Welcome to Gaia! ::

ya know, that does make sense. smile

I disagree, Figuren, about Christianity being hostile. While some Christians may have been hostile in the past, Christianity itself is a pacifistic religion much like Buddhism. The problem is the difference between people who actually follow what the bible says and the people who can talk the talk but do not walk the walk. They are hypocrites and extremists and the bible is very much against them. Unfortunately, people who don't really know and understand Christianity see them as an example of what the religion is like. Such an assumption is rather insulting to real Christians.

I can claim to be a god, but words won't make it so. I can claim to be a doctor, but again words alone won't make it so. Claiming something and actually being something are two entirely different things, but there are people to whom I could convince that I am a god and/or a doctor. This is what took place during those times "Christians were violent" etc etc. As many Christians died at the hands of the church as anyone else, and perhaps even moreso. It was not at all a matter of religion or purity, it was a matter of control and greed.

Christianity is the belief in Christ as a Lord and Savior, so following Christ is what makes a Christian be a real Christian. When Christ was betrayed and was to be killed, one of his followers attacked the soldier that was arresting him. Not only did Jesus scold his follower, he healed the soldier and explained that violence was never the right answer. Furthermore, it says several times throughout the bible not to commit murder- no exceptions. That "though shalt not allow a witch to live" line was a mistranslation that I believe should be removed.

I suppose I should have said "original" Christianity, or something along the lines of that. As it does for many things, time brings change and those changes make a big difference between the then and now.

That's actually really interesting. It doesn't say a great deal about Christianity as a religion necessarily if nations never implemented these laws, but I still think that's really cool. I suppose I could change the statement to, "Religion has done virtually no history of environmental discretion."
It doesn't change my stance a great deal, but I appreciate you bringing that up.

I also was always under the impression that "dominion" should have meant something along the lines of responsibility. It doesn't surprise me a great deal that the statement was a bit of a bastardization.
It's hard to pinpoint the context of certain statements though, because of course the bible has so many different interpretations. It's always easiest to look at the most prevalent sentiment, which says the most about any institution.

The christian bible, or rather the collection of letters and personal accounts composed by the disciples and apostles that we know of as the New Testament, is set in a much different environment than when the original laws were given at Mount Sinai. THAT BEING SAID, if one cares to look for it (and a lot of people DON'T) there are multiple references to the OT laws and calendars, which included a land-sabbath (every seven years the land is allowed to grow wild) and the Jubilee year (every 50 years when all debts were erased). Also, there is the principal of responsible ownership, and even though many of the believers of the first century were not farmers, they had servants, slaves, merchant empires, contracts to uphold, etc. The concept of Godly responsibility for everything that is under one's authority IS prevalent throughout the NT.

The Christian God has never taught the consumerist values that people hold onto today. The Christian religion has love at its core. If one LOVES their creator, what He created, and their fellow man, why wouldn't one want to be "green?" One of the biggest problems with a lot of consumerist thinking is that the only "green" part is "green with envy." So many people want what they can't have, and so go into debt or get the knockoff disposable version so they can have it NOW. The market for instant gratification has led to production now, cleanup later. But "later" never comes until someone puts aside "now" to make room for it.

Translations are a sticky business. Every translator brings their own bias, and the English language is such an ever-changing entity, it's difficult to make a direct connection between two words. Also, connotations are lost as history moves on. 50 years ago, no one would have understood the concept of "hacking" unless one used a machete or butcher's cleaver. 100 years ago, "fudge" was a bad word, not a dessert. 2000 years ago, "gospel" was not just good news, it was a word specifically used in reference to the deifying of Cesar.

This is why, when I have a question about the meaning of a verse, the first place I look is in Strong's Bible Dictionary to get the defined specifics, instead of the poetic interpretation of the translator.

It's not like the elders were walking around with machetes and loping off heads of anyone who looked funny. A death sentence was a SERIOUS matter, and how many people do you think would risk the crime with death as the punishment? Adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, and heresy DID cause bodily harm. They still do. Sleeping around is a great way to spread disease--especially in the days BEFORE SOAP. And blasphemy and heresy were usually committed in favor to draw people to a competing religion, usually with more unpleasant rituals, like burning children alive. And unlike a lot of other religions of the time, no one was FORCED into anything. There was an understanding that if you wanted to be a part of this nation of Israel, you had to conform to the covenant. It's like people today are expected to defend their country so long as they are within those borders or hold a passport from that country. Sure, the OT laws were more stringent than the lawyer-filled legal bull-s**t-ocrasy we know and tolerate today, but the principles of loyalty and honor are roughly the same. If you can't suffer the punishment, don't inflict it.

