Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[Raf]

Deuteronomy 22:

13 “If any man take a wife and go in unto her, and hate her,

14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her and say, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found her not a maid,’

15 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.

16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, ‘I gave my daughter unto this man for a wife, and he hateth her;

17 and lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, “I found not thy daughter a maid,” and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,

21 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, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Holy...

So if a woman is not a virginwhen she's married, she DIES. Horribly. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment? If you don't, I submit that you are more moral than Yahweh.

Please note, there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that so much as HINTS at a similar punishment for a MAN who is not a virgin when he gets married. PLEASE correct me if I am mistaken. I am not wedded to this observation (no pun intended).

28 “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her [THIS IS RAPE, BY THE WAY. IT IS TRANSLATED AS SUCH IN NUMEROUS VERSIONS. IF A WORD STUDY REVEALS OTHERWISE, DO ENLIGHTEN ME], and they be found,

29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So, if a woman is raped and she's not married, the rapist pays the victim (her father. Her father is the victim) and as part of his punishment gets to has to MARRY THE GIRL!

That'll teach him!

Do you think that's the appropriate "punishment" for a rapist? If not, I submit you are more moral than Yahweh!

Reposting because of the (false) accusation that I've misrepresented the Torah by accurately quoting Deuteronomy 22. As you can see, there is no subsequent clause stating "Now don't actually implement these punishments. That wouldn't be loving!" The barbarian mindset that concocted these atrocities saw no conflict in telling people to love their neighbors as themselves while at the same time killing non virgin women (non virgin MEN face no such threat) and punishing rapists by making them marry the women they rape! We see a contradiction, because we are more moral than the misogynistic Bronze Age brutes who came up with this garbage. To accuse me of misrepresenting this scripture is NOT honest debating.

Appealing to John 8 is interesting in that the scripture you cite is an interpolation and therefore not authoritative in any way. You might as well quote Galatians 7.

Added: This assertion of mine was challenged before, in this thread, so I feel a further need to document it. Rather than post a lengthy copy/paste, I'll just refer you to this link.

[Raf]

Maybe if we all just spoke in tongues a little more and got our believing up, the eyes of our spiritual understanding would be opened. I'm just sayin'.

yeah. Yeah that.

[WordWolf]

I'd like to point out there was a supposed method to confirm women's virginity,

but not men's virginity.

(I've heard that some places into the 20th century that didn't follow the

Torah still made a deal about it, I have no idea if they still do.)

There's a peculiar disconnect, though.

There's a written provision specifically that a wife could be stoned if the

husband brought her forth and claimed she had not been a virgin when he

married her, and her family could not provide the expected proof

she had been. It isn't phrased as "the man is required, if she's not a

virgin, to do this", but it isn't stated as "here is one option for

the man" outright. One might argue that it is IMPLIED, but it's not

stated outright. We know it was practiced as optional because Joseph

was espoused to Mary, a purported virgin, and she turned up pregnant.

We know his intention was to quietly drop this and not have her stoned.

So, we know he COULD have had her stoned, and he COULD have had them part

quietly. We know his plan to do so quietly was considered "just."

Nowadays, we'd want that stated in an unambiguous fashion and written so

redundantly redundant that there was no reasonable room to misinterpret.

(There will always be someone unreasonable to misinterpret everything.)

There was certainly room to do that then, but it wasn't written that way.

I think that's peculiar.

[Raf]

Agreed, WW. The man is not required to turn the whore in (Bible's language; don't blame me). The moral outrage is that he can.

As for men not having a virginity test, the horror of the punishment is not that it is unequally applied, but that it is a punishment in the first place. Applying it to men equally only compounds the moral injustice. We don't stone whores to death. It's not an option. We don't have the death penalty for sluts incorporated into our laws, not even with a "just kidding" clause.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Raf

[Raf]

Anyone wishing to explore issues with me privately is invited to do so via DM/PM. I'm sure my "debate opponents" are open to the same. If you don’t want to discuss issues publicly, it's ok.

