy. It's not gay marriage that needs to be outlawed; it's the Bible. Posted by Steve Wells at 6/06/2006 07:50:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 31 comme nts:
Chaucer Arafat said... interesting-when anyone begins making the metaphors of their religious text realities, they don't last long beyond that point. and that works both ways. when criticism reads verse literaly, it loses all potency.
either way, i wish more 'believers' would at least examine these issues. Tue Jun 06, 09:43:00 AM 2006 Mark said... I can see how you came to understand this, but none of those verses, (or anywhere in the Bible) actually condones polygamy, it is merely recorded. Paul never says you can't marry, he says to avoid immorality, "But because of immoralities, "each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband." (1Cor 7:2).
Wed Jun 07, 09:50:00 AM 2006 JustMe said... Encourage adultery. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms. -- Hosea 1:2 -----------------------I was just curious as to how this verse encourages adultery? Wasn't Hosea unmarried? A wife of whoredoms, refers to her reputation, not that it is ok to be an adulterer ... Thu Jun 08, 08:58:00 PM 2006 Steve Wells said... Mark said... "I can see how you came to understand this, but none of those verses, (or anywhere in the Bible) actually condones polygamy, it is merely recorded." No, but it does provide instructions for marrying more than one wife (Ex.21:10 and Dt.21:15). Mark said... "Paul never says you can't marry...." No, but he sure discourages it in 1 Cor.7:1-2 and 7:7-9. Sat Jun 10, 11:45:00 AM 2006 godisajokeDOTcom said... I like your article on the war on marriage. I wish I'd have written it myself. I have an essay on the "sanctity" of marriage. If you don't mind, I'll post it here: http://www.godisajoke.com/2006/03/01/feminism/if- marriage-is-an- institution- its-theinstitution-of-banking/ Keep up the good work! Sun Jun 11, 08:01:00 PM 2006
Mark said... Steve, Unfortunately you make no point whatsoever. It seems that the original post can't make it's claim within the Bible. Tue Jun 13, 11:52:00 AM 2006 Mark said... Don't blame Paul that he recognizes how tough marriage is, which is the point of his comments.... it is hard. A cursory review of marriage stats proves that not enough people are committed enough to stay married, that is how tough it is. I think alot of those divorced people wished they had taken Pauls advice and stayed single in the first place as opposed to going through the pain and sufering of a failed marriage and divorce. Wed Jun 14, 03:23:00 PM 2006 Jason Leonard said... I think I could spend eternity trying to correct all the inaccuracies this blogger is making. If you enjoy your SAB so much, maybe you should read http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html to get a clearer idea on where the SAB makes a mountain of a molehill. Mon Jun 19, 07:59:00 PM 2006 Steve Wells said... "If you enjoy your SAB so much, maybe you should read http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html to get a clearer idea on where the SAB makes a mountain of a molehill." Oh, I've seen it, Jason. And I love it! That's why I am displaying Turkel's responses and providing links to his site at the SAB. I recommend that people go there to see his responses. Here's his defense of Deuteronomy 21:22, for example: "Other than SAB's weenie attitude towards such things, the problem is what? This is the kind of person who thinks it's an argument against the death penalty to point out about the smell of singed hair."
It's okay for God to tell us to kill people and hang there dead bodies on trees because I am a weenie. Mon Jun 19, 08:55:00 PM 2006 Brucker said... All of your points aside here that I will eventually come to address in my own blog, a funny thought occurs to me that while not everyone agrees that marriage was originally instituted by the Bible, it may be more of a safe bet that divorce was instituted by the Bible. Tue Jul 18, 01:30:00 PM 2006 netZombie said... Seems the biggest arguments stem from the interpretation of a given biblical verse. We could seemingly spend eternity arguing over what was originally intended, but we may never know, given the translation upon translation the bible has been through. Original meaning/intent has been lost or reinterpreted to support how we feel about a given issue or moral arguement. Big waste of time and energy IMHO. Instead of spending hours tossing insults and and arguing over "what (insert bible verse here) really means" just love and live your religion as you see fit and be done with it. Tue Aug 01, 09:31:00 AM 2006 jake3988 said... I hate that. People keep saying 'Its the context', "Its the interpretation' There's a lot of things up to interpretation, but when a part of 'The Law' tells you its ok to kill someone and hang them from a tree, its saying just that. The bible is the inspired word of god. If its something he didn't want in the bib le HE WOULDN'T HAVE PUT IT THERE. Or, you're wrong saying that and its hogwash anyway. Tue Sep 05, 02:02:00 PM 2006 Anonymous said...
I think it is funny that whoever made this site put the parts of verses but didn't put where you can read the verse in context. Obviously, those who believe these lies are not hearers and doers of the Word of God. The Bible encourages sex IN marriage and discourages PREMARITAL sex. When we have sex with a person we are making a covenant with them, a covenant that is only supposed to be with a husband or wife. The Law does NOT say that it is okay to kill someone and hang them from a tree. The Law (which are the Ten Commandments) says THOU SHALT NOT KILL. After Judas betrayed Jesus, he killed himself by hanging himself from a tree. The BIble later is talking about the disciples and says that all made it to Hea ven but one. It wasn't the one who betrayed Jesus, Peter, because God forgives...but Judas killed. The scripture does not say thou shalt not kill anyone but yourself...it says thou shalt not kill. Jesus said he comes to bring life and life abundantly. I believe the best comment I can make is to when you see something about a scripture on a web site go study it yourself and not just take it as truth because it says it on the internet. Know the Word of God and then base your opinion on that. Truth IS NOT RELATIVE. The Holy Word of God is the ONLY truth we have. Keep that close to your heart and RESIST SATAN AND HE WILL FLEE! Mon Oct 02, 08:25:00 AM 2006 Hana said... Father God, I Thank You for bringing me to this site so that I can see how much our world needs You. I pray that every person that comes into this site will read the actual Bible and not scriptures parts from a web page to base their opinions on. God I pray that you wreck the lives of your creation until we make You the Lord of our lives and realize that Jesus dies for us. God I am sorry that we take for granted our freedom that we have and use it for evil. I know that YOUR Word will not return void and although these people are reading a misinterpretation of Your Word, the truth will become known to them. If only they would believe all the promises in the Bible like we do these ridiculous assumptions. The Bible also says that "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord." Unfortunately, many of those will be at judgement when it is too late, so I ask that you prick hearts and change lives. I thank You that if it is Your will, that this website fail and miraculously disappears. We do not fight against flesh and blood but all of the powers of the darkness. Help us to see that we do not fight against each other but Satan who comes to steal, kill and destroy us, and this website is a part of his plan... I love you Father. Amen Mon Oct 02, 08:36:00 AM 2006 Anonymous said... I would like to point out that just because something was done in history,does not mean it is prevalent now. THe verses used are verses from the old testament. Jesus came so that we did not have to live the way poeple did in the old testament. I guess since you are assuming that god allows these things, then I should assume that ALL white people are prejudice because at one time there was slavery. I guess I should also assume that women
should stay home and not work and men should be drafted to war against their will because that is how it used to be. Life changes over time. There are parts of the Bible that are simply used for history. On the marriage subject maybe you should read Song of Solomon, there is a true love story about a couple who was madly inlove. The way GOD planned it to be. Maybe you should read that like you this misuse of scripture and let that form your beliefs and relationships. That is how God intended it to be. Mon Oct 02, 12:58:00 PM 2006 Believer said... Jesus Loves you too! Even though you misuse His scripture. Mon Oct 02, 01:02:00 PM 2006 Truths said... 1Co 7:7 I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness. 1Co 7:14 - For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not have a godly influence, but now they are set apart for him. 1Co 7:29 - Now let me say this, dear brothers and sisters: The time that remains is very short, so husbands should not let marriage be their major concern. 1Co 7:39 - A wife is married to her husband as long as he lives. If her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wishes, but this must be a marriage acceptable to the Lord. Heb 13:4 - Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery. Ex 20:14 - "Do not commit adultery. Le 20:10 - "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. De 5:18 "'Do not commit adultery. De 22:22 - adultery, both he and the other man's wife must be killed. In this way, the evil will be cleansed from Israel. Pr 6:32 - But the man who commits adultery is an utter fool, for he destroys his own soul.
Ps 43:1 O God, take up my cause! Defend me against these ungodly people. Rescue me from these unjust liars. Mal 2:16 - "For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "It is as cruel as putting on a victim's bloodstained coat," says the LORD Almighty. "So guard yourself; always remain loyal to your wife." Mt 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God had originally intended. Le 18:22 - "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. Mt 16:3 red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.' You are good at reading the weather signs in the sky, but you can't read the obvious signs of the times! Job 17:12 - They say that night is day and day is night; how they pervert the truth! Ps 25:5 Lead me by your truth and teach me, for you are the God who saves me. All day long I put my hope in you. Ps 26:3 For I am constantly aware of your unfailing love, and I have lived according to your truth. Pr 8:7 for I speak the truth and hate every kind of deception. Pr 12:19 - Truth stands the test of time; lies are soon exposed. Isa 8:20 - "Check their predictions against my testimony," says the LORD. "If their predictions are different from mine, it is because there is no light or truth in them. Isa 42:4 - He will not stop until truth and righteousness prevail throughout the earth. Even distant lands beyond the sea will wait for his instruction." Jer 38:15 - Jeremiah said, "If I tell you the truth, you will kill me. And if I give you advice, you won't listen to me anyway." Mon Oct 02, 01:19:00 PM 2006 Anonymous said...
" I would like to point out that just because something was done in history,does not mean it is prevalent now. THe verses used are verses from the old testament. Jesus came so that we did not have to live the way poeple did in the old testament. I guess since you are assuming that god allows these things, then I should assume that ALL white people are prejudice because at one time there was slavery. I guess I should also assume that women should stay home and not work and men should be drafted to war against their will because that is how it used to be. Life changes over time. There are parts of the Bible that are simply used for history. On the marriage subject maybe you should read Song of Solomon, there is a true love story about a couple who was madly inlove. The way GOD planned it to be. Maybe you should read that like you this misuse of scripture and let that form your beliefs and relationships. That is how God intended it to be." It isn't about the fact that God ( New Testament Jehovah anyway) changed the rules for marriage as the years went by ( for that matter there are verses in the Bible that say God's laws are unchanging and always in effect and yet they morph continuously throughout the Bible which has more to do with the changing ways of the society instead of actual laws laid down by a god) but more about how these things were ever deemed morally right by a supposedly unchanging God who mysteriously has many different rules ordained for marriage. Curious enough polygamy and concubines just seemed to fall out of the picture in the new and improved, softer, gentler, more "loving" New Testament.................it doesn't matter why the bible changes its tune. The fact remains that the tune changed.How does Jesus coming into the picture in NT magically make polygamy or having concubines wrong all of a sudden if God had said it was all fine and dandy in OT.....Umm, it logically can't and that is why these verses are not truly taken out of context just because the OT rules are somehow denounced because of Jesus. Get real. Mon Oct 16, 03:39:00 AM 2006 Anonymous said... I think it is funny that whoever made this site put the parts of verses but didn't put where you can read the verse in context. If you click on the link next to any of the verses quoted it goes directly to the whole section, complete with even more annotations to enlighten you. Re polygamy, when a rule is made about how to treat your multiple wives then clearly it must be allowed to *have* multiple wives. I really wonder if many christians have read much of the bible without being told by someone else a) what to read and b) what it "means". "Song of Solomon, there is a true love story about a couple who was madly inlove." This was the dude with 700 wives right? I mean, mad props and all, but is that really the example you were looking for?
