This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Christianity - The Horse that Refuses to Die
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Patty
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
I'll take your word on it Patty but I'd still like to know about the rape and child killing etc.
I can't remember the specific name (I'm thinking something -ites), but I do recall specifically writing about this for my RE coursework a couple of years ago. Basically, God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and animal in a 'heathen' city. I'm sure there's something in there about God himself destroying another 'heathen' city or two as well.
Edit: I'm inclined to say that I'm thinking of the Canaanites.
Post by
xaratherus
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
Genocide, yes, and just killing as well. Then, outside of The Bible, you have the people who practice Christianity taking the words and teachings and using them in literal or sometimes extreme metaphorical interpretations, such as the Crusades. The people who orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition are essentially the founding fathers of modern Christianity.
@ Drag - the child killing is mentioned in some of ExDementia's initial posts and in the other religion thread. The easiest point is one of the dude's killing his son because God tells him too, even though there is no legitimate reason to do so. Given, in the story, God stops him before he actually does it, but still...that kind of blind faith is dangerous.
That's not the only one.
Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."
Then there's the fact that the children that were alive during the time of Noah and the proposed great flood would have died as casualties of war - unless the Bible is really insinuating that the children were wholly corrupt and evil.
And another good one: Elisha, a bald prophet of God, is on his way to a mountaintop, and a group of forty-two adolescents follow him a ways, joking about his baldness. Elisha stops and prays - and two she-bears come out and kill every one of the forty-two children/teens.
In regards to rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
There are other examples of this as well, but here's the one that I like: Lot (of Sodom and Gomorrah fame, and considered a holy man by God) played host to two noblemen (angels in disguise - the language used seems to imply that lot knew that these were special men) shortly before the destruction of the two cities. The cities' men came to his door and demanded that he send out the nobles so they could 'know' them. Lot, who didn't want to lose his chance to play host to two noble visitors, instead offered up his two young virgin daughters for a gang-rape, as long as the townsmen would leave him alone.
Later on, Lot is actually essentially date-raped by those same two daughters. They are desperate to get pregnant for some reason, so they get him completely smashed and then sneak into his cave/tent (depending on the translation) to sleep with him. So the holy Lot not only condemns rape, he
is
raped, and is involved in incest as well.
Probably a bit inflammatory, but this is one of the reasons that I have more respect for the 'fire and brimstone' churches, because they tend to not gloss over the more sordid parts of the Bible, like these.
Post by
Dragalthor
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
I'll take your word on it Patty but I'd still like to know about the rape and child killing etc.
I can't remember the specific name (I'm thinking something -ites), but I do recall specifically writing about this for my RE coursework a couple of years ago. Basically, God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and animal in a 'heathen' city. I'm sure there's something in there about God himself destroying another 'heathen' city or two as well.
The two cities you are talking about are Sodom and Gomorrah (not sure of spelling for the second) and I'm probably a bad Christian for believing that this story was more allegory than reality, but I'll concede the point.
In regards to rape:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Maybe I am reading that wrong but it doesn't state anywhere that this is sanctioning rape at all. The discovery bit is slightly alarming.
sometimes extreme metaphorical interpretations, such as the Crusades. The people who orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition are essentially the founding fathers of modern Christianity.
Whilst I agree that the whole view point of christianity in those times was slightly on the extreme side. The whole point of the crusades to take back the holy land i.e. Jerusalem which had been taken by force by the Islamic faith. I would argue the point about the people who orchestrated these things being the rounding fathers of modern Christianity as this dismisses the councils of Nicea which were in actuality the founding of modern Christianity and even they descended into patricarchy which were never the teachings of Christ.
It does all go back to Christian ideals, which are inherently, faith, hope and love. Opposed by those who wish to further their own ideals and use religion as an argument to do so.
Post by
Patty
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
I'll take your word on it Patty but I'd still like to know about the rape and child killing etc.