[Tzaia]

21 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,

SHALL, from a legal standpoint, is not a wiggle word. MAY is.

[Raf]

The husband has wiggle room to report her harlotry. There's no SHALT where he MUST turn her in. But in terms of the "this wasn't meant to be carried out" argument, yeah, agree with you. It WAS meant to be carried out. There is no indication otherwise.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Again, I don't see a problem with the Mosaic Old Testament law. I do see a problem with the nation of Israel actually following and applying this law for their nation. Here are more examples where Jesus Christ, the living Word of God as John chapter 1 clearly points out, opposed the Israel political religious elite when they did not actually apply the word and law of God his Father. In contrast, Jesus Christ got along well with EVERYONE else. Jesus Christ even got along with or did not oppose the tax collectors of his day and told a Pharisee who asked him a question pertaining to the payment of taxes", Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".

Mark 12:12-17

12 Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

New International Version (NIV)

Also Jesus Christ was also a very productive person before he started his ministry and was a carpenter as this was his natural family's business with his adopted father being a carpenter. He appreciated the productive capacity of individual people. In contrast, people making money using the equivalent of currency manipulation or using deceptive religion to increase their wealth, Jesus opposed strongly.

Matthew 21:12 states, "Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves."

New Living Translation

Who were the money changers during Jesus' natural life? They were bankers who exchanged one nation's currency, or one size of coin, for another. And with this charged a fee, which was often exorbitant. And what were the doves used for? As a family’s or person’s pet? To actually eat and for nourishment? No, for religious sacrifice with the sellers making a profit on religion. I hope the people in today's denominational churches understand this and that Jesus who is the savior of mankind strongly opposed these religiously deceptive and greedy people. Today's banker CEO's through making money on increased debt, but not actually making money on the production of goods or service, may be literally a million times worse than the money changers of Jesus' day. People today should be able to see this with the stimulation of the U.S. economy through trillions of dollars of increased U.S. government debt.

[waysider]

Huh? What in the world does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Huh? What in the world does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?

Why don't you think the Mosaic Law and its actual application relates to the morality of God or as Raf calls God, Yahweh? Obviously to me at least, the Mosaic law does relate to the morality of God. The above is an example of the scribes and pharisees not actually applying the Mosaic Law. Why should we blame God for this?

[Raf]

As Raf calls God...? Are you suggesting that I made that name up?

[waysider]

Why don't you think the Mosaic Law and its actual application relates to the morality of God or as Raf calls God, Yahweh? Obviously to me at least, the Mosaic law does relate to the morality of God. The above is an example of the scribes and pharisees not actually applying the Mosaic Law. Why should we blame God for this?

We're not talking about the scribes and pharisees application of the law, we're talking about the law, itself, and the morality of its author.

[Raf]

Mark, the Mosaic law prescribes the death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin when she marries. When you say you do not have a problem with the Mosaic Law, you are saying that you do not have a problem with stoning a woman to death if her husband learns she was not a virgin when they got married. If that's how you feel, we have nothing to discuss. You're a moral monster and I don't wish you well.

The sins of the money changers in Jesus' day ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS POINT, OFF TOPIC AND A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO DERAIL THE THREAD. I thought we got past this diversionary tactic. You know better. Knock it off.

[Tzaia]

Mark - my understanding is that people from all over came to Jerusalem during the feasts. Rather than carry their own sacrifice, they bought them locally. Hence the need for animals and moneychangers Perhaps you've missed the point.God commanded the sacrifice of animals without spot or blemish. WHY? It's not like he needed to eat or had any use for burnt offerings. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE? Just think about it. He created the need. People would have to raise animals that would fit the criteria. Jesus gets his shorts in a bunch over WHERE this exchange is taking place, not THAT it is taking place.

Animal sacrifice was ridiculous and IMMORAL. Slicing an animal's throat and letting it bleed out to please God? If one were to do that today, that person would be charged with animal cruelty.

You don't like the idea of the nation of Israel invoking the law. Neither do I, but they would not be operating outside their religion if they were to do so. Think ISIS and its caliphate. SAME THING.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Tzaia

[Raf]

How to tell whether you are on topic.

