Can we understand the Bible without the Watchtower? (page 7)

cheerios

well, one thing is clear ... we need pyramidologists ...

@ aguest: i appreciate your faith and your wanting to believe (in something, as most of us want to do); however, selling people is the trademark of ignorant, lowly cultures that have no value on human life. the hebrews were supposed to be god's people and set above the rest of the nations. in this, your logic falls short. if the hebrews really were above the rest of the nations, then women wouldn't need protection - they would be considered equals and treated thusly. because god would have ensured that they did that, with the 52 bazillion laws given to them, you'd think that somewhere in there would be maybe a single law that forbade slavery or denigration of women ... that is if those laws really did come from a supreme being.

at least it seems that way to me.

ProdigalSon

Yes, it's highly entertaining to watch Bible apologists jump through hoops to defend the atrocities of the Jewish God. No amount of direct quotes of God calling down rape, incest, pillaging, murder, taking spoils, taking young virgins as booty, using treachery and deception to trick opponents, and putting every living thing in a conquered land to death including animals, will phase them. It's as if different rules apply to God. Since his ways are above our ways, he can say one thing and do another, and it's quite alright. There must be a loophole in the laws of the Universe when it comes to Divine Will. And yet the Devil is the father of the lie.

Shelby, read Judges 11:34-40. A jackass named Jephthah promises Jehovah that he will sacrifice on the altar the first thing that walks out of his house if Jehovah gives him a victory in battle. Of course Jehovah obliges because he just hates losing battles, in fact no one should survive a battle with his chosen property. Obviously never even considering the possibility, it turns out to be his daughter. As Jephthah is somehow shocked by this, he first prays about it, and then STILL feels compelled to carry out his psychotic promise anyway, and Jehovah allows this without a further word. We are supposed to feel better after we read that it became an annual event by the girl's friends to memorialize this sad, sad travesty.

Sorry, but I can't love this monster God, he belongs in Hell for HIS egos to be dissolved.

~PS

PSacramento

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

A law of man written by man for man, hardly "inspired by God", simply ancient man's view of things in his time.

If ancient man had gotten it right, well...what need would there have been for Christ?

SweetBabyCheezits

A law of man written by man for man, hardly "inspired by God", simply ancient man's view of things in his time.

I agree, Paul. The bible could be summed up very well in the above sentence.

cyberjesus

psacramento: whats your criteria to decide which parts of the bible got it right?

AGuest

@ aguest: i appreciate your faith and your wanting to believe (in something, as most of us want to do)

Greetings, dear cheerios (peace to you!) and I appreciate your "appreciation."

however, selling people is the trademark of ignorant, lowly cultures that have no value on human life.

Sigh. First, I would state that that would be the case, today. Back then, it was not only good but necessary business (for the daughter! Its purpose was to GUARANTEE her care!). And she DID need care, which I will explain further, below.

Second, she was not sold, dear one. I explained that. The problem is the Hebrew word used for exchanging money for something. A price was paid for her, NOT because she was property, but (1) because she was valuable, and (2) to effect the contract. I do not expect some of you to understand this because you don't understand contract law - BUT... unless there is "valuable consideration", there is NO contract. That valuable consideration could have been shekels... or goats. But it is what EFFECTS a contract. Even down until today. Back then, a father and his daughter CONTRACTED for marriage (actually, we still do today; what is the "valuable consideration" today? A ring. Sometimes of great value, sometimes of lesser value. But that ring signifies the PROMISE of marriage). Again, I don't expect some to understand this. I probably wouldn't have had I not taken contract law (which is the most comprehensive course in law school).

the hebrews were supposed to be god's people and set above the rest of the nations. in this, your logic falls short. if the hebrews really were above the rest of the nations, then women wouldn't need protection - they would be considered equals and treated thusly.

Now, why do you supposed the Hebrews were at issue here? If the Hebrews were the ones she needed protection FROM... why would a father even give his daughter?? They needed protection from the barbaric and MARAUDING nations round about! When a man handed over his daughter, he needed to be able to RELY that the one she was given to WOULD protect her... from OTHERS. NON-Hebrews. And so, to effect that CONTRACT, consideration had to be paid. That really is how a contract works. If there is no valuable consideration... I don't care WHAT you said you would do... or another SAID they would do... there is no contract. And marriage... is a contract. Even today. Today, though, you don't only give valuable consideration to the bride (the "engagement" ring, which strikes the contract)... you ALSO give it to the GOVERNMENT... by means of your license FEE.

because god would have ensured that they did that, with the 52 bazillion laws given to them, you'd think that somewhere in there would be maybe a single law that forbade slavery or denigration of women ... that is if those laws really did come from a supreme being.