I can't remember the specific name (I'm thinking something -ites), but I do recall specifically writing about this for my RE coursework a couple of years ago. Basically, God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and animal in a 'heathen' city. I'm sure there's something in there about God himself destroying another 'heathen' city or two as well.
The two cities you are talking about are Sodom and Gomorrah (not sure of spelling for the second) and I'm probably a bad Christian for believing that this story was more allegory than reality, but I'll concede the point.
Yep that's what I was thinking of for God destroying them, and see my edit; I hope it
is
the Canaanites I'm thinking of... I'm not too well-versed with the Bible as a whole, because I care little for it, but there are a hell of a lot of examples of violence and violations of human rights. In fact, that's not exclusive to the Bible, but seeing as Christianity is the focus of the debate... :P
I found the quote itself, too....
#Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Dragalthor
Probably a bit inflammatory, but this is one of the reasons that I have more respect for the 'fire and brimstone' churches, because they tend to not gloss over the more sordid parts of the Bible, like these.
This is where we are getting onto the grounds from where I dislike using the Bible as a reference book. I believe that it is now firmly established that the Bible isn't just one book by one person and that it is a selection of books written by many people, and also it is believed that some books were left out of the official version. In parts it has some cracking story-lines but should it be followed blindly? In my opinion, no.
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?Num 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, just as the LORD commanded Moses, and they killed all the males.
Num 31:8 They killed the kings of Midian with those who were killed--Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. Balaam the son of Beor they also killed with the sword.
Num 31:9 And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods.
Num 31:10 They also burned with fire all the cities where they dwelt, and all their forts.
Num 31:11 And they took all the spoil and all the booty--of man and beast.
Num 31:12 Then they brought the captives, the booty, and the spoil to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp in the plains of Moab by the Jordan, Jericho.
Num 31:13 And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went to meet them outside the camp.
Num 31:14 But Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains over thousands and captains over hundreds, who had come from the battle.
Num 31:15 And Moses said to them: "Have you kept all the women alive?
Num 31:16 "Look, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Num 31:17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately.
Num 31:18 "But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.
I will quote the great Mark Twain:
Human history in all ages is red with blood, and bitter with hate, and stained with cruelties; but not since Biblical times have these features been without a limit of some kind. Even the Church, which is credited with having spilt more innocent blood, since the beginning of its supremacy, than all the political wars put together have spilt, has observed a limit. A sort of limit. But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy -- he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered.
He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty. The babies were innocent, the beasts were innocent, many of the men, many of the women, many of the boys, many of the girls were innocent, yet they had to suffer with the guilty. What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.
The heaviest punishment of all was meted out to persons who could not by any possibility have deserved so horrible a fate -- the 32,000 virgins. Their naked privacies were probed, to make sure that they still possessed the hymen unruptured; after this humiliation they were sent away from the land that had been their home, to be sold into slavery; the worst of slaveries and the shamefulest, the slavery of prostitution; bed-slavery, to excite lust, and satisfy it with their bodies; slavery to any buyer, be he gentleman or be he a coarse and filthy ruffian.
It was the Father that inflicted this ferocious and undeserved punishment upon those bereaved and friendless virgins, whose parents and kindred he had slaughtered before their eyes. And were they praying to him for pity and rescue, meantime? Without a doubt of it.
These virgins were "spoil" plunder, booty. He claimed his share and got it. What use had he for virgins? Examine his later history and you will know.
His priests got a share of the virgins, too. What use could priests make of virgins? The private history of the Roman Catholic confessional can answer that question for you. The confessional's chief amusement has been seduction -- in all the ages of the Church. Père Hyacinth testifies that of a hundred priests confessed by him, ninety-nine had used the confessional effectively for the seduction of married women and young girls. One priest confessed that of nine hundred girls and women whom he had served as father and confessor in his time, none had escaped his lecherous embrace but he elderly and the homely. The official list of questions which the priest is required to ask will overmasteringly excite any woman who is not a paralytic.