1. Ask yourself: if I am right, does it validate Raf's argument?

2. Ask yourself: if I am right, does it INvalidate Rat's argument?

If the answer to both questions is NO, you are off topic.

Mark, in the case of your last two posts, the answer to both questions is no.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Mark, the Mosaic law prescribes the death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin when she marries. When you say you do not have a problem with the Mosaic Law, you are saying that you do not have a problem with stoning a woman to death if her husband learns she was not a virgin when they got married. If that's how you feel, we have nothing to discuss. You're a moral monster and I don't wish you well.

The sins of the money changers in Jesus' day ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS POINT, OFF TOPIC AND A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO DERAIL THE THREAD. I thought we got past this diversionary tactic. You know better. Knock it off.

Raf, I am relating to a DIFFERENT part of the Mosaic law than you are. I am merely going by your sentence titled, "Are you more moral than Yaweh?" I am merely relating this to a different part of the Mosaic law.

And relating to Tzaia's post below. I have nothing critical in reply to your post. I am just bringing up a different aspect that I disagree with than you are. Both are OK with me. However, ISIS sounds much worse.

Mark - my understanding is that people from all over came to Jerusalem during the feasts. Rather than carry their own sacrifice, they bought them locally. Hence the need for animals and moneychangers Perhaps you've missed the point.God commanded the sacrifice of animals without spot or blemish. WHY? It's not like he needed to eat or had any use for burnt offerings. WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE? Just think about it. He created the need. People would have to raise animals that would fit the criteria. Jesus gets his shorts in a bunch over WHERE this exchange is taking place, not THAT it is taking place.

Animal sacrifice was ridiculous.

You don't like the idea of the nation of Israel invoking the law. Neither do I, but they would not be operating outside their religion if they were to do so. Think ISIS and its caliphate. SAME THING.

How to tell whether you are on topic.

1. Ask yourself: if I am right, does it validate Raf's argument?

2. Ask yourself: if I am right, does it INvalidate Rat's argument?

If the answer to both questions is NO, you are off topic.

Mark, in the case of your last two posts, the answer to both questions is no.

This is purely bias and nothing more. You just assume that you are always right and other people that have a different view than yours are always wrong.

[Raf]

We have been over this.

This thread is NOT a survey of the Mosaic Law. It is not about whether anyone ever followed or applied it. You are not welcome to discuss any subject you want so long as you tie it to the Law. You ARE off topic. You are being asked to stop and you are refusing to do so. This ends NOW. It is not about whether you agree with me or not. It is about staying on topic, which you openly refuse to do. This. ends. Now.

[WordWolf]

Admittedly, I haven't put in a study of how, historically,

the practice of The Law was done.

I was mulling over a perceived (as I saw it) disconnect-

that is, a very harsh law on the books, which was

nevertheless actually carried out that we were aware of.

(Statistically, I'm confident it was carried out somewhere,

sometime, but I'm skeptical it was COMMON.)

That reminded me of something unrelated, which reminded me

of the US legal system.

What I was reminded of was a meeting I attended decades ago.

An organization I was in was debating an increase in a fee

for its members. The debate was briefly on the need for an

increase, but was mostly about the proposed size. The

proposal was something like double the current fee. Most of

us were thinking some fraction of that would have been

sufficient- 10% or thereabouts, not 100%. I was informed

by someone with more experience that the amount in the

proposal had to be deliberately higher than could possibly

be needed or would be put into practice. That way, when

the operations board handled it, they had the option of

making the fee increase any amount, from zero up to the

voted-upon limit, but no higher. In other words, the vote

was for the highest amount they could discuss as the

increase. The actual amount was their discretion, but we

set the outside limit.

As I am NOT an expert on US law by anyone's imagination,

I can only speak to my understanding. By my thinking, a

judge can impose a sentence for a crime- up to the limit

of the penalties on the books. If a crime calls for a

maximum sentence of 5 years, the judge can't just assign

that particular crime a sentence of 19 years just because

he wants to. (For multiple crimes at a time, he can impose

multiple sentences and order they be served in succession

rather than concurrent, but each crime has its own limit.)