Tue Nov 21, 08:48:00 AM 2006 Anonymous said... Love your blog!! Speaking of Song of Solomon, isn't that where it was basically said that "my lover put a hand near my anus and caused me to move my bowels"? What a beautiful love story!! Sat Dec 30, 12:35:00 PM 2006 Anonymous said... The main interpretation of Hosea in my view, speaks to real life. The bible says that a man may divorce his wife for the sole reason of sexual immorality, but it also says that GOD hates divorce. In my own life I married a woman who at one time was a prostitute. We now are seperated but by having a relationship with GOD I have kept my covenant with GOD and she has gone to others. Remember this- for better or for worse. This statement alone covers an unending uncomprimising promise which should only end -Till death due you part. Jesus no matter what we do will always be waiting for us. When we look back HE will be there with HIS arms open. Likewise we should always use JESUS as our rolemodel. For if your wife should leave let her leave and if the man should leave let him leave, but if either can tolerate the other under the family they will sanctify. Keep JESUS as the model and always remember in marriage that as a christian the HOLY SPIRIT is your guide and that GOD hates divorce. The 3 are 1, just like in marriage the two flesh become one! Sun Jan 14, 10:12:00 PM 2007 Saadaya said... The author of this article missed the instructions on how to rape a woman a nd purchase her in Deuteronomy 22 - if a woman does not scream loud enough when she's being raped, that it's her fault (because women weren't supposed to walk alone, without men to 'protect' them) - and if she's compromised she must be stoned to death but if she's not then her father must sell her to her aggressor! At no point does he ask his daughter if she wants to marry the man who just raped her. He just sells her to him. The price of a woman is fixed in this chapter at 50 shekels of silver. How's that for family values? Deut. 21 also has instructions on how to do a massacre and rape the surviving women, and how to stone your own son to death if he gets drunk. "All of Israel will know of this and will fear". Wed May 16, 11:44:00 AM 2007
Saadaya said... In Genesis 30 we see Jacob having sex with FOUR WOMEN: his two wives (who were sisters), and his two slaves/concubines - these four women are the mothers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Abraham was also a slavemaster and also raped Hagar, his Egyptian slave. Whenever there is more than one wife, there's a favorite one and favorite sons. Joseph, for example, was sold into slaver by his own brothers who were jealous, he was his father's favorite son and his mother was his father's favorite wife. Abraham also kicked his own son and slave into the desert under the whispers of his wife Sarah who had a fit of jealousy and madness. In Genesis 21 SHE ordered him to leave them in the desert, where the Bible admits that it was a miracle that they survived. Yet, in spite of his lack of character and his negligence with his son, Abraham was God's "chosen". "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." - Genesis 21:10 Bible family values for u! Wed May 16, 12:04:00 PM 2007 Lord DoomRater said... "It's okay for God to tell us to kill people and hang there dead bodies on trees because I am a weenie." Way to miss the argument by jumping at the ad hominem. So what IS the problem? Wed May 23, 06:55:00 PM 2007 jeffrey said... I'm sure if I looked at your life....took pieces out of it to fit an obscure version of who I think your are...it would be easy. Truth is, all those things u mention fit perfectly into a blief that has changed peoples lives forever. However, it is Us Christians that mess it up....that is where the blame is. Your points miss the mark, but ur intention makes clear our faults....I thank you for that. Sat May 26, 07:42:00 AM 2007 Tony said... This post reminds me of the way Lucifer takes Biblical quotes out of context and defines them for his own purposes. Like jeffrey said it is pretty simple to take any excerpt from any written document and
justify it for your own means (Congress has been doing it for decades). I've heard of some of the claims atheists make about Christian doctrine and if I didn't know any better I'd think them religious folk were out of their minds too. Truth is, most of the lies people think about Christians originate from the lord of flies himself. Inherently obscure and, of course, far from reality. Perhaps you should check out Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:24, Hebrews 13:4, Proverbs 18:22, I Corinthians 7:2-4 (the rest of your quote from above, proves the out of context theory). You should probably take into account the time difference as well. The Old Testament was written way before Christ walked the earth, so bashing Christians for Old Testament texts is a little absurd, is it not? True Christians should still respect the laws of the Torah but a lot about culture has changed in the past few thousand years. A king having many wives was the way life worked back then. Oh and concubines aren't as common as they were before either. Thu Jan 17, 08:32:00 AM 2008 aaron said... If your God is so great, why would he make an imperfect religion, only to fix it over 1000 years later? The Biblical God has the maturity of a child. And why would a righteous God blame the entire human race for one man's sin and give us atonement through faith in a dead Jewish carpenter? May the Flying Spaghetti Monster endow you with knowledge from his noodly appendage. Fri Jan 18, 11:21:00 AM 2008 Karla Elisa said... This is interesting to me, as after being raised an atheist I began to search for 'my inner truth' in my 40's. I was going thru a big crises in my life and honestly needed something larger than me to rely upon. I felt I had a 'spiritual' encounter and I attributed it to the Holy Spirit and began to study the Bible. I began with the New Testament and began to search many things within myself which resulted in something I can only compare to therapy that worked. Applied correctly the re is much to be gleaned from the NT in the Bible. But when I began to read the Old Testament I had all kinds of problems. It was much harder to find spiritual truths there. In fact, my natural ability to desire 'proof' returned and the harder I've tried to find solid evidence to substantiate the wars, other events and people in it, I simply can't. No Moses, No Exodus, No Solomon, No 1st temple, No entitlement for the Israeli's to that land, etc. In fact, all I can say is that I have far more questions tha n answers these days. And the fundies scare the crap out of me. During this time I wound up getting married to a great guy who has half his family in
what I guess I'd term a 'cult'. They are sabbatarians and take the bible literally. Something I've never been able to do. And what makes it even less palatable is how much money God seems to require. They actually believe you can purchase blessings and like the Bush admin, love living in fear of whether or not they are saved (safe). They are an OT loving bunch. Still... there are great lessons if you are soul searching but for me the Kingdom remains within. It's about finding harmony, learning to give and receive love and to be more compassionate. The rest of this jazz is but a bunch of fables and rules. So in a very big way I've benefitted from this experience but I've also come to the conclusion that any religious book that causes this much division in humanity is NOT divine. I understand that people don't want their 'truth' proven crap. But so many adopted this straight from their parents they never really had a choice to become free thinking individuals and that's a shame. They could believe in God and not feel threatened by your mostly valid points here otherwise. Sun Jun 08, 04:29:00 PM 2008 sitbaddoggy said... A freethinker! (r)Amen! :) I've heard of Christians and Muslims who turned atheist, but rarely about an atheist who went into faith and went out again. You are indeed correct, a supposedly holy book that sets humanity against itself isn't holy at all. Mon Nov 24, 11:46:00 PM 2008 mwaetht said... Yes, all questioners are being influenced by Satan so we don't need to respond to their arguments... I'm sorry, but does anybody actually believe that is at all logical? Tue Feb 03, 10:21:00 AM 2009 Ashley said... It is vital that you always put what you are reading from the Holy Bible into context. For instance, actions of human characters in the old testement are there to describe the darkness of a man's heart. In the New testement, there is a lightness which inspires and motivates readers of the Holy Bible to move past those obstacles from the old testement. Remember & don't forget that the thread between the old and new testements is the birth of Christ and this is so powerful that it makes this year that I am typing this 2010 years since Christ's physical birth!
There is one critical element you may need to completely understand the Bible which you can only receive when you are found. Signed, a seeker of truth Mon Mar 22, 02:11:00 PM 2010
The good people in the Bible A while back, I said that Vashti was the best person in the Bible. And while I still think she's a good choice for that award, I'd like to consider all possible candidates. Here is my attempt to do that. Let me know if I've left out any of your favorite Bible characters. 1. The Talking Serpent OK, so maybe he wasn't human, but he was the wisest and most honest character in Genesis. Here's his conversation with Eve. 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? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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. Genesis 3:1-5 And the serpent was correct, according to the Bible anyway. When Eve and Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, they didn't die* , and their eyes were opened to know good and evil.
2. Eve
The Bible doesn't say much about Eve. There is only one conversation recorded and that is with a talking serpent. But in it she shows a courageous love of goodness, beauty, and truth. 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. Genesis 3:6 3. Hagar At Sarah and God's insistence, Abraham sent Hagar and their son Ishmael into the desert. When Ishmael was about to die, Hagar left him under a bush and cried because she couldn't bear to see him die. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. Genesis 21:15-16 4. Zipporah Zipporah saved Moses from being killed by God by cutting off the foreskin of their son with a sharp stone. I don't know how she knew what had upse t Moses' psychopathic god, but she figured it out quickly and did what had to be done. Then she threw the bloody foreskin at Moses' feet saying, "a bloody husband you are to me." It came to pass ... that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exodus 4:24-25 5. The ten honest scouts Moses sent out twelve scouts to check out the land of Canaan. When they returned, one of the scouts (Caleb and maybe Joshua) told Moses that it would be easy to invade and conquer the people of Canaan. But ten other scouts disagreed. The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that
eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Numbers 13:32-33 So God, who only likes good news, killed them for their honest report. Those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD. Numbers 14:37 6. Korah and his companions Moses and Aaron had absolute authority over the Israelites -- until it was challenged by Korah and his companions. Here's what they said to Moses. Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? Numbers 16:3 So God and Moses arranged a test. If Korah and his companions die a natural death, then God didn't send Moses. But if Korah and his friends (and their families) are buried alive, then God is Moses' special friend. And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me. ... If these men die the common death of all men ... then the LORD hath not sent me. But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. Numbers 16:28-30 The test proved that Moses is God's special friend (since the other guys were buried alive). But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.