There is nothing in either savage or civilized history that is more utterly complete, more remorselessly sweeping than the Father of Mercy's campaign among the Midianites. The official report does not furnish the incidents, episodes, and minor details, it deals only in information in masses: all the virgins, all the men, all the babies, all "creatures that breathe," all houses, all cities; it gives you just one vast picture, spread abroad here and there and yonder, as far as eye can reach, of charred ruin and storm-swept desolation; your imagination adds a brooding stillness, an awful hush -- the hush of death. But of course there were incidents. Where shall we get them?
Out of history of yesterday's date. Out of history made by the red Indian of America. He has duplicated God's work, and done it in the very spirit of God. In 1862 the Indians in Minnesota, having been deeply wronged and treacherously treated by the government of the United States, rose against the white settlers and massacred them; massacred all they could lay their hands upon, sparing neither age nor sex. Consider this incident:
Twelve Indians broke into a farmhouse at daybreak and captured the family. It consisted of the farmer and his wife and four daughters, the youngest aged fourteen and the eldest eighteen. They crucified the parents; that is to say, they stood them stark naked against the wall of the living room and nailed their hands to the wall. Then they stripped the daughters bare, stretched them upon the floor in front of their parents, and repeatedly ravished them. Finally they crucified the girls against the wall opposite this parents, and cut off their noses and their breasts. They also -- but I will not go into that. There is a limit. There are indignities so atrocious that the pen cannot write them. One member of that poor crucified family -- the father -- was still alive when help came two days later.
Now you have one incident of the Minnesota massacre. I could give you fifty. They would cover all the different kinds of cruelty the brutal human talent has ever invented.
And now you know, by these sure indications, what happened under the personal direction of the Father of Mercies in his Midianite campaign. The Minnesota campaign was merely a duplicate of the Midianite raid. Nothing happened in the one that didn't happen in the other.
No, that is not strictly true. The Indian was more merciful than was the Father of Mercies. He sold no virgins into slavery to minister to the lusts of the murderers of their kindred while their sad lives might last; he raped them, then charitably made their subsequent sufferings brief, ending them with the precious gift of death. He burned some of the houses, but not all of them. He carried out innocent dumb brutes, but he took the lives of none.
Would you expect this same conscienceless God, this moral bankrupt, to become a teacher of morals; of gentleness; of meekness; of righteousness; of purity? It looks impossible, extravagant; but listen to him. These are his own words:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
The mouth that uttered these immense sarcasms, these giant hypocrisies, is the very same that ordered the wholesale massacre of the Midianitish men and babies and cattle; the wholesale destruction of house and city; the wholesale banishment of the virgins into a filthy and unspeakable slavery. This is the same person who brought upon the Midianites the fiendish cruelties which were repeated by the red Indians, detail by detail, in Minnesota eighteen centuries later. The Midianite episode filled him with joy. So did the Minnesota one, or he would have prevented it.
The Beatitudes and the quoted chapters from Numbers and Deuteronomy ought always to be read from the pulpit together; then the congregation would get an all-round view of Our Father in Heaven. Yet not in a single instance have I ever known a clergyman to do this.
Post by
Dragalthor
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?
I dunno man, that sounds pretty much like condoning rape to me. "If he is discovered" all he has to do is bribe the woman's father and marry her.
But is it? We have to remember that we are talking about a highly Patriarchal society here and whilst the punishment seems fairly lax to our modern eyes (and I for one have no idea how steep a fine of 50 silver shekels is), the fact remains that the person committing this IS being punished for it.
We are also talking about an age where the act of raiding another village and 'carrying' off a wife was a very widespread thing religiously endorsed or not.
Post by
xaratherus
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?
I dunno man, that sounds pretty much like condoning rape to me. "If he is discovered" all he has to do is bribe the woman's father and marry her.