So, the law states the outside limit of what sentence can

be imposed, subject to the ruling of a live judge. This makes

sense, because a judge can look at the particulars of a case

and lighten the sentence if there are mitigating circumstances

that make this a less cut-and-dried case.

I'm thinking that this sounds to me like what happened with

The Law. The offical "books" state the maximum sentences and

maximum penalties (death is pretty much "maximum" when it's

imposed, other penalties would have their own limits of time

or recompense), but those responsible for judging the legal

incident would have the authority to assign a lighter load

than was written-but not a heavier one. The system certainly

makes sense to us now-which is why we use it- and I at the

very least have a suspicion it worked the same way then.

It certainly would explain the discrepancy between the practice

and the official penalty.

One problem with checking this is that it would be something

understood by all, and rarely articulated if ever (I've never

read anyone explain that the US does it, let alone why.)

So, I don't know if there's anything that would specify that

in black and white, let alone something we would have access to.

So, I have a working theory, but I currently don't have something

definite to confirm it-at least not now. Perhaps someone else

here has something to confirm it (or refute it, for that matter,

which would put my understanding back at Square Two.)

[waysider]

It's like being "a little bit" pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not. It's either moral to punish someone for not being a virgin or it's not.

[Raf]

Without delving into the notion that these might be maximum penalties rather than mandatory ones (and I think WW will agree that the language is assuredly mandatory -- you SHALL stone her with stones), the issue remains simple: Under what circumstances is the maximum penalty justifiable?

Please note that in Numbers, a man WAS stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Yahweh's direct order. No lenient sentence for a first offense. Stone him! With stones. Until he dies. And they DID! Not "they could have." They did.

How, in ANY culture, is that moral? How can any moral person consider that law and that punishment, directly ordered by (as I call him) Yahweh himself, and still say "I don't have a problem with the law"?

You don't? You don't have a problem with ordering a rapist to pay a 50-sheckel fine to the father of the woman he violated, and to marry the woman?

You don't have a problem with holding a man's wife and son hostage unless the man agrees to be your slave for life?

You don't have a problem with stoning a non virgin woman to death if there's not enough blood on the bedsheets when her husband sleeps with her the first time?

You don't have a problem with ending a man's life violently for the victimless crime of sabbath breaking?

You don't have a problem with any of these things... but you DO have a problem with selling animals for sacrifice at the temple... let's discuss THAT instead?

Really?

Because I don't believe you.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Raf

[Tzaia]

I find the concept of the maximum penalty interesting. However, that doesn't address the morality of assigning those maximum penalties for the particular offenses we've been discussing.

I never really gave "Yahweh's" morality a thought until recently when I read the Qur'an. Then someone pointed out that the Bible was the most bloodthirsty book ever written. Is it? Well, yes it is. And it starts right at the beginning when he favors one sacrifice over another - for no readily apparent reason.

If Yahweh really needs people to die for transgressions against him, then why doesn't he do it like he did Sodom & Gomorrah? Why does he have people doing it to people?

[waysider]

Why does he have people doing it to people?

Is this the part where the DJ cues Steely Dan playing "I'm A Fool To Do Your Dirty Work."?

Edited March 8, 2015 by waysider

[Raf]

why does he kill two people on the spot for withholding money from the church, yet he cannot stop a pedophile priest?

[waysider]

why does he kill two people on the spot for withholding money from the church, yet he cannot stop a pedophile priest?

I can remember, in The Way, being taught that this was because they had lied to the Man of God. In other words, the incident was used to indoctrinate followers to be loyal to and honest with leadership figures. It was used as a fear/control tactic. (But don't forget, "God is love." <_< )

Edited March 8, 2015 by waysider

[Raf]

Keeping money from the Man of God is a greater sin than raping an unbetrothed woman? The former sin gets instant death penalty. The latter, a wedding to the raped woman.