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.
I have long thought that the OT was full of silliness that written by primitive men who just THOUGHT that god was telling them what to write. I mean the ignorance is unbelievable! And as for some of the attrocities, well they must have really needed a scapegoat...and god was it! They were horrible people who did terrible things and justified their actions by saying "god told us to!" Here are a few examples of the silliness.
Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. (okay the silly part is that he DIRTY until evening. huh? So at nightfall he's magically all clean again?!)
Leviticus 15:19-20 And if a woman have an issue in her flesh and her issue be be blood, she shall be put apart seven days and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything that she lieth upon in her separtation shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. (this is insane. to actually believe that women were just NOT CLEAN because of a menstral cycle is very silly. not to mention anything she touches is dirty also!)
I can already hear it....I'm probably going to be ripped to shreds for this one....but that's okay....I don't mind.
I have long thought that the OT was full of silliness that written by primitive men who just THOUGHT that god was telling them what to write. I mean the ignorance is unbelievable! And as for some of the attrocities, well they must have really needed a scapegoat...and god was it! They were horrible people who did terrible things and justified their actions by saying "god told us to!" Here are a few examples of the silliness.
Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. (okay the silly part is that he DIRTY until evening. huh? So at nightfall he's magically all clean again?!)
Leviticus 15:19-20 And if a woman have an issue in her flesh and her issue be be blood, she shall be put apart seven days and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything that she lieth upon in her separtation shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. (this is insane. to actually believe that women were just NOT CLEAN because of a menstral cycle is very silly. not to mention anything she touches is dirty also!)
I can already hear it....I'm probably going to be ripped to shreds for this one....but that's okay....I don't mind.
Seems like day by day you are "seeing the light."
I don't see why folks have to tear you to shreds unless they are trying to defend ancient foolishness. If these people were actually in tuned with some actual god with all knowledge as opposed to the god being in tune with them (READ: creating their own image of a god), that god would have at least informed them of the real deal.
I hope you are not an illegitimate child like me. The biblical god (well, this is according to the writer who tells us this was according to Moses) did not want people like me in the "congregation of the lord" and up to 10 generations of my posterity. I also could not be a part of the congregation if I had a damaged ******* sac. I kid you not.
OP: While I am an agnostic, I have to say that you are misinterpreting these verses. (Whether or not saying this is tantamount to "tearing you to shreds", I feel I must address the inaccuracy of your statement.) In religion, there is a very clear difference between cleanliness and purity. Those are NOT synonyms. This is true not only of Abrahamic religions, but of others as well (Hinduism, for example).
I hope you are not an illegitimate child like me. The biblical god (well, this is according to the writer who tells us this was according to Moses) did not want people like me in the "congregation of the lord" and up to 10 generations of my posterity.
Not to "defend ancient foolishness", but this rule applies only to children of adulterous relationships, not to children born to unmarried people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
I also could not be a part of the congregation if I had a damaged ******* sac. I kid you not.
That rule would apply only to certain Temple congregations, and it would disqualify you from being a priest or a member of Sanhedrin. It certainly would not disqualify you from being a member of a synagogue or a rabbi. There was a TON of disqualifications for entering certain Temple courtyards, and entering them was a small part of Judaism in ancient times, and a wholly irrelevant one now. As for the Sanhedrin, it had only 70 members at any one time out of all of Israel, so I would think as far as qualifying for an occasional empty seat, a damaged scrotal sac would be the least of your concerns.
OP: While I am an agnostic, I have to say that you are misinterpreting these verses. (Whether or not saying this is tantamount to "tearing you to shreds", I feel I must address the inaccuracy of your statement.) In religion, there is a very clear difference between cleanliness and purity. Those are NOT synonyms. This is true not only of Abrahamic religions, but of others as well (Hinduism, for example).
What? There is no misinterpreation to "a woman is unclean while menstrating" etc....it says what it says. Being unclean is being dirty. I said nothing about purity. No you are not "tearing me to shreds"...There are a select few here that like to do that! But it makes the convesation all the more interesting!
Not to "defend ancient foolishness", but this rule applies only to children of adulterous relationships, not to children born to unmarried people.