And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. Numbers 16:28-33 7. The people who complained about God's killings During the Exodus, God burned and buried people alive, had people stoned to death, and killed tens of thousands in plagues. So, as you might expect, the people were pretty freaked out about it. Here's what they said: All the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD. Numbers 16:41 So God sent a plague and killed another 14,700. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume the m as in a moment. ... Behold, the plague was begun among the people. ... Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred. Numbers 16:44-49
8. The couple murde red by Phinehas The Israelites pissed off God by having sex with Moabite women. the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. Numbers 25:1 So God sent a plague to kill them all. Then Phinehas saw an Israelite man and a Moabite woman,
One of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman. Numbers 25:6 and impaled them with a spear through their bellies. When Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand ... and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. Numbers 25:7-8 God was so pleased by Phinehas' double murder that he stopped killing people with the plague, after only 24,000 died. (Well, 23,000 if you believe Paul.) So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. nd those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. Numbers 25:8-9 9. The daughters of Zelophehad Then came the daughters of Zelophehad ... Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Our father died in the wilderness ... and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. Numbers 27:1-7 10. The peaceful uns uspecting people of Lais h
The children of Dan ... came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure: and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire. Judges 18:26-27 11. Nabal When David was fighting with Saul, he hung out "in the wilderness" with a gang of outlaws. While there, he heard about a rich man named Nabal and sent some of his "young men" to pay him a visit. So they went and introduced themselves to Nabal and told him to give them whatever he owned. David sent out ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in my name. ... Give, I pray thee, whatsoever cometh to thine hand unto thy servants, and to thy son David. 1 Samuel 25:5-8 But Nabal was on to David's protection racket. He refused to give his belongings to people he didn't even know just to get them to go away and leave him alone. And Nabal answered David's servants, and said, Who is David? ... Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be? 1 Samuel 25:10-11 When David heard about it, he swore to kill Nabal and all his men (everyone "that pisseth against the wall"). So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 1 Samuel 25:22 But, as it turns out, God beat him to it and killed Nabal for David, And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. 1 Samuel 25:38 and gave David his wife and other stuff. When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD .... And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. 1 Samuel 25:39 12. Phaltiel
After Michal helped David escape from her father Saul, Saul gave her away to another man named Phalti. Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti. But later, after he had collected a half dozen or more wives, David demanded Michal back. (Heck, he paid 200 foreskins for her!) And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 2 Samuel 3:14 Poor Phatiel must have loved her dearly since he "went along weeping behind her." And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Pha ltiel the son of Laish. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her. 2 Samuel 3:15 13. Uzzah When the ark was being transported to Jerusalem, Uzzah, one of the drivers of the cart, reached out his hand to steady the ark to keep it from falling. God thanked him in his usual way: he killed him. And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. ... And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor , Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. 2 Samuel 6:3-7 14. Michal David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins. She was the daughter of Saul and her name was Michal. She rescued David from her father by lowering him on a rope through the window (1 Samuel 19:11-17), which was both brave and clever. But what impresses me even more was the way she criticized David for dancing nearly naked in front of God and everybody. David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. ...
Michal ... said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 2 Samuel 6:14-20 Of course God doesn't like it when anyone criticizes David. So he made her die childless. (But not really.) Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6:23 15. Rizpah To appease God and end a famine that was caused by his predecessor (Saul), David agrees to have two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons killed and hung up "unto the Lord." There was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. ... Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement. ... And they answered the king ... Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD. 2 Samuel 21:1-6 So David rounded up and delivered two sons of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, and five sons of his daughter Michal, and they hung them up before the Lord. The king took the two sons of Rizpah ... whom she bare unto Saul ... and the five sons of Michal ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death. 2 Samuel 21:8-9 Rizpah stayed with her dead sons, chasing the birds away in the daytime and animals away at night. And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. 2 Samuel 21:10
And God stopped the famine after Saul's two sons and five grandsons were killed and hung up for him. They gathered the bones of them that were hanged ... And after that God was intreated for the land 2 Samuel 21:13-14 16. Jeroboam's wife Jeroboam's wife (the Bible doesn't bother giving her a name) was worried about her sick son. So she went to see the blind prophet Ahijah to see if he could help. Jeroboam's wife ... arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. 1 Kings 14:4 When she arrived, Ahijah had a message from God regarding her son. Bhold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. 1 Kings 14:10 Which wasn't particularly good news to Jeroboam's wife, since her sick son had pissed on a few walls here and there. But it got worse as the prophet elaborated a bit. Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air eat: for the LORD hath spoken it. 1 Kings 14:11 So God was going to kill all of the male descendants of Jeroboam, strew their dead bodies on the ground like dung, and use them for dog and bird food. Oh and her son? He would be dead by the time she got home. Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. 1 Kings 14:12 After hearing the words of God from his prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam's wife returned home. And, sure enough, God killed her sick little boy the moment she entered his room. And Jeroboam's wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah: and when
she came to the threshold of the door, the child died; 1 Kings 14:17 17. Vashti: The best person in the Bible? Vashti refused to entertain the king's drunken guests. The king made a feast ... seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace ... And they gave them drink in vessels of gold ... and royal wine in abundance. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... Vashti the queen ... with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on. But the queen Vashti refused. Esther 1:5-12 18. Job's wife In the book of Job, gambling game family. Satan bets face if Job's life is God (or Satan, it's Job's family and him.
God and Satan play a cruel with the lives of Job and his that Job will curse God to his made unpleasant enough. So hard to tell them apart) kills sends various torments upon
Job's wife rightly says that if Job is to keep his integrity, he should curse God (for playing vicious games with Satan) and die. She is the only voice of reason in the book of Job. Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. Job 2:9
* God told Adam that he would die the day that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet he and Eve ate from that tree and lived another 930 years. (In the case of Adam, anyway. The Bible doesn't say how long Eve lived.) Posted by Steve Wells at 4/30/2011 03:30:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 37 comme nts:
Nameless Cynic said... Always been partial to Lilith, m'self; Adam's first wife. In Jewish folklore, God made her from the earth where He made Adam. But she refused to submit to Adam, left, and started having sex with an archangel. (Does it count as "living in sin" when one of the couple is an angel?) Technically, I'm not sure if she belongs on your list, since she appears only "between the lines" in the Bible: So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27) But having already made the two of them, God goes back and makes the woman again: Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. She's mentioned I think once in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there's some argument about translation of the word "owl" at one point in the Old Testament - Wikipedia describes it, but I'm too lazy to go looking it up (since I already looked up the Bible verses for you do I have to do all the work here?) Sat Apr 30, 04:35:00 PM 2011 Shannon said... Adam and Eve did die after they ate the fruit. Not right away as the Bible might suggest, but they did die (after 900 some odd years) At least, that's what I've been told by Christians... Sat Apr 30, 04:53:00 PM 2011 teavee said... I think these people might deserve some recognition. The Galileans Pilate sacrificed and the 18 killed by a tower; and although a character in a parable, the vineyard caretaker who intercedes for a fig tree. (Luke 13:1-9) Uzzah who was killed for steadying the ark. The quiet and secure people of Laish. (Judges 18:10,27)
Sat Apr 30, 06:18:00 PM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Shannon, The Hebrew expression used when God told Adam that he would die literally means in dying you will die. In other words he would begin to die when he ate or touched the fruit of the tree. Had he not eaten from the tree he wouldn't have died. But eventually, he did die. Sat Apr 30, 06:36:00 PM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Steve, The serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece. Sat Apr 30, 06:38:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said... Thanks, Nameless Cynic, for the Lilth suggestion. I looked up the Wikipedia article (I needed to do something, I guess) and found the verse that you referred to (Isaiah 34:14). I'd like to include Lilth, but even with Isaiah 34:14, the Bible itself doesn't provide enough information about her to justify it. Sat Apr 30, 07:04:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said... Shanon and PM: Yeah, that's the standard Christian excuse. They started dying when they ate the fruit. It just took a while (like 930 years of so) for the poison to take effect. teavee: Thanks for the great suggestions. I'll get to work on adding them to the list. Sat Apr 30, 07:09:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said...
PM, you said: "The serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece." What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" The Bible says nothing about Satan here, so what makes you think it was him? You might as well say it was the Archangel Michael or Jesus (which I guess to you would be the same thing) or Elvis. And what's this about Balaam's ass. God made a donkey talk and he's proud of it. That's why he put it in the Bible. Still I'd like to hear your talking ass theory. You say Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece. A mouthpiece for whom? Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Donald Trump? Sat Apr 30, 07:26:00 PM 2011 Nameless Cynic said... Still I'd like to hear your talking ass theory. I'm pretty sure that's a scene from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective Sat Apr 30, 08:45:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said... What do you think about these folks? Ezekiel's wife Hananiah Ananias and Sapphira Balaam's ass (Not really human, I know. But she seemed like a really nice ass.) Are there any other good people in the Bible? There must be more than those on the list! Sat Apr 30, 09:18:00 PM 2011 Erp said...
Rizpah, Saul's concubine, who had two sons by him. After his death and David becomes king the land has a famine supposedly because Saul had slain some Gibeonites. So David promises the Gibeonites 7 of Saul's male descendants to slaughter. Two of them are Rizpah's children and five are Saul's daughter, Merab's, sons (quite a few early manuscripts actually have Michal instead of Merab). The Gibeonites hang them and leave their bodies hanging. Rizpah sits by the hanging bodies and prevents them from being eaten by vultures and other carrion eaters for several months until David finally decides to bury them. (2 Samuel 21). Sat Apr 30, 09:50:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said... Thanks, Erp. I'd forgotten about Rizpah. She definitely deserves to be on the list. Sat Apr 30, 10:22:00 PM 2011 Joker_SATX said... Good Post. However, I see Good & Evil as different points of view. So I am curious as to what your criteria for Good versus Evil really is? Sun May 01, 03:26:00 AM 2011 twillight said... Man, pretty low standard must apply to choose good ones from the Bible! Sun May 01, 03:38:00 AM 2011 Robert Hagedorn said... Ever wonder what Adam and Eve actually did? Do a search: The First Sca ndal. Sun May 01, 03:43:00 PM 2011 Nelson said... My choice is Jesus Christ. There was never a greater person either in the Bible or anywhere else. Sun May 01, 03:50:00 PM 2011
twillight said... @Nelson someone who advocated slavery, selfmutilation, absolut obedience, human sacrifice, war, opression of women, extreme torture, genocide, punishment of innocents etc. is NOT considerable as "good" person. Mon May 02, 12:26:00 AM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Steve, What I normally do in cases like this is just look at the facts. So, here they are. 1. Serpents and asses don’t talk. 2. The first time the Hebrew word satan appears in scripture is at Numbers 22:22. It is translated as “resister” or “adversary” because that is what the word means. It is used in application to the angel of God, who, by the way, was probably in this case, the logos, Michael, who would much later appear as Jesus Christ. In verse 28 it plainly says that Jehovah opened the mouth of the ass. Balaam, though, thought it was the ass, he didn’t see the angel at first. From this we can gather what spirit creatures are capable of in this regard. (2 Peter 2:16) 3. Did the serpent have legs before God cursed it? Or is it possible that God was actually cursing the spirit creature who had used the innocent serpent. All throughout the scripture is it a literal serpent who is blamed for deceiving Eve or is it Satan, who is often figuratively referred to as a serpent? 4. Eve didn’t sin, she was deceived. Adam sinned because he knew better and wasn’t deceived, but Eve didn’t sin. (1 Timothy 2:14) Mon May 02, 08:06:00 AM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Lilith, as seen at Isaiah 34:14, has been translated as Screech owl, night monster, nightjar, night hag or simply transliterated. Some scholars think the wo rd is borrowed from Sumerian and Akkadian mythology, Lilitu, a female demon of the air. However, the word probably comes from a root word meaning to twist, similar to the Hebrew word layil or lailah means night from a wrapping itself around or enfolding the earth. The nightjar, which often inhabits ruins like Edom, becomes active around dusk and twists and turns to capture their prey.
