Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[Rational AKD]

and to those on this thread who consider the law abhorrent even in light of my contextual interpretation. God did not create the social customs. people spread over the earth and created their own customs long before God chose his own people. God didn't make his law for the Jews from scratch... he made many of them to accommodate customs they already had. you may see it as misogynistic, but at that time people didn't think women could have any role other than that of a maternal role. despite this, God ensured women were protected under the law. you can't simply reform a nation of their customs they've had for hundreds to thousands of years. the bible itself states some of the Jewish laws were to accommodate the culture... just look at Matthew 19. the Pharisees ask Jesus if it's ok to divorce, he says no. they ask why Moses permitted it, Jesus says because their hearts were hard but it was not that way from the beginning.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

and to those on this thread who consider the law abhorrent even in light of my contextual interpretation. God did not create the social customs. people spread over the earth and created their own customs long before God chose his own people. God didn't make his law for the Jews from scratch... he made many of them to accommodate customs they already had. you may see it as misogynistic, but at that time people didn't think women could have any role other than that of a maternal role. despite this, God ensured women were protected under the law. you can't simply reform a nation of their customs they've had for hundreds to thousands of years. the bible itself states some of the Jewish laws were to accommodate the culture... just look at Matthew 19. the Pharisees ask Jesus if it's ok to divorce, he says no. they ask why Moses permitted it, Jesus says because their hearts were hard but it was not that way from the beginning.

Hold up, hold up.

You're saying that God had to accommodate the customs of the Hebrews? 

No way. No. Way. God specifically spelled out several new Covenant practices for the Hebrews, to "set them apart" from the other cultures of the time. The classic examples are foreskin circumcisions, kosher dietary restrictions, artistic image prohibitions, and Sabbath-keeping, just to name a few.

It's really quite simple. God could have easily said:

1) Thou shalt not own other human beings, nor tolerate other human beings to be property of anyone in thy land. For as you were bondsmen in the land of Egypt, never again shalt thine people tolerate this despicable practice.

2) Thou shalt not rape, nor coerce, nor be sexually aggressive toward any man or woman, be they virgin or not; under no circumstances shalt there be unwilling contact between persons. Consent shalt always be required, Thus Saith the LORD.

3) Thou shalt not harm children by word, nor threat, nor action, for if ye harm a child, thou dost offend mine very breast as with a sword.

4) Thou shalt cease and desist with all blood sacrifices in my name, for blood is only there to carry thine air through thine body, which I have appointed for thee, and the spilling of blood for any cause but that thou mayst eat is not pleasing, nay it is an abomination in my sight.

5) Thou shalt keep to mine commandments, in covenant which thou hast chosen, but thou shalt not harm nor treat unfairly those who are not in mine covenant, for they too are my children; as keepers of the covenant, thou shalt be fair and equitable in all thine doings.

(I guess those were on the 3rd tablet that Moses dropped?)

---

And then God spake unto Moses, saying, "P.S. - Women are people. Stop treating them as inferiors or property."

[Rational AKD]

Hold up, hold up.

You're saying that God had to accommodate the customs of the Hebrews? 

No way. No. Way. God specifically spelled out several new Covenant practices for the Hebrews, to "set them apart" from the other cultures of the time. The classic examples are foreskin circumcisions, kosher dietary restrictions, artistic image prohibitions, and Sabbath-keeping, just to name a few.

yes... he made new laws that set them apart. most of them weren't really that foreign. but as I said, you can't just reform all their social concepts. moreover, I find it funny that you think our social concepts are the epitome of social standards... it's not like women were treated like animals. they simply had a role of raising a household... something that has been accepted all throughout history up until very recently. and even today there are women who just want to be full time moms, despite society pressuring them otherwise.

1) Thou shalt not own other human beings, nor tolerate other human beings to be property of anyone in thy land.

can you define property for me? does ownership rights by contract count?

2) Thou shalt not rape, nor coerce, nor be sexually aggressive toward any man or woman, be they virgin or not; under no circumstances shalt there be unwilling contact between persons. Consent shalt always be required, Thus Saith the LORD.

the bible pretty much covered all scenarios of sexual immorality... not just virgin women. I mean, adultery is spoken of right?

3) Thou shalt not harm children by word, nor threat, nor action, for if ye harm a child, thou dost offend mine very breast as with a sword.

what exactly constitutes 'harm'? what is the limit of discipline? by word nor threat nor action? so no threatening spankings? or spanking a child?

4) Thou shalt cease and desist with all blood sacrifices in my name, for blood is only there to carry thine air through thine body, which I have appointed for thee, and the spilling of blood for any cause but that thou mayst eat is not pleasing, nay it is an abomination in my sight.

what is up with this?

5) Thou shalt keep to mine commandments, in covenant which thou hast chosen, but thou shalt not harm nor treat unfairly those who are not in mine covenant, for they too are my children; as keepers of the covenant, thou shalt be fair and equitable in all thine doings.

and this?