And why don't we agree to disagree about the ethics of corporal punishment, because I can tell from here that it's a can of worms better left on the shelf.


This was regarding the survivors of the battle with the Midianites. This isn't a sex crime. It's genocide. The virgins were kept because they were the most impressionable and could be integrated into the nation without a lot of political and religious backlash.


This is about the survival of the line of Benjamin. Just because women are being forced to marry doesn't mean it's a sex crime. After loosing their women, the men of the tribe of Benjamin perpetuated genocide--not a sex crime--to obtain virgins. Then, when that didn't provide enough women, they stole women from the other tribes. Notice the loop hole, "And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them." It's about marriage!


Not sex crimes. Treating humans like property? Yes. That was a common practice in those times.


Punishment for adultery and/or the girl crying "rape" when it really wasn't, which can be considered a sex crime.


Basically saying that if a guy gets caught sleeping with a woman and neither of them are betrothed, they're doomed to be married. Oh the horror. In other cultures, this is called a hands-fast marriage or a shotgun marriage.


This is a prophecy about the horrors to come. And yes, these horror include sex crimes. The passage continues: Zacharia 14:3-4; Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake [a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

So the crimes are avenged in a dramatic way.


That's no more gruesome than the description of the Passion week. It's a sin offering. It's not supposed to be sterile and poetic. Besides, the animal was dead as they're washing the innards. They weren't sadistically abusing the creature. It's no worse than a regular butcher when he dresses meat.



That's the story of Abraham and Isaac.


Like the idea or not, God directing war and peace for the nation of Israel is all over the OT. God spoke with Abraham. Sarah. Isaac. Ishmael. Jacob. Joseph. Moses. Joshua. David. Daniel. Do these guys have a problem? Were they sick in the head? They're some of the most exemplary people in the bible! They are not without flaws, but the were in direct contact with the being they worshiped.

Now, I haven't seen any miraculously burning bushes or been visited by angels lately. I seriously doubt I ever will. If I do see, you can bet the first thing I do WON'T be an act of violence. Instead, it'll be about a month of deep bible study to fully understand whatever it is I've been told in the context of the ENTIRE bible and plan of God. Because there are a lot of fakers out there--humans seeking fame and fortune, malicious spirits feeding of the suffering of humanity.

You need to remember when reading the bible is that it was set in a totally different time and place. Yes, there were a lot of "human rights" violations and women weren't seen as real people most of the time. When living in a world without the natural resources we're privy to today, where a dry month or a wet month could spell starvation for your family, society was a completely different animal. The covenant the God of the Old Testament made with Israel was "If you follow My laws I will bless you. But if you disobey me, I will curse you." This applied as much to the gentic pool that was the Nation of Israel as it did other wondering peoples. If another people wanted to worship the God of the Old Testament, they were not denied.

One thing you'll notice about the OT and the NT is that with the dissolution of an actual NATION of Israel, many of the old governing laws became ineffective and inoperable. Customs and doctrines remained, but all the old prophets were dead. Most of the 12 tribes were lost by the time Jesus Christ was born. Israel was a crippled and castrated nation. That's why the Pharisee's and Sanhedrin took Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities to have Him executed--because they no longer had the legal power to take a life.

So, again, I assert that neither the Christian nor Jewish faiths, as they were intended by their own foundational writings, were hostile to non-believers, sinners in their midst, or women. Yes, the bible records a lot of violence, misery, pain, and wrong doing. Yes, the laws were harsh, the religious-political climate harsher (because you didn't separate church and state back then). But nowhere is anyone ever commanded to unjustly harm another person, even though the unjust and tragic misuse of God's words and blessings constantly fill the narrative. Just because people make mistakes and willfully sin does not mean the religion is inherently violent.

...Can I get down now? My brain hurts. xp

Yeah, that kind of drained me. razz I just get perplexed when present day morality is used to judge the actions of the OT, especially when the OT doesn't give all the information! So many people don't understand that there are lots of gaps, and because the stories weren't written down until about 1000 b.c.e., the accounts are very sterile and brief because they were passed down by word of mouth. You have to be SOOOO historically literate to understand things in context. I'm still working on ancient anthropology.

Personally, I like the New International Version or the New Living Translation. They use simpler English. I'm all about simplicity. razz But I also only acknowledge a certain set of books as "The Bible."