Mon May 02, 08:23:00 AM 2011 Steve Wells said... PM, You say, "Serpents and asses don’t talk." Well, they do in the Bible, bub. And here I thought you believed in the Bible, but I guess not. Oh ye of little faith. I still have some questions about your talking ass theory, though. You say, "The first time the Hebrew word satan appears in scripture is at Numbers 22:22. It is translated as “resister” or “adversary” because that is what the word means. It is used in application to the angel of God, who, by the way, was probably in this case, the logos, Michael, who would much later appear as Jesus Christ." So the "adversary" in Numbers 22:22 refers to Satan, who is really the archangel Michael, who, as everyone knows, is actually Jesus. Therefore, Satan, the archangel Micheal, and Jesus are all the same person? That's quite a Trinity you've got there, PM! Which mans, I guess, that it wasn't the ass that was talking in Numbers 22, it was Jesus (aka Michael, aka Satan). Jesus is the archangel Michael, Satan, and Balaam's ass. Three separate persons in one talking ass! I guess it is kind of obvious when you think of it. Mon May 02, 10:51:00 AM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... The Hebrew word satan simply means adversary or resister just as the various forms of the Hebrew el (god) simply means anyone or anything that is considered mighty or venerated. So the words god and satan are no t names, they are words. When these words are used without the definite article ha they can be applied to anyone. So, since the angel, probably Michael in this case, positioned himself before Balaam as an adversary or resister, the Hebrew word without the definite article was used. Mon May 02, 12:52:00 PM 2011 Steve Wells said...
PM, OK, so Jesus (aka Michael) was the angel in Numbers 22 that was invisible to humans, but not to donkeys. Yet Balaam (and presumably other humans) could hear the voice of Invisible Jesus when he said, for example, in verse 32, "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times?" Which is a marvelous thing and a wonder, but I'm still unclear about who was speaking when Mr. Ed (I mean Balaam's ass) was talking. You've already told us that "serpents and asses don't talk," and that "the serpent didn't actually talk, it was Satan that used the serpent as a mouthpiece much like Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece." But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for? You say the serpent spoke for Satan; who did the ass speak for? Jesus and Michael, God, Satan, or someone else? It couldn't be Jesus and Michael, since he (they?) were the invisible angel that the ass was talking to. Otherwise they'd be talking to themselves, which would make a silly story even sillier. It couldn't be God because that would make an ass out God when she said this in verse 30: "And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day?" That leaves Satan, I guess. And yet, Michael/Jesus seemed to like the ass a lot, saying stuff like this in verses 32-33: "And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? ... the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive." So I don't think the ass was speaking for Satan. I think you just need to face it, PM, even if you can't believe it. The ass spoke for herself. Mon May 02, 01:51:00 PM 2011 Stephen said... "But she seemed like a really nice ass." Not rounded and pink, as you probably think, it was gray, had long ears and ate grass. :- ) Steve
Mon May 02, 03:00:00 PM 2011 RaptorJesus said... Why is it that most all the "special" people in the bible who are "good, holy, and blamless" are such cruel, muderous, and just plain crazy people? And yet some how its still a "good" book? WTF? Mon May 02, 04:45:00 PM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Steve, I just want to say that the point of the Bible is to give, as much as is needed or possible, the opportunity for an informed position, whether believing or unbelieving and there are two things that I have always personally admired about you. 1. You put a great deal of effort in making an informed choice and 2. You allow a forum for those who disagree with you. I do appreciate your effort though we seldom agree. Tue May 03, 05:58:00 PM 2011 Daystar said... Raptor Jesus, Jesus challenged the rich man that called him good, saying that none were good except Jehovah God. The holy good and blameless are a product of your great expectations and if I may be so bold, stupidity. Atheists always fuck that up. If for nothing more than fun. Well who cares? But you. Tue May 03, 10:09:00 PM 2011 Dan said...
PM , Steve's positions are informed, and would normally be convincing in an objective debate situation. Unfortunately in the religious realm he is up against the irrational. In this blog he has asked the rational questions which in a normal debate would require a rational answer. (I have to chuckle at using the word rational in the context of an ass speaking, but oh well.) 1. But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for? 2. Therefore, Satan, the archangel Micheal, and Jesus are all the same person? 3. What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" 4. (Am I wrong about the magic dates and numbers (4026, 607, 2520, 1914)? Do you disagree with the JWs on their significance?) From the other blog… Even you can see how confusing the bible becomes if even the clearly stated stuff can be altered into meaning something quite the opposite. You stated that when we read the words god and satan they are not referring to God or Satan they are just words. That would be like reading about Abe Lincoln and his name could mean any president. If I came to that conclusion I would discount all books about Abe Lincoln as irrational. What kind of author would be that misleading? You rely heavily on your interpretation of the Hebrew to English, is that your doctorate area? If it is, I would say “go for it”, but if you are an armchair quarterback then you are up against scholars that have studied those words for a living and would heartily disagree with you. In the meantime you’re stating a different Hebrew meaning for a word that is outside the normal just clouds the argument. My golfing buddy in Dallas had a doc torate in New Testament Greek and devoted his life’s work to translating difficult New Testament versus. It is not as easy as looking it up in a book and picking the one that fits your argument. Preachers do this all the time and cause a great deal of harm in the way of confusing the all ready confused and misled. Dan Wed May 04, 12:15:00 PM 2011 trog69 said... Good morning, Mr. Wells, et. al. After my previous comments, I figgered I should at least acknowledge the host. As an apatheist, I have tried to read the bible, but I just don't have the patience, nor, since I find the entire Christian religion utterly ridiculous, do I have the will to push myself. So, I am heartily grateful for your efforts here in providing some insights into this topic. As for me, until I get a straight answer as to why a god, having the entire universe at it's
disposal/creation, would bother with the sordid details of one of it's science projects to the point where it decides that it must send itself to Earth as a human representation, in order to placate itself for it's pet's alleged transgressions, and...blahblahblah, I can't see why I should cheat my grandkids by wasting time reading that drivel, when we could be out flying a kite, or looking through the telescope. Keep up the great work. Dan, great point about how the oh-so many religious leaders have fudged the terminology to fit their views on biblical accuracy/relevance. Thu May 05, 07:14:00 AM 2011 The Pathway Machine said... Dan, The so called skeptic tends to have a false sense of rationality. The rational doesn’t have a fixed point. It would be counter productive, for example, to assume it is irrational that man could fly before man had discovered that he could in fact do so. Unless someone challenges the rationality of that assumption which was based upon a faulty premise the only thing stopping man from discovering flight would be the irrational in the guise of the rational. If a “skeptic” says there is no god it demonstrates two possible facts. 1. They don’t know the simple meaning of the word god and or 2. They are making an uninformed statement of opinion which isn’t testable and therefore can’t accurately be stated as rational fact. 1. But if Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece, who was the ass speaking for? The ass wasn’t speaking. The angel was speaking on behalf of the ass. 2. Therefore, Satan, the archangel Michael, and Jesus are all the same person? No. Satan and the archangel Michael are two different spirit creatures and Michael came to the Earth as a man. 3. What do you mean the serpent didn't talk? Here's what the Bible says: "he [the serpent] said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Which is why I pointed out that Peter, talking about Balaam’s ass, said “voiceless beast of burden made utterance with the voice of a man.” What the Bible is saying is that Satan spoke to Eve through the serpent. The serpent didn’t talk, and, throughout the rest of the Bible who is blamed for deceiving Eve? The serpent or Satan?
4. (Am I wrong about the magic dates and numbers (4026, 607, 2520, 1914)? Do you disagree with the JWs on their significance?) From the other blog… The dates given by me and the Jws are not magic they are based upon Biblical Chronology, as well as historical, archaeological and astronomical observations. Variations in these, as in the case of 607 B.C.E. are due to historical inaccuracies. None of these dates are absolutely certain any more than archaeological or historical are. The Hebrew word satan means adversary, one who resists. Since the angel who became known as Satan was the foremost adversary the word, only when accompanied by the definite article ha applies to him. The Hebrew variations of El, translated as god simply means anyone or anything that is deemed as mighty or venerated. The Bible mentions many gods, including mortal imperfect men such as Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Other gods mentioned by the Bible are Jesus, the angels, Tammuz, a deified Sumerian King, Baal, Satan, Jehovah, Ashtoreth, and many others. Paul said that ones own belly could be a god. Gods of stone, wood. This definition of God is the same as our English modern definition. If anyone or anything can be a god it is foolish to think that no gods exist. This is the same as saying Abraham Lincoln was a man, was a president. These things are only confused by the skeptical who begin from a faulty premise. Thu May 05, 07:58:00 AM 2011 Dan said... When two schizophrenics meet and they both believe themselves to be Napoleon, they will readily accept that the other person could be Napoleon as well. It is much the same with religious folks. They will readily accept concepts like the trinity, (three different entities all claiming to be God but only one can be), asses used as mouthpieces or talking asses and serpents used as mouthpieces or talking serpents. . That is what I am generally dealing with when I use the term irrational. Only to schizophrenics and religious adherents can impossibilities become everyday facts. A skeptic would still argue that humans can’t fly, at least on this planet. When one does we will have to all stop and redefine rationality as it relates to flying humans. Airplanes and hang gliders are no different then scuba gear, humans can no more fly then they can breathe underwater. You are wrong; it is religion that blurs the lines between rationality and irrationality. In Science a position exists to be proven wrong. But don’t get me wrong, I am not in the crowd that condemns irrationality. I believe it is part of human evolution to move from needing invisible authority figures to trusting our own brains to give us the correct solution to life’s puzzle. Those of us that would count ourselves on the skeptical side realize we have escaped irrationality by a small statistical margin. I would never view a
skeptic’s position as superior to a religious view. I would just view religion as improvable. The grand puzzle may someday include some type of energy or particle that has attributes that we currently do not understand. Maybe this is the god particle, I don’t know and I am not interested in doing the heavy lifting to find it. I take solace in knowing there are physicists that are interested and open to this idea. In the mean time I choose to reject all miraculous thinking because it is dangerous to the human race. It all ends in some kind of apocalypse. In the recent case of youthful JW’s, they were instructed to bypass higher education because it would be wasted, since the world was going to end. Don’t it is not just the JW’s; my Father lived his whole life believing his generation was the last. He died last year at 89 and never saw the rapture, second coming, millennium, or trumpets in the clouds calling him home. It isn’t just the JW’s that get their time frames messed up. He was a pastor in a main line fundamentalist group. “Paul said that ones own belly could be a god. This definition of God is the same as our English modern definition. If anyone or anything can be a god it is foolish to think that no gods exist.” You are right, if your definition of god includes “ones own belly” Then I have engaged what limited intellect I possess on arguing with either a schizophrenic or someone who lives in a continual hypnotic state. I have no answers for your constantly moving definition of god. It includes whatever reality you are in at any given moment. My bad. Thu May 05, 10:22:00 PM 2011 Daystar said... Dan - You are wrong; it is religion that blurs the lines between rationality and irrationality. In Science a position exists to be proven wrong. Pathway - Thats what is wrong with you. You can't "prove" religion wrong. I really feel sorry for you. But, you know, you are only ignorant and xenophobic. If you would just learn about that which you test instead of being spoonfed science that exists only to make you feel intellectual while being totally ignorant. You would have it made. Like me. When I say religion can be proven wrong I mean it. I don't assume it in the guise of science. Fucking idiot atheists. Fri May 06, 07:35:00 PM 2011 uzza said...
