Bible verses

[mbasic]

Regarding the Bible verse thing:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,

12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

[DirtyRed]

Regarding the Bible verse thing:

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,

12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

I like how that was enough of a problem in ancient nomadic Israel that God Himself (the lesser one, not me) felt the need to opine on it.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5

Here's a good one for deleting turboshitposting

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

And for The Rules thread:

These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.

[Chebass88]

That there is a large number of people who think the Bible and what it teaches is a "neat thing" that should be taught in schools is alarming.

[simonrest]

That there is a large number of people who think the Bible and what it teaches is a "neat thing" that should be taught in schools is alarming.

the bible is like the apple terms and conditions: people never actually read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click "agree"

[mbasic]

Ezekiel 23:20,

TL;DR version: dudes with donkey cocks and blow horse sized loads.

[shaymus]

That there is a large number of people who think the Bible and what it teaches is a "neat thing" that should be taught in schools is alarming.

You don't want little kids to learn how the universe was created? What are you, anti-education?

[ithryn]

Well I mean...that would suck.

You're in a dispute with your neighbor. You're both strong, honorable patriarchs. Despite each have a hundred grandchildren you are both still strong and hardened by your daily labor. The dispute comes to blows. It will not end in death, neither of you will be maimed, but someone will be taught a lesson and the dispute will be resolved for a generation. Right at the moment of triumph, the (insert Rip expletive here) from next door smashes your junk, you drop, the other dude stands there because he's not just gonna kick you while you're down, and you both have to ignobly limp home and let the argument fester for another cubit fortnight. Plus if you fight again she'll just do it again.

Slippery slope to anarchy.

[Murelli]

That there is a large number of people who think the Bible and what it teaches is a "neat thing" that should be taught in schools is alarming.

You don't want little kids to learn how the universe was created? What are you, anti-education?

And how will your daughters grow up into great women without knowing all about Lot and his daughters?

[simonrest]

I don't know guys, I still believe in the biblical definition of marriage

FB_IMG_1505732704681.jpg

[Chebass88]

You don't want little kids to learn how the universe was created? What are you, anti-education?

Well, if you put it that way...

Nope. Still do not support religious indoctrination of youth. If they are sufficiently motivated when they get into their teens / 20s, they can hunt around for themselves.

[mbasic]

Leviticus 20:15

"“If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death ... "

ok, #1 yeah, kinda unusal this type of content is covered in the Bible.

and #2, maybe seems weird to us now that by today's standards, we wouldn't kill a person for fucking an animal ...

but #3Show

"...he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.”

like, WTF man?

#3a- like the animal had much say in the matter?
#3b - oh what, they were afraid of the half-human-animal-spawn that was going to be offsprung from the deed?

[dw]

Leviticus 20:15

"“If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death ... "

ok, #1 yeah, kinda unusal this type of content is covered in the Bible.

and #2, maybe seems weird to us now that by today's standards, we wouldn't kill a person for fucking an animal ...

but #3Show

"...he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.”

like, WTF man?

#3a- like the animal had much say in the matter?
#3b - oh what, they were afraid of the half-human-animal-spawn that was going to be offsprung from the deed?

Just to your first point, the Jewish bible is the law of a people (among other things), as the Koran is the law of all who submit to it. Like the Constitution for Americans.

So there's necessarily a lot of nitty gritty detail in there, like the precise dimensions of temple construction.

As for why they have to kill the animal I don't know, but I'm sure it's discussed in the Talmud somewhere.

Christianity is the outlier among common religions AFAIK in that does not provide the law necessary for a people to exist. So for example you get such absurdities as Christian monarchs and Christian warriors (rich man passing through the eye of a needle? turning the other cheek?).

Idk, correct me if I'm wrong.

[aurelius]

Idk, correct me if I'm wrong.

depends what kind of Christian you are. Nothing in the New Testament really overrides the Old Testament. You have a few statements from Paul. But Jesus was a Rabbi for Christ’s sake. But nothing that justifies throwing out the Old Testament in its entirety. Think on this: the only portion of the Bible that claims to come directly from God is a few books in the Old Testament. Kind of hard to if ore those. So if God says do t let your wife manhandle another man’s genitals, best listen!!!

Groups like the Amish live by the laws of the Old Testament.

Catholicism tried really hard to distinguish itself from Judaism for several hundred years so came up with a whole lot of ‘new covenant’ doctrine and theology to get Christians around many of the more Jewish rules.

All of that is out the window in modern ‘buddy Jesus’ Christianity that evolved in the US post WW2. That ignores 90% of what the Bible says and has no real tenants or code to live by. Really just a conservative political movement at this point than a religion.

[DCR]

But Jesus was a Rabbi for Christ’s sake.

Nice.

[alek]

Leviticus 20:15

"“If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death ... "

ok, #1 yeah, kinda unusal this type of content is covered in the Bible.

and #2, maybe seems weird to us now that by today's standards, we wouldn't kill a person for fucking an animal ...

but #3Show

"...he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.”

like, WTF man?