[The Grand Nudger]

.....and pimping my daughter would be  honorable, or return her honor...how, again...AKD? The lengths believers will go to in order to excuse their favorite bedtime story......it must be exhausting.

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

OK guys, here's what I wrote back to him. Did I forget anything?

---------

This is... Sigh... This is completely asinine! So you mean to tell me that instead of just commanding people not to rape, your god basically just said "Yeah, sure, rape is cool... So long as you've got 50 shekels." That is one of the most morally repugnant things I've ever heard! Rape is one of the most morally reprehensible crimes a person can commit, and the fact that your god doesn't condemn it in this passage really turns me off from your religion.

And really? Marrying a girl to a man who forcefully took her against her will would be better than not marrying her off at all? You know, you seem to have this problem that I notice is quite common amongst the religiously-minded folks I argue with in which you don't take the time to unpack your statements and think about their implications. So... If a man brutally rapes a woman, I think you can conclude a lot about what kind of person he is based on that, and I think the conclusions you reach would generally prove to be correct. You could probably conclude that this man has no respect for women, he has abusive tendencies, he's controlling, he has a wayward moral compass... If a society of people were to faithfully carry out this law, in many cases, probably the vast majority I dare say, you would be trapping women in relationships with some of the most abusive odious douche-bags that this world has to offer. Okay.... You know what, I have a challenge for you: Go to a women's shelter, introduce yourself to a woman who has survived a horribly abusive marriage, and tell her that you think she was better off for having been married to her abusive husband than she would have otherwise been had she never married at all... Better yet, introduce yourself to a rape victim and tell her that she should marry the man who violated her because the Bible says she should. Yeah, just try that, and tell me how it goes... Okay, actually, no, don't do that, that would be a very shitty thing to say to a woman. I think you know very well how that conversation would go; you would be rightfully smacked, and you would be lucky to escape from that shelter with your life.

And why is a girl who isn't a virgin viewed as unmarriageable? What is with this obsessive cult centered on virginity? I don't understand this at all; it's as though a woman who isn't a virgin is simply regarded as a damaged product or something and it's really kind of sickening. There are plenty of men out there who've married women who weren't virgins who will tell you that they are blessed to have had the privilege of being able to enjoy a lengthy marriage with such a wonderful, loving, supportive, kind-hearted wife; and in many cases the reason these women are such good partners is largely due to the fact that they've learned a lot from their past relationships on how to be better wives.

And why doesn't the Bible give the woman any say in all of this? You know, isn’t she a person? Shouldn’t she be allowed some say in who she marries, especially given the fact that we’re talking about marrying her off to the man who raped her? Shouldn't her opinion on the matter (Yes, I DARE say this) carry more weight than anyone else's?

Dan, you're a perfect stranger on the internet and I know absolutely nothing about you, but, do you have a daughter? Would you seriously want to raise a daughter in a society that faithfully upheld this law? If a man brutally raped her, would you seriously be alright with marrying her off to him, so long as he paid you some money? Even if it were a million dollars? No, fuck that, even if you would receive all the money in the world, would you do that? You know what? If such a situation arose, I don’t think you would. I think you might say you would for the purpose of this conversation because, well, you don’t dare show any signs of weakness towards the *GASP* ATHEIST! But I think if something like that happened to your child marrying her off to her offender would be the last thing you had in mind. If anything, I think you would fight as HARD as you could to see to it that he was locked up for the rest of his life. At least, that’s what I hope… I have too much faith in humanity to believe otherwise. And if you can sit there, and sincerely tell me that you would make her marry him, I would greatly pity you; that would be incredibly sad…

Anyways, I don’t think you’ve thought much about the consequences that would arise if people in today’s society faithfully upheld this law. Rapists wouldn’t necessarily be prosecuted resulting in some of the world’s most ghastly cases of injustice, we would have men trolling the streets preying on unprotected girls, and abusiveness towards women would skyrocket. This is common sense stuff here. Earlier in our conversation I said I thought you might be morally confused, and now I know that you are beyond a shadow of a doubt. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is a heinous law, and you ought to be embarrassed for defending it.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

yes... he made new laws that set them apart. most of them weren't really that foreign. but as I said, you can't just reform all their social concepts. moreover, I find it funny that you think our social concepts are the epitome of social standards... it's not like women were treated like animals. they simply had a role of raising a household... something that has been accepted all throughout history up until very recently. and even today there are women who just want to be full time moms, despite society pressuring them otherwise.

Yes, you can reform all their social concepts when you are GOD giving commands to the Chosen People. The only people who were powerless to reform all their social concepts were their priests.

If you own it, get money for transferring it to another, get to decide what happens to it, and can force it to obey you, then it is indeed "like animals"... be it slaves or women we're talking about.

Yes, women can still choose the role of raising a household. I'm glad for those that do (my own mother did, until my sibs and I were all old enough to take care of ourselves at home without her, and only then did she go off to graduate school), as I am glad for those that don't, but more importantly I'm glad that those who don't get that option. And I don't think our social standards are "the epitome of" social standards, as I think there are many areas in which we need to improve. What I'm certain of, however, is that the modern standards are superior in every way to the culture enshrined in scripture by Bronze/Iron Age tribal sheepherder-warrior semi-nomads' priests!