Balaam's ass was a mouthpiece Thanks for that mental image guys. Fri May 06, 08:48:00 PM 2011 quo_vadis said... Has anyone suggested Ruth (aka Rut) & her mother-in- law Noomi (aka Naomi)? The two of them didn't do anything really great but at least they were kind to each other & in contrast to other biblical characters they were peaceful & didn't use any violence. Ruth even "clave unto her", eventhough I am not sure whether Ruth clave to her Motherin- law Noomi or her sister- in-law Orpah, it nevertheless means that Ruth is an affectionate person. Some people might be tempted to claim that Ruth (advised by Noomi) tricked Boaz into marriage because Ruth seduced him while he was drunk but did women in this society have much choice? Sun May 08, 10:12:00 AM 2011 Daystar said... Dan, When one of the two takes it upon himself to irresponsibly and with malice diagnose anyone who disagrees with them as schizophrenics I know that there is no cause for discourse. Xenophobia isn't a religious thing, is it. Mon May 09, 11:27:00 PM 2011 Dan said... “When I say religion can be proven wrong I mean it. I don't assume it in the guise of science.� I probably spent too much time mulling over this comment this past week, but in the end decided to take it as a challenge. Steve is so much better at this than I am but I will attempt for my own sake to compile a few ways in which science has proven religion wrong. 1. Bacteria, virus, and genetics cause disease, not sin; these were all invisible to the religious writers. 2. One of the arguments for Creation rested on the lack of transitional species. The fossil
record has turned up approximately 175. Living animals such as the platypus have retained certain reptilian traits that are no longer found in modern mammals as well as the traits of aquatic animals. 3. The planets orbit around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair the Roman Catholic Church’s issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.” Wikipedia Quote. This happened after Copernicus died. 4. Pregnancy is the result of a sperm uniting with the egg, not some kind of blessing or curse. 5. The earth is not 10,000 years old (based on a liberal interpretation of biblical genealogy). The Big Island of Hawaii is 800,000 years old and is the youngest of the Hawaiian chain. 6. The church practiced the superstition of blood letting to balance body fluids for hundreds of years. To argue it was killing the patients was heresy. 7. The great flood could not have covered the entire earth; science has shown that the necessary volume would be impossible due to the closed system of our atmosphere. The offending amount of water would roughly fill the moon. 8. I have many favorite memories of rainbows and a favorite song about them so no one who knows me would say I am overly analytical about this phenomenon, but one thing a rainbow is not is a sign from God that he will never flood the earth again. Science has saved us that indignity by allowing even a child to understand that a rainbow involves light and droplets of water. “A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines on to droplets of moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Wikipedia) Because we have been told this story so many times it sounds plausible. Since the great flood was so devastating, as children it was easy to associate it with the first rainbow. But as adults it sounds more like a fairy tale, we would have to assume there was no rain or clouds before the flood, which is actually absurd. If that were true it would mean a complete change in the ecosystem. If God had said “the ocean will appear blue as a sign that I will never flood the earth again it would just seem odd at best. But we are dealing with the exact same thing; wavelengths of light passing through water. Whether a great flood occurred or not, rainbows existed before as well as after and were not a result of a covenant between God and Noah. (the blogger required that I do this in two sections.) Fri May 27, 08:57:00 PM 2011 Dan said... (part 2) What exactly happened when Christianity took over Europe? The assumption among Christians was that it was all good. It’s necessary to check out what it replaced. It
replaced a Greek civilization that initiated intellectual enquiry, experimental science, and the critical examination of all ideas. This was a greater freedom than Judaism had conceived. And to Christianity it was insufferable. “Christianity stamped out intellectual enquiry and the free criticism of ideas. It put a stop to science. It tried to lay down absolute “truths” in which all human beings must believe. In short, Christianity brought darkness where there had been light. The darkness persisted, sustained deliberately by an intolerant and cruel Church, for a thousand years and more, until the Enlightenment brought a new dawn to Europe and Europe’s greatest product, America.” I don’t know who wrote that last paragraph but I liked it enough to copy it to my collection of quotes. Fri May 27, 08:59:00 PM 2011 Dan said... Daystar: My reference to schizophrenics was one used by (Julian Jaynes (February 27, 1920 – November 21, 1997) an American psychologist, best known for his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), in which he argued that ancient peoples were not conscious) He simply pointed out how people with this problem will easily accept the impossible as reality. (The Napoleon example) There appears to be a complete range of humans at this time in our evolution. On the one end is the skeptic that requires objective reproducible proof for everything (Randi institute, would be an example).On the other end of the spectrum would be schizophrenics who would readily accept many versions of reality if it fit their current cause or support their current state of mind. I was not suggesting you actually had that problem, it just seemed like your definition of god shifted with each discussion. Hope this adds some clarity, if not let it be know I am a proud participant of the group you affectionately deem as "Fucking idiot atheists." Not the usual name I hear from my religious friends when we discuss some version of magical thinking, but was worth a chuckle. Dan Fri May 27, 09:56:00 PM 2011
All the men, women, and children in 60 cities I suppose I could call this God's 30th to 89th killings, since there must have been 60 separate killing events. If God did the killing himself, he could have done it all at once. But he was relying on people to do his killing for him, so it must have taken some time. First the Israelites had to go to city 1 and kill all the men, women, and children that lived there, then on to city 2, and so on up to the 60th city. But since the Bible lumps all 60 killings together, I will too. The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on these killings. Only 4 verses.
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. … And we utterly destroyed them, we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3.3-6 (The story is also told in Numbers 21:33-35.) Although God is proud of all of his killings, he is especially proud of killing King Og and his people, since they were the last of the giants. Og, for example, had a bed that was 13.5 feet long! For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead … nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. 3.11 Here's what Moses says when he's encouraging Joshua to carry on God's killing tradition. Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings: so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou passest. Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you … For what God is there in heave n or in earth, that can do according to thy works, and according to thy might? 3.21-24 And Moses has a point here. What other god has killed as many as the God of the Bible? (Since the Israelites killed everyone in 60 cities, I put the death toll at 60,000.) God's next killing: The Jericho massacre Posted by Steve Wells at 8/19/2009 08:46:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 9 comme nts:
twillight said... I bet not even Khali. (Shiva if you prefer) Wed Aug 19, 11:17:00 AM 2009 busterggi said... Cthulhu is jealous. Wed Aug 19, 04:01:00 PM 2009 Fragged Mind said... Damn...You are going to make me work on my videos aren't? Also Kill sets 4 and 5 are up on my YT channel.
Wed Aug 19, 10:54:00 PM 2009 busterggi said... Thinking about it overnight - just how big were these cities? We're talking about a pretty small area. Did two buildings count as a city? Did owning more than 3 sheep make someone a king? I think the old propaganda machine was exaggerating on overtime. Thu Aug 20, 05:38:00 AM 2009 Ian G. said... What about Gozer the Destructor? Fri Aug 21, 01:56:00 PM 2009 busterggi said... Ah, Gozer was a softy! Fri Aug 21, 05:51:00 PM 2009 matt311 said... I'm guessing these were less "kingdoms and more "villages" than anything else; shame on you, Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever your name is! Sat Aug 22, 08:37:00 AM 2009 I Am said... Sure, many these stories must be exaggerations or complete fabrications. But the way I see it, if people are going to insist the Bible is true, then for the sake of argument we should assume that all these killings actually did occur. Believers should eithr try to deal with the fact that their God commands or allows such large bloodbaths, or let them realize that the tall tales show the Bible are probably not 100% true (which may lead them to question other things...) Wed Sep 02, 08:21:00 PM 2009
Julien said... lol Jews created the bible as war god to get thier lands back.. So when you read it replace Lord with Jew clergy... And Juses You'll see it all makes sence.. Fri Sep 11, 07:29:00 AM 2009
What to do with an unfaithful wife: The Bible vs. the Quran Both holy books have specific instructions for a husband that suspects his wife has been unfaithful. Since over half of the world believes in one or the other, I thought it would be good to compare them here. The Bible's instructions are in Numbers 5. The first thing to notice about them is that these instructions are from God. It's not just Moses telling the people what to do; it's God. The LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband ... and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her. Numbers 5:11-13 And notice, too, that the husband has no evidence here, only suspicion and jealousy. He didn't see his wife with another man and no one else did either. So what does God tell the jealous husband to do? Take her to a priest who will force her to drink some "bitter water." Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest ... And the priest shall ... set her before the LORD ... And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water. Numbers 5:15-24 If she is guilty, the bitter water will "make her thigh rot and her belly swell," and she will "become a curse among her people." When he hath made her to drink the water, then ... if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, ... her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. Numbers 5:27
But if the woman is innocent, then the bitter water won't cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, and she'll get pregnant. (Apparently, the swollen belly and the rotted thigh was God's way of giving an unfaithful wife an abortion -- or worse.) If the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. Numbers 5:28 In any case, whether she passes or fails the bitter water, belly swelling, thigh rotting, holy abortion test, the husband is completely blameless. But "the woman shall bear her iniquity." Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity. Numbers 5:31 OK. That's it. That's what God says a man should do if he suspects that his wife has been unfaithful. Boy, that's going to be hard to beat! But let's see what the Quran says about it. Luckily, the Quran deals with the same situation: a man who suspects that his wife has been unfaithful. Except that here the husband claims to be a witness of his wife's infidelity. For those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves... Quran 24:6a Now you might think that would be enough to prove the wife's adultery, but it isn't, becaue just two verses ago, the Quran says that four witnesses are required to convict a wife of adultery. Those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers. Quran 24:4 So what's a husband to do in this case? Well, Allah has that all figured out. The husband can just swear that it's true four separate times and that way he can serve as four separate w itnesses. For those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth. Quran 24:6 How cool is that? Oh and then, swear one more time, just to make it all official llke. And this time ask Allah to curse you if you are lying. That ought to do it. (It's sort of like saying, "Cross my heart and hope to die" when swearing. No one would lie doing that!) And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. Quran 24:7 So now there are five witnesses and we can get on with the punishment.