#3a- like the animal had much say in the matter?
#3b - oh what, they were afraid of the half-human-animal-spawn that was going to be offsprung from the deed?

This reminded me of a news clip I saw a couple (more?) years ago where a libertarian was first asked about gay marriage, and they responded with something along the lines of "As long as they're both adults and consenting, then I have no problem with it," which placed them neatly into the reporter's trap.

"Well then what about polygamy?"

--Porky Pig noises from the libertarian--

End Scene.

Insofar as all parties involved are 1) Human, 2) Adult, and 3) Consenting, then party on as far as I'm concerned. Certainly there are rules for consent and shit, but if everyone in the relationship/union is copacetic, who cares? Now, I can see the State's perspective with respect to it being messy from a rights perspective like property transfer and such. I imagine sticking with two consenting adults is just easy to legislate.

[dw]

There is an interesting SCOTUS decision upholding state anti-polygamy laws. I don't remember the decision well and I read it a long time ago but as I recall the core of anti-polygamy theory is that polygamy tends to be anti-democratic in its tendencies in that the wealthiest people are the ones that get the most wives and the largest households, and consequently control the most votes (this makes more sense in the context of rural 19th century America).

Something like that.

[aurelius]

Insofar as all parties involved are 1) Human, 2) Adult, and 3) Consenting, then party on as far as I'm concerned. Certainly there are rules for consent and shit, but if everyone in the relationship/union is copacetic, who cares? Now, I can see the State's perspective with respect to it being messy from a rights perspective like property transfer and such. I imagine sticking with two consenting adults is just easy to legislate.

There is a lot of historical evidence and social/economic analysis that polygamy is terrible for societies.

Essentially apply the issue of wealthy investors buying up real estate in the US to finding a romantic partner. Most populations are close to a 50/50 split men and women. Wealthy men have multiple wives. Having multiple wives becomes a status symbol so even middle class men have a couple. There simply are not enough women to partner with over 20% of the population. From a societal perspective, it is very important to occupy and give a future to work towards for men between the age of 18-35. Starting families and the responsibilities that come with it has been the best solution so far. Otherwise, Men find other shit to do like burn the mother fucker down. It is called the 'societal stability effect of nagging'.

This issue of stability is why the world over societies have banned polygamy. The few societies that do practice it are strife ridden shitholes.

[dw]

But conversely there are conditions in which polygamy is desirable, such as populations where the female:male ratio is high due to men killed in war and there are many war widows and orphans with no means to support themselves. Not an uncommon circumstance especially in ancient times.

All of these moral regulations are rational in the sense that assuming they don't just represent the caprices of a tyrant whatever individual or body of individuals imposed them believed they were beneficial to the society as a whole.

Even things like the prohibition against eating shellfish. Maybe some bad disease had gone around caused by spoiled shellfish and they didn't know how to cure it. Or maybe the foreign tribe that was the main source of shellfish traders was considered to be subversive of the Jewish law or something.

[aurelius]

But conversely there are conditions in which polygamy is desirable, such as populations where the female:male ratio is high due to men killed in war and there are many war widows and orphans with no means to support themselves. Not an uncommon circumstance especially in ancient times.

I'd argue those conditions are rare and would alleviate in a few generations.

How polygamy solved it in ancient cultures is exile. They simply forced the 'non-desirable' men to leave the tribe/community. Which was fine when you had a whole wide world that was largely depopulated.

This is still done today in Mormon communities in the US that practice polygamy. They maintain their 'equilibrium' by exiling their excess male population.

[alek]

Insofar as all parties involved are 1) Human, 2) Adult, and 3) Consenting, then party on as far as I'm concerned. Certainly there are rules for consent and shit, but if everyone in the relationship/union is copacetic, who cares? Now, I can see the State's perspective with respect to it being messy from a rights perspective like property transfer and such. I imagine sticking with two consenting adults is just easy to legislate.

There is a lot of historical evidence and social/economic analysis that polygamy is terrible for societies.

Essentially apply the issue of wealthy investors buying up real estate in the US to finding a romantic partner. Most populations are close to a 50/50 split men and women. Wealthy men have multiple wives. Having multiple wives becomes a status symbol so even middle class men have a couple. There simply are not enough women to partner with over 20% of the population. From a societal perspective, it is very important to occupy and give a future to work towards for men between the age of 18-35. Starting families and the responsibilities that come with it has been the best solution so far. Otherwise, Men find other shit to do like burn the mother fucker down. It is called the 'societal stability effect of nagging'.

This issue of stability is why the world over societies have banned polygamy. The few societies that do practice it are strife ridden shitholes.

Yeah, that makes sense. When I shared my asshole opinion, I was thinking of say, 8 dudes and 8 dudettes trying to all marry one another, not 1 dude and many dudettes.