1) Thou shalt not own other human beings, nor tolerate other human beings to be property of anyone in thy land.

can you define property for me? does ownership rights by contract count?

Sure.

property [prop-er-tee] noun

1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner:

4. ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible:

5. something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public:

(And yes, human contracts would count, if the person is to be considered your property or possession. I can't see how you'd even think they'd be different.)

---

2) Thou shalt not rape, nor coerce, nor be sexually aggressive toward any man or woman, be they virgin or not; under no circumstances shalt there be unwilling contact between persons. Consent shalt always be required, Thus Saith the LORD.

---

the bible pretty much covered all scenarios of sexual immorality... not just virgin women. I mean, adultery is spoken of right?

No, it "pretty much" missed a whole bunch of scenarios of sexual immorality, which is odd given that they felt the need to spell out "don't have sex with animals" but didn't mention "don't have sex with children or anyone who cannot freely agree to have sex with you".

Adultery gets back to my point about property. The Old Testament really only talks about adultery in terms of the female, who is considered the property of the male, and thus if she sleeps with another man, she has violated the husband's ownership rights (and must die for this!).

---

3) Thou shalt not harm children by word, nor threat, nor action, for if ye harm a child, thou dost offend mine very breast as with a sword.

---

what exactly constitutes 'harm'? what is the limit of discipline? by word nor threat nor action? so no threatening spankings? or spanking a child?

Even our society has not worked out the bright lines of behavior on this question, but that's hardly a problem for a Commandment. Let's look at the most obvious: Thou shalt not kill. Does this commandment require me to be a conscientious objector, as some claim? Does this require that I object to the Death Penalty, as Catholics claim? Does this mean I must "turn the other cheek" and allow someone to kill me rather than shoot them first? Does this include non-meat animals? We could go on with "when to kill" for several paragraphs. However, the general understanding of "do not commit murder" is the default understanding of that commandment. Likewise, we would say that the commandment I have described prohibits abuse of children, a standard which may not be brightly defined but is easily understood in concept-- and which conflicts directly with the verses in the Old Testament which say that a child could be legally murdered by his parents for talking back to them.

4) Thou shalt cease and desist with all blood sacrifices in my name, for blood is only there to carry thine air through thine body, which I have appointed for thee, and the spilling of blood for any cause but that thou mayst eat is not pleasing, nay it is an abomination in my sight.

what is up with this?

Simple. No more "Blood for the Blood God." Sheep blood is not magical, unless you're a Bronze Age tribal sheepherder, and the Creator of the universe would likely have known that. Bronze Age priests, not so much.

5) Thou shalt keep to mine commandments, in covenant which thou hast chosen, but thou shalt not harm nor treat unfairly those who are not in mine covenant, for they too are my children; as keepers of the covenant, thou shalt be fair and equitable in all thine doings.

and this?

Simple. No bigotry, not genocide of your neighboring tribes, and no treating your "Chosen People" selves as superior to other nations or peoples.

[robvalue]

Milleby: Nice takedown! I think you've covered every point there I'll be interested to see what he comes back with.

Notice how God is what I call contextually powerful. One minute Christians are going on about his omnipotence, but when presented with verses like this, suddenly he can't even convince a small group of people to treat women with respect. He has to work with their customs, like a politician or something.

And how exactly did these people get separated from an omnipresent God for so long that their morality become unrecognisable from what he presumably thought it should be like?

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]

Milleby: Nice takedown! I think you've covered every point there I'll be interested to see what he comes back with.

Notice how God is what I call contextually powerful. One minute Christians are going on about his omnipotence, but when presented with verses like this, suddenly he can't even convince a small group of people to treat women with respect. He has to work with their customs, like a politician or something.

And how exactly did these people get separated from an omnipresent God for so long that their morality become unrecognisable from what he presumably thought it should be like?

Well thanks man, I appreciate it. It's odd but I get this weird enjoyment out of writing stuff like this.

[Javaman]

Milleby: Nice takedown! I think you've covered every point there I'll be interested to see what he comes back with.

Notice how God is what I call contextually powerful. One minute Christians are going on about his omnipotence, but when presented with verses like this, suddenly he can't even convince a small group of people to treat women with respect. He has to work with their customs, like a politician or something.

And how exactly did these people get separated from an omnipresent God for so long that their morality become unrecognisable from what he presumably thought it should be like?

They probably had iron chariots.

Never underestimate the power of iron chariots.

[robvalue]

Milleby: You're welcome! I too get a kind of enjoyment from pointing out the hideous forms of morality people (pretend to?) adopt in order to defend the bible. We're speaking up for the side of actual, meaningful morality and that is a good thing. Doing the right thing feels good.

Simply ripping up a poorly formed argument can feel good as well