The woman can appeal the case, though, by swearing five times that she is innocent. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth. Quran 24:8-9 I don't know what happens then. What do you do when you have two people that cross their hearts and hope to die on opposite sides of the same case? The Quran doesn't say and I don't think the Supreme Court has ever had a case like that. So that's what the Bible and the Quran say a husband should do with an unfaithful wife. Which procedure do you think is the best? Posted by Steve Wells at 5/02/2010 08:00:00 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 35 comme nts:
Matthew Blanchette said... Both practices are absurd; the former would hold as much legal weight today as the medieval practice of slicing someone's hand, binding it without looking, and seeing if the wound heals (if the priest so desires, he can pretend to slice the hand, and claim it a miracle if it is unwrapped to be revealed as untouched), and the latter is as ridiculous a practice as slicing open a baby and giving each half to its claimed mother. Religion can be so stupid when it comes to the law, can't it? Sun May 02, 11:56:00 PM 2010 Liz said... Context is so very important in these situations. Not only that but you have to read these verse in several translations to even claim to know anything of the meaning. Remember that these are translations of the original text, and so they can be interpreted by readers in very different ways. I personally prefer NIV. When looking up these verses I came to see several things I disagreed with you on. 1. These situations happened thousands of years ago, when times were very different, and women held very different positions in society. They were so much less than men. That's why I believe the husband is given the right, in this story, to come to the Priest simply upon suspicion. 2. You make the "bitter water" sound like a poison or a punishment. I don't think this is how the Lord expects us to deal with infidelity today. I think this was a test, at the time,
as to whether she was guilty or not. It states that if she was innocent, no harm would come to her. 3. My strongest disagreement with you is the claim that the swelling in her thigh/abdomen was an abortion. I completely disagree. I believe God was making her infertile, not killing a child that lived in her womb. Infertility, at times, was a punishment in the Bible, seeing as producing offspring was so high a priority in that day and age. 4. Why should the husband not be blameless? Like I said, at that time women were less than men. He didn't go to her and argue, and fight, and cause pain in their relationship, he went to the Church, to someone wiser, and respected, who could bring the situation before God, and bring clarity. After all I've said, again I want to say, I could be wrong. I am acknowledging that. These are my interpretations of what I've read, and therefore, I am not speaking for all Christians, or even for God; just for myself, in hopes you will be willing to read what I've said with an open mind, rather than scrutiny. Mon May 03, 04:51:00 PM 2010 Sabriell111 said... I feel very sorry for you Liz. The fact that you can read the verses and twist them into your own justifiable version is saddening. Especially considering your name, Liz, which I'm assuming you are a female. So as a female, you should take offense to God's judgment of women, right? You think it's ok that per God terms if your husband even slightly suspects that you've committed adultery regardless of the circumstances that you would have to be put through those tests. Do you think that men should be held to this regard too? It should be fair, right? Regardless of whether you pull your verses from the watered-down translation, the loose translation, the misogynistic translation, or whatever other translated bible you'd like to read out of, those versions suit the author and that author wasn't god. Aren't you angry that you are pulling verses from a book that was translated hundreds and hundreds of times over throughout the last couple thousand years. So your version that you pull those verses from may not even be right. What saddens me the most is that as a female, you can justify these actions. Regardless of whether the situation was different thousands of years ago does not justify the malechauvinism of your god. As a female, you should be apalled. Women should never be less than men in any circumstance, as men should never be less than women. As a female myself, your justifications for your god makes me very sad. I'll read with scrutiny b/c no idea, opinion, etc. will ever be made stronger w/o scrutiny. Tue May 04, 02:00:00 PM 2010 MD1985 said...
Sabriel111: Don't you think that you, the author of this site and anyone who comments in favour of what the author writes may also "read the verses and twist them into your own justifiable version" as much as what you think Liz does (and therefore what I must do also?) I think the thing you need to remember about more recent translations are 1) they are translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts and manuscripts not from other translations (apart from maybe the Message Bible) 2) I would think that being a more recent translation wo uld be in their favour as there have been recent discoveries that would help translation and understanding of the original manuscripts and 3) more time has passed since early translations, therefore translators would have had better resources and one would think a better understanding of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic language and manuscripts. I think we need to remember that when Jesus came to establish a new covenant, it meant that the old one was redefined or replaced by the new. Jesus didn't follow the old covenant laws in regards to women. He treated them equally. Examples are found right throughout the gospels: He spoke to the Samaritan woman even though under Jewish rules this didn’t happen (John 4:7-10). He ignored rules/laws about impurity (Mar 5:25-34). He taught Mary and Martha (females) about the gospel (Luke 10:38). When travelling through cities to preach and spread the good news - He had female companions with Him (Luke 8:1-3). The first people He appeared to after he resurrected were females! He even changed the doctrine to be equal in regards to men and women being unfaithful (Mark 10:11) Ephesians 5:25 says Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her If anything Jesus very much cherished females. He loved them and new how precious they were and He had great concern for widows. And since Jesus WAS God, i would say He certainly wasn't showing the characteristics of a male-chauvinism God. IMO 1 Cor 11: 11 - 12 says Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God To me that sounds pretty equal. Wed May 05, 01:33:00 AM 2010
MD1985 said... Oh and you can't tell from my sign on name but I am female also :) Wed May 05, 01:37:00 AM 2010 Nick said... @MD1985 So what is your stance on gay marriage? I ask because you say the old covenant was replaced by the new covenant and the new covenant doesn't condemn homosexuality, only homosexual prostitutes. Wed May 05, 04:40:00 PM 2010 Srinivasan said... To Liz and MD1985, No religion which claims its supreme deity is a LORD can be said to exercise equality of the sexes. Why is your lord God? Why can't your lord/lady be Goddess? Wed May 05, 08:27:00 PM 2010 MD1985 said... Nick - i wish i could answer you on what my beliefs were on this subject. But right now i am in the process of seeking about this subject - trying to find an answer myself. Right now i believe that the bible speaks of people acting out of delibrate perversion just like it speaks of the same thing for "straight" people who also act out of delibrate perversion. I don't know that there was the awareness of homosexual people then, that there is today as in people who are genetically same sex orientated. But like i said - i am still seeking when it comes to this subject and haven't formed a final view. Sorry if that sounds like a cop out, but i wouldn't like to comment with a half heart or a lack of conviction. Wed May 05, 09:00:00 PM 2010 MD1985 said...
Srinivasan: God is God - He is above gender. We may have titles like "Father" and "Lord" and refer to Him as "He" or "Him". But being God means He is God - therefore gender nuetral above gender - superior to gender. I hope that makes sense. Wed May 05, 09:08:00 PM 2010 Srinivasan said... MD1985, Thanks for attempting an explanation. It still doesn't make sense to me, especially when you repeatedly use gender-specific words to address your God. Maybe the problem is the inadequacy of language. We have not invented a God- friendly language yet, one which has a whole separate set of nouns, pronouns, etc to use in reference to God. I guess that's what you are trying to tell me. In any case, if I had a God, I would refrain from calling him Father: that would make me a bastard. Thu May 06, 12:51:00 AM 2010 skanksta said... @ MD1985 & Liz, "Don't you think that you, the author of this site and anyone who comments in favour of what the author writes may also "read the verses and twist them into your own justifiable version" as much as what you think Liz does (and therefore what I must do also?)" Do you even BELIEVE that ?! That would (sort of) wash, but if you read Steve's blog.... There are HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of passages showing, - god to be cruel - god to be unjust - women to be inferior - justifications of S-L-A-V-E-R-Y - gays to be hated - genocide to be condoned
- genocide to be rewarded - god killing babies - god punishing people for things they didn't do - god to want sacrifice of animals and - people burnt alive - people tortured for not believing in god - people with other gods to be killed etc. etc. etc. We are NOT talking about a few 'odd' passages, we're talking about sentence after sentence, verse after verse, page after page and book after book of horrid stuff like this. Have you even seen the post on 'context' ?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII Thu May 06, 05:35:00 AM 2010 Sabriell111 said... MD let me just first say that the religious also twist verses into their own versions as well. The bible doesn't specifically say anything about abortion, but the religious right still find verses they can twist into their own liking to justify their hatred towards abortion. Southerners in America used verses in the bible to justify the act of slavery, though any normal person knows that slavery, especially the practices here in the states, is ethically wrong. If I'm doing any twisting, it is nothing more than an unbiased, logical, rational interpretation of what was written. Maybe the author should have worded this stuff a little better so it doesn't need to be left to the reader to interpret what's actually being said. I don't have to make this stuff up, it's all right there. Jesus never rejected the teachings in the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:1718)
"Whoever goes against the smallest of the laws of Moses, teaching men to do the same, will be named least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who keeps the Law of Moses, teaching others to keep them, will be named great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19) I'll agree that Jesus was more tolerant of women, but if he were so accepting why out of all 12 disciples was not one of them a woman?
When I was younger and went to church, I remember my grandmother teaching me that woman served man and man served god. And I saw that behavior all over the church. I came across this verse: 1Cor. 14:34: Let your women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law also says. 1Cor. 14:35: And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in a church. I'm sorry, but I feel that you are indoctrinated to believe those things and if you looked at this from a different angle and actually started asking the right questions, you may get the right answers. And not from your pastor or your sunday school teacher, or your congregation. Start asking the right questions and you'll get your answers. You may not like them, but please don't revert to cherry picking bible verses to justify your needs. I would love to believe that we had a creator and that when I died I could go to a magical place for eternity with my friends and family and be happy. But that's all wishful thinking and fairy tales, an adult Santa Claus story. I'm sorry, but that's just not reality. Thu May 06, 08:35:00 AM 2010 Catherine said... MD1985: "He is above gender" Then why are you calling God "him"? Thu May 06, 11:02:00 AM 2010 MD1985 said... @ Skanksta: Do you actually read THE BIBLE or do you base your opinion and views of it on what you read on this site? Do YOU really believe that if God was the God that you just quoted him to be that there would be so SO many faithful and devoted Disciples of Christ? Do you think if we didn't know a loving, caring, providing, protecting, AWESOME, healing, loyal, faithful, wonderful, amazing God that there would be so much Joy in what we believe? THAT is what i really believe He is. And THAT is why i am who i am. Not because I am broken, not because i am lost, not because i am weak, not because i need something to believe in. Because of who HE is! Try reading the bible.