That rule would apply only to certain Temple congregations, and it would disqualify you from being a priest or a member of Sanhedrin. It certainly would not disqualify you from being a member of a synagogue or a rabbi. There was a TON of disqualifications for entering certain Temple courtyards, and entering them was a small part of Judaism in ancient times, and a wholly irrelevant one now. As for the Sanhedrin, it had only 70 members at any one time out of all of Israel, so I would think as far as qualifying for an occasional empty seat, a damaged scrotal sac would be the least of your concerns.
Okay your statement here makes no sense. Children born to unmarried people ARE from adulterous relationships...unless it was a brutal rape...which I think was fine in the OT as long as the rapist married the woman.
[color=blue]What? There is no misinterpreation to "a woman is unclean while menstrating" etc....it says what it says. Being unclean is being dirty.
No, that's your interpretation of it. Judaism clearly distinguishes between ritual purity and physical cleanliness. "Unclean" in the OT refers to the former and not the latter. In fact, for mikveh purposes, a person is required to be physically clean first, before the ritual impurity may be removed -- but until the mikveh ritual is performed, it is recognized that the person is physically (very) clean, but ritually unclean. Two very different things.
Not to "defend ancient foolishness", but this rule applies only to children of adulterous relationships, not to children born to unmarried people.
Hmm...Would have been nice if this distinction was made, huh? Still, why fault the child(ren)? That makes no sense.
Quote:
That rule would apply only to certain Temple congregations, and it would disqualify you from being a priest or a member of Sanhedrin. It certainly would not disqualify you from being a member of a synagogue or a rabbi. There was a TON of disqualifications for entering certain Temple courtyards, and entering them was a small part of Judaism in ancient times, and a wholly irrelevant one now. As for the Sanhedrin, it had only 70 members at any one time out of all of Israel, so I would think as far as qualifying for an occasional empty seat, a damaged scrotal sac would be the least of your concerns.
All of that is plausible. I can understand them, however, if this is the case, it proves precisely why these rules and laws derived solely from the minds f mere men than some supposed, good, fair, all-knowing god whom Christians advertise today. What kind of god cares if I have a "tool" defect especially if it has nothing to do with butchering animals and sprinkling blood all over the place? Who the hell knows about it, but the wife? lol
Okay your statement here makes no sense. Children born to unmarried people ARE from adulterous relationships...unless it was a brutal rape...which I think was fine in the OT as long as the rapist married the woman.
No, adultery in Judaism refers to intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse. I believe that's also the basic understanding of what adultery is in the Western culture. See, e.g., here. Fornication -- i.e. sex between two people who are not married to each other, but also not married to others -- is not adultery, and a child of such a relationship is not a mamzer. Only a child born to a married woman and a man not her husband is considered a mamzer under Jewish law. Whether or not this makes sense to you really doesn't change the fact that this is the law in Judaism, and always has been.
Hmm...Would have been nice if this distinction was made, huh? Still, why fault the child(ren)? That makes no sense.
Well, most rabbis will tell you that it's pointless to try to rationalize God's law. Humans live in our own narrow world of logical rules and consistencies, but that world is too small for God -- and there are reasons for certain rules that we simply have no capacity to understand. That said, however, some would offer the rationale -- which is really the same rationale for the rule that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons -- that a person is least likely to sin if he believes this will harm his or her child; that in fact, most people care less about consequences to themselves than to their children. Therefore, punishing one's children -- as opposed to the sinners themselves -- acts as a stronger deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
All of that is plausible. I can understand them, however, if this is the case, it proves precisely why these rules and laws derived solely from the minds f mere men than some supposed, good, fair, all-knowing god whom Christians advertise today. What kind of god cares if I have a "tool" defect especially if it has nothing to do with butchering animals and sprinkling blood all over the place? Who the hell knows about it, but the wife? lol
See above -- most rabbis will say that just because a human does not understand the rationale does not mean that one does not exist. And again, to the extent that this can be explained, Judaism values sanctified sex as something essential to a person's psychological well-being. Damaged "tools" are outward signs of sexual dysfunction and the belief is (totally anecdotal, of course) that a sexually dysfunctional person tends to be unsatisfied, frustrated and unusually cruel -- and thus unfit to be a judge, particularly in cases stemming from sexual offenses.
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.
