The Bible (a discussion)

@spendius,

Adultery may be praised today from an economic point of view. It creates a large number of well paid jobs and secondary jobs in industries which cater for the consumer spending and conveniences of those holding them and their suppliers.

In Biblical times, as in even fairly recent times, the large majority of the population worked in agriculture. Now it is a small minority. 2% I have seen given. We have gone from 95% to 2%.

Something needs to provide jobs for the redundant agricultural workers thus released and the encouragement of adultery is one of them.

If adultery was a serious economic disadvantage in the marginal living conditions in those days and is an economic advantage in our times then it follows logically that to read the same meaning into the word now as was read into it then is, as with the word slavery, completely idiotic and a sign of a badly stunted education.

We ought today to take a relaxed view of adultery and not doing might be viewed as anachronistic knuckle-dragging in proportion to the excitations adultery generates.

A virgin then was not what we think of as a virgin now.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The agreement of the god that the Hebrews could buy, sell, own slaves and keep them slaves forever...

...supposedly was given to Moses during the trek of the Hebrews escaping from slavery in Egypt.

Holy ****!

LOL!!! Wow! This is just ONE of the many reasons I am a non-believer in gods.

2 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

It was Moses himself who made the rule.

How on earth could it have been God for somebody who doesn't believe in God?

0 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

Quote:

The agreement of the god that the Hebrews could buy, sell, own slaves and keep them slaves forever...

...supposedly was given to Moses during the trek of the Hebrews escaping from slavery in Egypt.

Holy ****!

LOL!!! Wow! This is just ONE of the many reasons I am a non-believer in gods.

I think it has not a thing to do about "god" - only man inventing and writing stories about "god".

Oh, wow, that now becomes a paradox, interesting. Now you are correct, if you are a non-believer in gods, the bible (torah and koran) exist, therefore, it is "only man inventing and writing stories about "god"."

Cool!!

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

Denis Diderot wrote:
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

This was my signature line at one time. Many consider it an expression of atheism. Personally, I believe it a common ground between myself and most atheists. I find it interesting that the Book of Revelation describes the world's collective priesthood as a whore having immoral intercourse with the world's collective kings. (Ch 17-18)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I shall now attempt to straighten the mess I made this morning.

Frank Apisa wrote:

How do you interpret "You may own them; you may buy them; you may own them a chattels; you may leave them to your sons as hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves?"

I wrote:

Yeah, that's the way it was, Frank.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oh...so the god thought it was okay for that time?

I wrote:

Okay is not the right word. God did not think it was okay for Satan to abuse Job; but he allowed it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And are you saying that the god put a time limit on it?

I wrote:

We are all subject to that time limit, Frank. God put an end to Job's suffering. He will put an end to mankind's suffering.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But you still have not told me how you interpret that quote from your god.

Yeah, that's the way it was, Frank.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

At the very least, the Law as written in Leviticus and Numbers is obsolete. It always was a bit silly, full of strange ideas and furor. Full of injustice and bizarre, unduable or irrational (khok) commandments too.

Frank would probably disagree that the law is somehow obsolete because Jesus said he would not do away with it. Nevertheless, you are right about it's incredible stringency. It was meant to point the way to the only one able to keep it, the one the Jews should have recognized as the Messiah. Once Jesus fulfilled the law, his followers would no longer be under it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Take a look at the title of the thread!

There are many threads. What is your interest in this one for?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

timur wrote:

Denis Diderot wrote:
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
This was my signature line at one time. Many consider it an expression of atheism. Personally, I believe it a common ground between myself and most atheists. I find it interesting that the Book of Revelation describes the world's collective priesthood as a whore having immoral intercourse with the world's collective kings. (Ch 17-18)

Jesus was dead set against the representatives of the king and the rich, pompous "priests". The Swaggerts, Catholic Bishops (and others), Pat Roberts, Kenneth Copelands, Billy Grahams and others inside every major and medium size city in the USA are going to hell - fer sure!

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

If adultery was a serious economic disadvantage in the marginal living conditions in those days

It was not. No idea why you'd think it was.

2 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Jesus was dead set against the representatives of the king and the rich, pompous "priests". The Swaggerts, Catholic Bishops (and others), Pat Roberts, Kenneth Copelands, Billy Grahams and others inside every major and medium size city in the USA are going to hell - fer sure!

They deserve the worst of whatever God has in store for them, that's fer sure!

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

It was meant to point the way to the only one able to keep it, the one the Jews should have recognized as the Messiah. Once Jesus fulfilled the law, his followers would no longer be under it.

Doesn't really follow... Sorry.

No,I'd rather think it was obsolete and a dead weight for the expansion of monetheist ideas. It had to be done. Greeks were asking "Can I learn God's Law while standing on one foot?" In effect asking for an abbriged version, but also asking for a rationisation. The 'Law of Moses' may well have been too complicated and too harsh from day 1, but by 1st century it was a matter of much repulsion and misunderstandings from the Greeks and Romans, rendering any relation with them somewhat tense and suspicious. The Law was a liability.

The Jews learnt it the harsh way in 68-70. After the catastrophe, the council of Yavne, under the leadership of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, ruled for the most leniant positions of Hillel vs. those of Shammai, because the House of Shammai played a role in the revolt against the Romans (and killed Hillelians). And they continued a slow process of legalistic chicaneries, chipping away at the old written law to make it evolve through the oral law, thanks to which modern Jews don't kill the adulterous anymore.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No doubt contemporary Roman and Greek philosophy served to weaken the faith of the Israelites. When Jesus appeared, the rank and file eschewed him because he didn't break the Roman yoke. Only a few Jew saw reason to follow him. And after the baptism of Cornelius, the seventy weeks of Daniel ch 9 24-27 expired, ending the Jews' covenant relation with God.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You actually believe in this stuff. I don't. The Jews say they still have a copyright on G-d of sorts. A living covenant. A better understanding. You may say otherwise. To me, it's only the history of ideas which I find interesting.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
If adultery was a serious economic disadvantage in the marginal living conditions in those days

It was not. No idea why you'd think it was.

Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, David had many wives and mistresses - sometimes in the hundreds

1 Reply

@BillW,

Rule #1 of any mammal society: A rich, successful male will have many females.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

add to this: most physical, well endowed and intelligent/cunning (ie, rapist-persuader)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You actually believe in this stuff. I don't. The Jews say they still have a copyright on G-d of sorts. A living covenant. A better understanding. You may say otherwise. To me, it's only the history of ideas which I find interesting.

Probably the main sign of their lost covenant is the disappearance of their genealogies. They no longer have a way to identify the Messiah by birth. Add that to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and it doesn't leave much upon which to hang the yarmulke.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

All these posts reveal, if anything, are the personal biases of the posters, and absolutely nothing whatsoever of the Bible, or exactly what it has, or does not have to offer.

I know if I made a comment it would just be attacked by some and maybe defended by others, but it would lead absolutely nowhere, so what's the point?

2 Replies

@Cyclops,

If you have something important to say, remember there are about 10 readers for every post; perhaps you may provide insight to someone and never actually know it.

0 Replies

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know