@ Srinivasan - re your last line: It's funny cause I do consider Him a Father and that makes me a most loved, blessed and highly favoured Daughter of the King... not a bastard. @Sabrielle: I am very aware of when Christians have used the bible to justify acts of cruelty and hatred (just look at Fred Phelps and his disgusting use of God’s word to condemn homosexuals and pretty much anyone else that isn’t him) – I guess that’s the difference between “being religious” and “being in relationship with God”. Love by God’s standards are very clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 13, I belie ve anyone or anything that does not adhere to this standard is not showing, acting in or could even understand God’s Love as it was intended. Re: Jesus coming to fulfil the law – I actually already posted about MY understanding of this scripture in another post, so I am going to copy it to save from typing it again… I believe Jesus DID fulfil the law – Once a year under the old law the High priest would enter the Holy of Holies and the sins of all people would be put on to the head of a lamb or goat etc and that animal would be sacrificed. But if you read Heb 9:11 - 14 you will see He fulfilled the old law (blood sacrifice) once and for all when He offered Himself unblemished (without sin) to redeem mankind. God's law still stands; it's just that when we don't meet it, Jesus is our advocate. The Substitutionary Atonement for our sins. Re: Women in the church: I am still studying this subject. But in my seeking so far these are things I have learnt: 1)Paul was talking to a small Corinthian church in a large city of Pagans. 2)Since the church’s roots were pagan, and there was a lot of impurity, sexual immorality and disputing going on in the city, Paul was giving them GUIDELINES to bring this early church to a place of uniformed beliefs as there had been much division in the church about such subjects. 3)He was trying it minimise the division and arguing amongst the believers by giving them GUIDELINES (that word again) not laws. You have to put those verses into context of who Paul was talking to and what was going on at the time in that place. Also – I HAVEN’T always been a Christian. I DID see things from the other side. I DID start seeking. And I DID get the right answers. The TRUE answers - they are just not the answers you think are true. And I can tell you that having experienced both sides – its not even a matter of choice for me – where I am now is where I am meant to be – I feel home here. Your description of Heaven is nothing like my understanding of it (from the scriptures read Revelation). I expect that whichever of my loved ones are there, i will not have any particular relationship with them at all - they will be fellow servers of God, even my own husband will just be another believer there (Matt 22:30).
Yes, it will be perfect, and painless and beautiful, but you make it sound like we all just believe so we can go to this magical land - Heaven is FAR FAR beyond anything we can comprehend and we will alone serve God for all of eternity. Fri May 07, 01:46:00 AM 2010 beautifulblack said... Xtianity is nothing more than a goulash mix of pagan beliefs with xtian added flavorings to make the shit palpable. Xtians follow 2 main topics in OT: homosexuality & tithing (which applied to FOOD NOT money) They conveniently overlook not eating of certain animals, menstrual women r unclean for period of time-anything she touches is unclean, semen emission renders men unclean til evening-even intercourse the couple's unclean til evening, killing disrespectful kids, after childbirth mom must wait 33 days b4 touchin anything 'holy', its a never ending list...shudnt practice witchcraft-but these 'prophets/profits' are nothing more than 'witches' wearing tailor made couture-and xtians RUN to those fortune tellers! A rose by any other name is still a rose! But we-the Atheists-are lost?? Xtians r quick 2 say homo is an abomination-well that's not the only thing their holy book says is an abomination-prov 6:16-19 says these are ABOMINATIONS also: haughty eye, lying tongue, killing the innocent, plotting evil, quick 2 do wrong, shit starter etc ...these actions are never addressed as abominations-ONLY homosexuality...wonder why?? Fri May 07, 09:50:00 AM 2010 beautifulblack said... @md1985 no offense sweety, but the thought of telling a narcisstic puppetmaster, he's holy holy holy holy holy holy holy holy holy forever and ever makes me wish I was chum 4 sharks- now. R streets of gold some sort of bribe that'll make u WANT to 'holyize' him for an eternity?? Fri May 07, 09:57:00 AM 2010 Nick said... @MD1985 "Also – I HAVEN’T always been a Christian. I DID see things from the other side. I DID start seeking. And I DID get the right answers. The TRUE answers - they are just not the answers you think are true. And I can tell you that having experienced both sides – its not
even a matter of choice for me – where I am now is where I am meant to be – I feel home here." I can do that too and the stories match up perfectly. I HAVEN'T always been an unbeliever. I did see things on the other side. I did start seeking. And I did get the right answers. The TRUE answers - they are just not the answers YOU think are true. And I can tell you that having experienced both sides – its not even a matter of choice for me – where I am now is where I am meant to be – I feel home here. I stopped living according to the whims of a book written by men and started living by what feels right, by what fits the natural moral code of humans. And since you're a women here's a verse for you. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) And since you believe in the bible, read this next verse and we'll expect no arguments from you, remain silent like you were commanded. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) And that was in the new testament. Fri May 07, 02:37:00 PM 2010 Darren Delgado said... MD1985 wrote... I think the thing you need to remember about more recent translations are 1) they are translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts and manuscripts not from other translations (apart from maybe the Message Bible) 2) I would think that being a more recent translation would be in their favour as there have been recent discoveries that would help translation and understanding of the original manuscripts and 3) more time has passed since early translations, therefore translators would have had better resources and one would think a better understanding of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic language and manuscripts. Don't you think that an all-knowing God would have provided a much clearer version of his word, and update it occasionally with revisions instead of letting it be misinterpreted over and over, and used to justify things like slavery and other horrific crimes?
I mean, yeah, you can take Bible verses to justify anything, but that just shows that it's a jumbled worthless self-contradictory mess. So much so, in fact, that even different sects within Christianity disagree over what it says so vehemently that they are willing to kill each other over it. If it's so valuable, why wouldn't God step in and tell people what he really meant? I think we need to remember that when Jesus came to establish a new covenant, it meant that the old one was redefined or replaced by the new. Jesus didn't follow the old covenant laws in regards to women. He treated them equally. So were the Old Laws that God made wrong? Were they lousy laws, or did he just change his mind? Fri May 07, 06:47:00 PM 2010 MD1985 said... @ Nick, Wow, i don't understand what i am saying that is making you respond and react so cruelly. All i have done is spoken about what i believe, not once have i made a judgement on you, made personal attacks on you, or said anything mean and degrading. That is ALL i have received since commenting on this blog. If my love for the Almighty God rubs you the wrong way I will not apologise for that but how dare you speak to me that way behind a silver screen - how gutless. I will stop commenting here, and you can all go back to feeling good about the fact that you all agree with each other. I will pray God softens your heart to Him and reveals His love to you all. Sat May 08, 04:13:00 AM 2010 AlteredStates said... It doesn't really matter which Book you use. If a person is dishonest they won't stop at adultery, their "sins" will follow them everywhere they go. More correctly; they will continue to break God's law no matter what anyone says or does. There is more to adultery than the act itself. James 2:10-11 "For whoever keeps the whole
law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker". Along with the act of adultery, there is lying to your spouse and probably to other family members and friends, and breaking of a vow with God. That, in turn, may cause other believers to stumble because of how this type of betrayal affects other believers. In addition, when these Books were written, they were written to very primitive, uneducated people who lived by "an eye for an eye" rule. Forgiveness was not their forte. This attitude has carried over to recent history, i.e. "Salem Witch Trials" and even to today's news stories. How many of today's ministers of all faiths have been found out to be phonies; committing every sin in the Book, even after preaching against the exact same thing that they get caught doing? I mean, these people give Christianity a bad name (pun intended). Indecently, these preachers who don't "practice what they preach" will be judged more strictly, James 3:1 "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly". See ya. :) Sat May 08, 03:44:00 PM 2010 Nick said... @MD1985 If quoting verses from the bible is cruel to you then you are in the wrong religion. And how do you expect us to answer when you say that you have the right answers, the true answers. and you tell us we should read the bible. I told you the truth, I have read the bible, and I didn't find the right answers, the true answers. Sat May 08, 06:41:00 PM 2010 srizals said... You didn't finish up the story, what happened to the wife and husband after they have taken the oath that they are both on the right side? Finish your story. If not, those who are not that dwindling in whatever you are in, won't be that convinced that you know what you need to know to talk about it in the first place. Ps. 1. The four witnesses requirement showed just how hard it is to apply the punishment in
the first place. It can only be applied when the requirements are fulfilled, for no one in the right mind would do it openly in front of strangers like a chicken. 2. A husband that can't bring four witnesses have to swear the oath, and no earthly rules and regulations nor punishments fall upon the accused wife nor the accuser husband. (The curse of Allah will fall upon the liar, remember?) 3. What's your solution in dealing with this matter? 4. Be a kind moderator and publish me, if you are truly dwindling in ubelief. 5. A copy of this is going to be out in my blog. 6. Good luck! Mon May 10, 11:10:00 PM 2010 Nick said... @Srizals I won't answer for Steve, I'll merely point out what he has already written in this post, if you read it all you will see it there at the end. Here it is "I don't know what happens then. What do you do when you have two people that cross their hearts and hope to die on opposite sides of the same case? The Quran doesn't say and I don't think the Supreme Court has ever had a case like that."