That was my thought. Here's what that law essentially says: "Elizabeth doesn't like me and won't marry me. I'll just go drag her into an alley and boff her and have some friends 'catch' me, and then I hand over some money to her dad and she's stuck with me for life." Why bother with courting and with dowry and all that?
But as Skree pointed out, Numbers specifically directs warriors in battle to kill non-virgins, but to keep the virgins alive so they can be used as sex-toys.
Unless you're saying that the captured women would be consenting to that sex?
Now you bring up a good point here: I personally agree that the Old Testament was not meant to be a moral guide, but a written version of tribal history.
However, a number of those laws that we would consider barbaric were either supposedly passed down from God. or upheld by societies favored by that same deity (which is by extension a condoning of those laws).
But the book fails to describe which laws are meant to be taken as divine, eternal laws, and which are out-of-date customs from a Bronze Age society.
And yes, I know about the statement in the New Testament that most people take to mean that the New Testament law always supplants Old Testament law. At the same time, though, that passage specifically states that Jesus came to fulfill the law,
but not to abolish it
. It even goes on to say that not a single letter of the Old Testament law would be removed from force until the day of judgment.
But because attempting to live by those laws in a society far-progressed from that time would result in imprisonment at best, utter chaos at worst, that passage is interpreted to mean that Old Testament rules no longer apply.
Post by
Dragalthor
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?
I dunno man, that sounds pretty much like condoning rape to me. "If he is discovered" all he has to do is bribe the woman's father and marry her.
That was my thought. Here's what that law essentially says: "Elizabeth doesn't like me and won't marry me. I'll just go drag her into an alley and boff her and have some friends 'catch' me, and then I hand over some money to her dad and she's stuck with me for life." Why bother with courting and with dowry and all that?
But as Skree pointed out, Numbers specifically directs warriors in battle to kill non-virgins, but to keep the virgins alive so they can be used as sex-toys.
Unless you're saying that the captured women would be consenting to that sex?
Now you bring up a good point here: I personally agree that the Old Testament was not meant to be a moral guide, but a written version of tribal history.
However, a number of those laws that we would consider barbaric were either supposedly passed down from God. or upheld by societies favored by that same deity (which is by extension a condoning of those laws).
But the book fails to describe which laws are meant to be taken as divine, eternal laws, and which are out-of-date customs from a Bronze Age society.
And yes, I know about the statement in the New Testament that most people take to mean that the New Testament law always supplants Old Testament law. At the same time, though, that passage specifically states that Jesus came to fulfill the law,
but not to abolish it
. It even goes on to say that not a single letter of the Old Testament law would be removed from force until the day of judgment.
But because attempting to live by those laws in a society far-progressed from that time would result in imprisonment at best, utter chaos at worst, that passage is interpreted to mean that Old Testament rules no longer apply.
But all we are doing from both those passages is implying our own views on it. It doesn't state anywhere in the passage from Numbers, which I will concede point on about the genocide etc,. that these virgins were kept alive to be used as sex toys. It could quite as easily imply that these people were to be kept alive as servants (or indeed slaves). I'm not saying here that there weren't just that this is only one of many interpretations and I am not enough of a scholar of ancient Judaism to be able to say one way or the other.
Your point about the 'Elizabeth' story is again your interpretation of how the peoples of those times would interpret that law and as such. I will refer you back to my reply to Chaos on that one.
The whole point of Christianity is that it is not Judaism.
edit: I will only be able to check into periodically over the rest of the weekend but I very much look forward to being proved wrong on many counts when I get back :D
Post by
Skreeran
But all we are doing from both those passages is implying our own views on it. It doesn't state anywhere in the passage from Numbers, which I will concede point on about the genocide etc,. that these virgins were kept alive to be used as sex toys. It could quite as easily imply that these people were to be kept alive as servants (or indeed slaves). I'm not saying here that there weren't just that this is only one of many interpretations and I am not enough of a scholar of ancient Judaism to be able to say one way or the other.Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, 11 and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
The whole point of Christianity is that it is not Judaism.The Old Testament is still in the Bible and people still use it to condemn homosexuality and things like that.