Slavery was NOT sanctioned, nor was the dsnigration of women. How do we know? We look at Christ, who FULFILLED the Law... as well as told HIS disciples what the Law TRULY was regarding these matters. However, THIS law neither enslaves nor denigrates a woman. As a wife, she is ENTITLED to her wifely share of food, clothing, and "due"... which right CANNOT be diminished. Why? Because... she has a contract. SHE was entitled... and her husband was OBLIGATED.

The problem occurred when ISRAEL... both the men AND the women... being the hard-headed, hard-hearted, stiff-necked nation it WAS... overstepped this law... and began acting LIKE the nations around it! The men began mistreating their wives, taking on other wives and forgetting the former ones, etc. But that was NOT the way it was supposed to be. Men were SUPPOSED to cling to their wives, be one with them, love and care for them. They were obligated UNDER CONTRACT to do so. They, however, often defaulted on those contracts.

And the fault was not all theirs; wives had certain implied "obligations" under the contract, too. But many took advantage of the loophole of there not being "specific language"... and so were vindictive, mean-spirited, unloving, lazy, didn't care for the hearth or children, ran off with other men, committed adultery, etc.

For these reasons... MOSES ALLOWED CERTIFICATES OF DIVORCE. But there was never supposed to be divorce, because BOTH parties were SUPPOSED to "perform" in "GOOD FAITH" under the marriage contract. The Most Holy One of Israel TRUSTED them to do so. It was they who let HIM... and one another... down.

at least it seems that way to me.

You live in a time 3,000 years since... and are trying to apply your "logic" to that time. That... is illogical.

Shelby, read Judges 11:34-40. A jackass named Jephthah promises Jehovah that he will sacrifice on the altar the first thing that walks out of his house if Jehovah gives him a victory in battle.

Yes. Jephthah promised (and a very stoopid thing, at that!). But JAH did NOT ask it of him.

Of course Jehovah obliges because he just hates losing battles, in fact no one should survive a battle with his chosen property.

The Most Holy One of Israel obliged, dear PS... because one who belonged to Him... ASKED. Folks like you are SO funny: God doesn't hear or answer anyone... BAD God! God heard and answered this guy... BAD God! The whole "little children in the market place" thing...

Obviously never even considering the possibility, it turns out to be his daughter. As Jephthah is somehow shocked by this, he first prays about it, and then STILL feels compelled to carry out his psychotic promise anyway, and Jehovah allows this without a further word.

Which is why it was stupid. He had NO idea who would come out, but in his selfishness and HASTE to win the battle... he made a VOW to JAH. Unfortunately, one must pay what one vows to the Most Holy One of Israel. Because, unlike earthling man, who vows all sorts of things to one another much of which they have absolutely NO intention of paying... it does not work that way when one is doing so to the Sovereign of the Universe. Jephthah should have thought... and he didn't. He knew his vow was due... which at least shows that he some HONOR, if not some brains.

We are supposed to feel better after we read that it became an annual event by the girl's friends to memorialize this sad, sad travesty.

What is sad, dear one... is that Jephthah never thought to ask for mercy, which would have been granted him. But I find it peculiarly hypocritical that we feel we can blame God for allowing Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter for victory in the battle... when people the world over sacrifice THEIR sons and daughters... IN battle for the victory of battle... every day! Most "in God's name."

Sorry, but I can't love this monster God, he belongs in Hell for HIS egos to be dissolved.

What is interesting here... is that NOWHERE in the account is the Most Holy One of Israel mentioned... OTHER than Jephthah making a vow... and his daughter reiterating it. Note what I said: JEPHTHAT made a vow... HIS DAUGHTER reiterated... and HE carried it out. What did JAH do? One thing: allowed Jephthah to prevail over his enemies... which enemies would have killed his daughter, anyway... as well as him... as well as everyone else of his tribe.

JAH's spirit was already with Jephthah (Judges 11:29). He (Jephthah) did not need to make any such vow. He did so, however, out of his need to BE victorious... rather than trusting in JAH... so that he made a vow that cost his daughter's life. While I am sure he felt regret over this, I am also sure that... like the millions of mothers and fathers who send THEIR children to the battle today... and which children... which "sacrifices" die as a result... consider it a bittersweet victory. So long as the enemy is subdued... it's worth the life of one's child. Right?

The account of Jephthah isn't there to teach us not to make vows to JAH (although, we shouldn't). It is there to teach us what can happen when we put our OWN desire for victory over our enemies... over our trust... and faith... in God.

I hope this helps and again, I bid you all peace.

A slave of Christ,

SA

notverylikely

Stuff and nonsense. Speculation with a healthy dose of wishful thinking. Balderdash, poppycock and silliness. Move along, folks, nothing new to see here.

tec

Actually, I quite agree with everything Shelby said about Jephthah. It's even all in the bible. The rest sounds right too, but for ME that is speculation. (I think that speculation has merit, though)

Tammy

Can we understand the Bible without the Watchtower?

Share this