I don't think anyone here expects Steve to know everything, if you know what happens next in the Quaran then post it and I'm sure he will add it in, if what you say is true to the Quran. Tue May 11, 08:04:00 AM 2010 Steve Wells said... I give up, srizals. The Quran is mostly just gibberish to me. What does it say to do if both husband and wife cross their hearts and hope to die? One of them must be lying, right? How do you know who is lying and who is telling the truth? Tue May 11, 08:45:00 AM 2010
RonBurgundy said... If you read any comments, please be sure to read this one! I'm 16, I know nothing about life... But i know 1 thing, God is bigger than all of us... And he knows a lot more than us... How do you all expect to understand God when God knows a billion times more than you... We can't comprehend God and can will never understand why he commands us to do things, and yes the Bible gets weird (read revelations or song of songs), but why try understand what we cant. I guarentee 1 thing, if the Bilble was followed thotoughly, reletnlessly and LITERALLY we would have an ideal society... But no, instead we choose to question, to try understand... Please, I beg of you God is great and all-knowing... we are little and pretty dumb, don't argue something that you know nothing about. Tue May 11, 03:41:00 PM 2010 Nick said... @RonBurgandy You are the poster child in obedience for every dictator and tyrant that ever existed. It is sad that people see themselves as so small and insignificant that they are unable to function without the control of someone stronger and bigger than them. And maybe you should completely read the bible before you say we should literally follow everything it says. Tue May 11, 05:21:00 PM 2010 srizals said... Then, he shouldn't have meddle with things larger than him now, won't it Nick? Isn't it obvious Nick? You can't prosecute nor inflict on others with punishment without proper evidence. It also shows that Islam is not obsessed in punishments. Rather than making an error in punishing, it is better to make an error in releasing. So they prefer to let go and let God. You can't just interpret the verses of the Koran without proper understanding and most of all knowledge. Since you're not a scholar of the Koran, it is unwise to act like one. The wife and husband have to be divorced, since there is no longer any trust between
them. By the way Nick, what is the atheist's solution if the matter arises? Or Steve would care to explain his ways in dealing of a matter he had made such a fun of. If not, what's the point of arguing? Just for the sake of making fun of things? Where's the reason in that for an atheist? Tue May 11, 10:41:00 PM 2010 Nick said... @srizals First, I am not an atheist, I will forgive this since you couldn't have possibly known. I merely am not a follower of any branch of christianity or islam. Unless the Quran lists what to do it is very open to interpretation. Why should you have to be a scholar to know what a religious book wants you to do? This leaves numerous situations open for abuse. How would I handle this situation? Well first of all I would look at the unhappy couple and say "That is private business, why are you comming to me with this? You two need to decide on working it out or getting a divorce" There problem solved. And if religion stopped trying to interfere with my life by trying to control the laws and government and telling me how to live then my, as you put it, "making fun of things" would disappear and I wouldn't care what others religious beliefs are. Sound fair? Wed May 12, 10:10:00 AM 2010 WayPastDueToo said... Great article! My earliest experiences with the Bible were jarring because of the undeniable injustices against women. And as if that weren't enough, God was either the one calling the shots or condoning them. I just didn't get it. How could a JUST, LOVING and FAIR God treat women with such disdain and injustice? Reading the Bible was a HUGE reason I ditched my faith after 28 years! Wed May 12, 02:36:00 PM 2010 srizals said... Tell me Nick, when and where did any Muslims try to control you and Steve? Is there any specific web pages or blogs that dedicate themselves to attack your belief, as this blog have?
Are they a mere reaction to a deliberate action of arrogance? If you don't believe it, why bother? Isn't this just an act of trying to prove that some unbelievers are smarter than others? The Koran is simple. But there are certain verses that can be corrupted in terms of interpretation, some are open for interpretation, since sometimes not all things are applicable exactly the same. Haven't you heard of autonomy before? But you can always refer to the original text and compare interpretations by authorised and well-recognised organisations. Where have you been studying lately? Would you go to anyone that claimed he is a supreme master of knowledge or compare and check your understandings to a legitimate and legalised institutions and sources with calibre? If any mad men or not that intellect decide to say something about anything, would you be a believer Nick? If anyone can be an interpreter of anything, what kind of discipline of knowledge is that? There must be a set of rules governing things now, don't you think so? Without it, we would only be following hunches, and blind assumptions, despite being so intellect. What makes Steve's interpretations and understandings of a book completely out of his league, as a valid and genuine source beyond any reasonable doubts? Is he a god? I mean an alternative god to the lawless and the free? I think after rid iculing everyone else, he should offer alternatives. And not just present a half cook information that has no value to influence anyone but himself. Sorry for judging you as an atheist, are you an agnostic then? Wed May 12, 09:41:00 PM 2010 skanksta said... Szrizalls,
Don't suppose I'll get an answer on this old thread, but... 1)Why shouldn't people (politely) ridicule beliefs? It happens all the time in politics, science and sports. 2) The "alternative that Steve needs to offer" is obvious - stop taking ancient religious books seriously. Thu May 13, 04:54:00 PM 2010
srizals said... Skanksta, 1. A belief is higher than all of them. Steve is trying to degrade it lower than them. Discussions with respect is not a problem. Degrading is. 2. No, that is not what he is doing, he's just trying to undermine a superior way of life that would safe guard mankind. He's offering anarchy. Fri May 14, 01:22:00 PM 2010 skanksta said... 1) Why is "belief higher than any of them ?" AND how is quoting the text of books degrading ?! 2) What is offering "a superior way of life" - I'm not clear... The Eastern Orthodox church ? Thor Worship ? Mormonism ? Sunni Islam ? Hinduism ? Methodism ? Buddhism ? Shiia Islam ? Fri May 14, 01:37:00 PM 2010 srizals said... Skansta, if you have been reading Steve, you can see that he is just making fun of things without proper research, for example comparing with other point of views or sources, except based on his own understanding. 1. Why a belief is higher than a man's creation? Go check the abortion law in the USA. It is based on a lie and murderous in nature and yet it is all legal and accepted by the highly civilised and advanced society. 2. Not a superior way of life that matters, but which it the truest? That is the question. How to know?
a. Check out how the believers of the belief had behaved in the past and in the present. Are they destructive in nature? Check the percentages too. b. How do its rules and regulations adhere to the rules of nature of goodness and compassion, for example, regarding marriage and holiness. c. Check out the belief system they are offering. Is there any contradictions, awkwardness and tyranny? d. Check out their behaviours in celebrating ceremonies and religious conducts. e. Check out how they have been treating others that have different belief than them? Are they showing any tolerance or oppressive in nature. f. Steve has purposely forgotten the gospel of Barnabas. Why? Fri May 14, 06:10:00 PM 2010 srizals said... Brilliant! Show it to the world. Show us just how low can you go. Wed May 19, 10:14:00 PM 2010
Mothers are dirty and sinful (according to the Bible anyway) I know it's an awful thing to say on Mother's Day, and I certainly don't believe it myself. (Honest Mom!) But the God of the Bible does. There's a whole chapter about it in Leviticus. Here's what it says. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, ... If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days. ... And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days. ... But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. Leviticus 12:1-5 So the proud, new mother of a baby boy is unclean for a week and must purify herself for 33 days after her son is born. And if the baby is a girl, the mother is twice as dirty; she is unclean for two weeks and must be purified for 66 days after giving birth. (The take- home message here is that, to God, girls are twice as dirty as boys.) But a new mother is not only dirty to the biblical God; she is sinful, as well. So sinful, in fact, that she must sacrifice a lamb as a burnt offering and a dove as a sin offering (or two doves if she can't find a lamb to kill).
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering. ... And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering. Leviticus 12:6-8 Happy Mother's Day (to all you dirty, sinful mothers out there)! Posted by Steve Wells at 5/11/2008 11:36:00 AM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Reactions: 7 comme nts:
Anon said... Leave it to the Bible to come through with more good old family values. I wonder how many new mothers committed suicide in those days. I'm sure postpartum depression isn't helped by being told you're unclean in the eyes of the almighty God. And daughters being twice as unclean a sons? I assume this is pinned on the whole Eve and the apple thing again. Hopefully no one gave their mother a Bible for Mother's Day. Sun May 11, 04:22:00 PM 2008 RR said... Just found your blog -- good stuff. So many people blinded by iron age mythology. It would be funny except it seems to hold so much influence in our government. If more people actually read the book - they'd see the truly evil stories and teachings it contains. Tue May 13, 02:33:00 PM 2008 Miss Poppy Dixon said... God had to make women and mothers filthy, a person's first birth inferior to the clean, intellectual second birth from the head/word of God. God had to cut out the competition women - those who truly create life.
The verses you quote are at the root of the world's hatred and violence toward women. It's really gross, and shows how weak and pathetic the Christian/Judeo god really is. Sat May 17, 12:48:00 PM 2008 K. said... o.O Sheesh, this is a bit extreme. Unclean isn't a morally negative thing to those under the law, it's a part of life. Having a baby come out of a woman's vagina is a really messy process that still results in lots of infection and death throughout the world... ...In reality, this was a medical practice way ahead of its time. As far as the offerings goJust typing in "Leviticus 12" into my firefox addy bar to bring up the verses to read myself, this page was brought up automatically: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0312.htm That gives a pretty simple step by step explanation of the chapter. There are people out there with legitimate questions about Christianity; and then there are people like you out there to demonize what you dislike. Who goes through and wastes their time trying to discredit someone with no net personal gain to be had? What's making you so bitter? Sun May 18, 06:26:00 PM 2008 Aquaria said... K just doesn't get the hatred for women dripping from the Hebrew fairy tale's verses. Hell, it's not dripping, it's gushing. Here's what the bible says-- it's right there in front of your eyes, K: Having a girl child no matter what the fucking order of birth requires twice as much postnatal purification for the woman. What medical justification could possibly require
purifying yourself twice as long for a girl as for a boy child? There isn't any, and anyone with a brain knows that. Only a moron wouldn't get the message being sent there that the Hebrews considered women twice as filthy as men. Ergo, it's perfectly valid to point out the misogyny and the sheer stupidity of the Hebrew fairy tale. I don't know why I bother. No matter how often you point out the obvious to these religious whackjobs, they refuse to get it. Not only are they deluded, they're brain dead, too. Yeah, I said it. Use your brain, or get used to being called stupid. Mon May 19, 06:32:00 AM 2008 RR said... K - you can spin/rationalize/interpret these verses however you like. This was the methodology the priest caste employed to rule Europe in the Dark Ages. It was the most recent period when the church had control of society -- and it was a nightmare. Anyway, back to topic. Sure -- you can give all these metaphorical interpretations of bible verses. That doesn't change the FACT that people were stoned to death and otherwise killed and punished in horrible ways for breaking the most inane of laws (like finding out your wife wasn't a virgin on your wedding night: punishment - stone her on her fathers doorstep; or something as simply as making cloths from two different types of cloth) ... I'm sure you can tell me how virginity is some allegory for christ's sacrifice, etc. etc. but again it doesn't change the historical fact that these religious beliefs were used to commit heinous acts. The whole enterprise is simply an exercise in wishful thinking. Once people realize we only have a short time on this planet to exist... and all we have is each other... the better it will be for us all. Did you ever stop to think that you HAVE to interpret these verses in a non- literal sense because of your own innate morality filter? When you read "do unto other" you recognize it as "good"... but when you read "stone the adulterer" you realize it's something you don't want to teach -- so you turn it into a metaphor. The source of your sense of right and wrong is YOU -- not the bible. When the priests, pharisees and sadducees ruled they got to implement some of this non-sense literally... Mon May 19, 07:28:00 AM 2008 Love Bomb said...
K said: What makes me so bitter? You do kay with your sanctimonious attitude. Religious beliefs are not benign and they affect all of us believer and non-believer alike. politicians in our culture have to pretend they are a serious Christian or they would never get elected. Once elected they can commit war crimes with impunity. Also talk about how a baby concieved in rape is God's Will???? Can't we see the insanity here? Sun Oct 28, 07:33:00 PM 2012