Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Christian Corporate Machine were honest and truthful enough to call the Old Testament what it really is---an ancient relic of a bygone Bronze-Age civilization that has no place in modern society--and just put it in a dustbin where it belongs that would be one thing. But they vociferously insist that it is part of God's law, is inerrant, and therefore just as applicable today as it was 4000 years ago.
So does that mean we throw out Hebrews of the New Testament ?
So does that mean we throw out Hebrews of the New Testament ?
Good question.
As I only derive my spiritual food from portions of the gospels and nowhere else, I don't encounter a problem with the epistles. From my point of view most of the New Testament outside the gospels are subjective opinions of various individuals. I'm not even certain who wrote Hebrews so why should I read it simply because a conclave of Roman Catholic cardinals and clergymen got together around 500 AD and started trying to decide what to include and what not to include in the Bible?
My best answer: if Hebrews does something for you, definitely read it. That's the best I can offer. If you get something out of a particular book in the Bible, go for it.
"What weird mentality could come up with a moral directive like the above? Let me get this straight, I asked my self. My wife and I sitting by the fireplace enjoying the pleasures of connubial life, when the door opens and some intruder barges in.
You, being closer to the door, bravely jump up to confront the trespasser and by accident in the heat of the turmoil, happen to grab his penis! I then jump up and hit the blackguard with a frying pan that just happens to be handy to fry hot dogs in the fireplace.
Knocked out cold, we blow the whistle; the authorities come and carry the malefactor off to jail.
But then by the Bible’s direction I sadly say, “I’m sorry, my dear, but Deuteronomy 25: 11,12 commands me to you’re your hand off at the wrist so you won’t be able to grab any more penises.
No wonder human history is so screwed up."
I wholeheartedly agree.
It could mean anything that the Holy Spirit wants me to think: such as that women should use a man's parts against him in a fight ( increasing the support for that religion from low IQ men). It could mean that such public displays of indicensy shouldn't be allowed, even if the excuse is protection of life.
It is what it is-- a history and a set of directives to a group of people that had just come out of slavery in Egypt. Yes-- they had to be taught basic things like human hygiene and basic human interaction.
The bigger question is how you feel justified to judge an ancient society by your standards?
No one is judging an ancient society, Vizio. They are judging your defense of their ignorant beliefs and practices about them coming FROM God's inspiration and direction!! If you do not believe we have ANY God-given moral standards to apply to such nonsense . . . what DO you use for your morality?? I doubt you will answer . . . but it is rhetorical anyway. I KNOW your answer: Whatever is in the book is moral because we cannot judge God . . . even using what He has taught us.
It wasn't just touching a man's reproductive organs but to grab hold of them to cause injury.
This is just another example of "God's" obsession with reproduction among the Hebrews. Naturally, "God" wouldn't want a man's baby-making parts injured or maimed because the Hebrews needed to start churning out those kiddies so the tribes of Israel could expand and prosper (not to mention conquer and murder).
A woman's hand, though ... not needed for reproduction so one can safely lop off any body part not explicitly needed to make babies.
This is just another example of "God's" obsession with reproduction among the Hebrews. Naturally, "God" wouldn't want a man's baby-making parts injured or maimed because the Hebrews needed to start churning out those kiddies so the tribes of Israel could expand and prosper (not to mention conquer and murder).
A woman's hand, though ... not needed for reproduction so one can safely lop off any body part not explicitly needed to make babies.
You forget, Shirina, that often a woman's hand is indispensable to reproduction in cases where men are often psychologically "maimed".
Oh heaven's, good pastor, I don't judge ancient societies. They are dead and buried. Who gives a fig about them. I do, however, judge fundies who try to apply these relics with a straight face to modern society .
Of course you judge. Non-stop. This thread is nothing but that sort of nonsense of judging.
Usually, though, you rip texts completely out of context, as has been demonstrated to you on a number of occasions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