People still say "the Ten Commandments are the basis of Western Law." (Even though they really aren't.)
Besides, Matthew 5:17 & 18 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled
Post by
OverZealous
However, I will refer to my earlier question where in any place is rape actually condoned rather than being a thing that happens?
I dunno man, that sounds pretty much like condoning rape to me. "If he is discovered" all he has to do is bribe the woman's father and marry her.
But is it? We have to remember that we are talking about a highly Patriarchal society here and whilst the punishment seems fairly lax to our modern eyes (and I for one have no idea how steep a fine of 50 silver shekels is), the fact remains that the person committing this IS being punished for it.
We are also talking about an age where the act of raiding another village and 'carrying' off a wife was a very widespread thing religiously endorsed or not.
Considering that a "fine" and having to be married to the woman is certainly not as harsh a punishment as what they get nowadays, I would see that as being condoned. Forcing an unwilling individual to have sex with you is certainly bad by today's standards, which are (let's be honest) very lax compared to the old days.
To me, though, this whole thing isn't necessarily about the proof that The Bible condones rape or anything.
It's that this behavior, although completely unacceptable by even current standards, was not only allowed, but encouraged by the same deity that tells us that we should never kill, never steal, and never commit adultery
.
I've only skimmed through this rape discussion, so I might have missed something, but I'll have to disagree. There was some degree of punishment, both the marriage to the woman (assuming the man is in fact unwilling to marry her) and the 50 shekels to the father of the woman. As far as I know there weren't really prisons the way we have today, and the crime isn't considered a Death-penalty crime even today, so I'll have to say I think they stopped somewhere in between.
I'm not saying I approve of the soft punishments the Bible suggests for rapists though.
By the standards of today, this is by no means harsh punishment, but we cannot really now how harsh a punishment that was "back in the day".
Besides, this whole "Forced to marry the rapist" rings a bell. I think i remember hearing or reading about some similiar, fairly common occurance in a more modern world (say early - late 1900's) in another religion. Perhaps some Islamic country?
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Not to mention that many people believe the Bible to be the unerring and flawless word of God that speaks even today.
The original discussion was sparked by this comment:
I don't need to point out that it's frankly unsettling that the most popular religion in the world relies upon an ancient book written by desert nomads (and later revised by slightly more advanced desert people) that sanctions genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, rape, and and the killing of children.
And I'm still unsettled. Whether or not times were different, or if those things were normal at the time, or whatever, they're still present and treated as acceptable in the book that the majority of Americans base their morality on.
Post by
xaratherus
As far as I know there weren't really prisons the way we have today, and the crime isn't considered a Death-penalty crime even today, so I'll have to say I think they stopped somewhere in between.
I'm not saying I approve of the soft punishments the Bible suggests for rapists though.
By the standards of today, this is by no means harsh punishment, but we cannot really now how harsh a punishment that was "back in the day".
Actually, based on other portions of the Bible, rape during that time
was
punishable by death - for both the rapist
and
his victim
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
In other words, if a woman was betrothed, and a man broke in and raped her (apparently because she didn't scream loudly enough; apparently they hadn't heard of gagging people back then), both the rapist
and
the raped would be stoned to death. The same would hold true if it was an adulterous relationship (even though the woman only had to be betrothed, not yet married).
Post by
Monday
Why is this still going?
Also, xar, you need to use your old icon! The one with the guy giving a creepy stare.
Post by
xaratherus
Why is this still going?
Also, xar, you need to use your old icon! The one with the guy giving a creepy stare.
What, you don't like the powerham?
I think I still have that icon uploaded, lemme look and I'll change it back, just for you. :)
Hrm, I changed it but it hasn't popped up yet. Can anyone else see it?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.