Well, what might appear contradictory or disturbing is sometimes useful to wrestle with, to question, and to seek answers about. But I think there are definitely archaic elements that have little use.

Aww man, why did this thread have to get all serious. I found the debate about names for my penis far more relevant and entertaining...

@Mujus, is it not possible that when Moses was inspired he was just that, inspired? Couldn't he put it down anyway he liked, otherwise there is no need to inspire, just write it yourself. You are the almighty for your sake. Therefore, couldn't Moses slip in some of his own feelings?

Maybe the idea behind the passage is that even if it's to save her husband's life, a woman shouldn't ever touch another man's junk.

"Well, what might appear contradictory or disturbing is sometimes useful to wrestle with, to question, and to seek answers about."

+1 to that. Of course one would have to be willing to wrestle, question, and seek.

@ Onar - I mentioned above the passage from Dueteronomy 23:1 that prevents men with crushed testicles from entering the assembly of the Lord. So if a woman grabs a guy's junk and crushes his testicles, he is cut off from the most vital part of the Israelite community experience, and from the most vital part of his spiritual experience.

Further, given the wide variety of legal options that a woman would have to help her husband (grab the assailant's beard or hair; hit him with a pan, jug, or pot; stab him with a knife or pointy stick; etc.) it may well be that the main reason for grabbing the dude's junk would be a deliberate motivation to crush his nuts and get him kicked out of the religious community. She's not just trying to help her man; she's acting as judge, jury, and executioner in a dispute between her husband and another man. Deuteronomy provides a number of mechanisms whereby disputes can be resolved by duly appointed judges. Please resort to those legal mechanisms instead of crushing a guy's nuts.

Now, if you're a skeptic sitting here three thousand years later and you don't value community religious involvement, the law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is totally crazy. It's especially crazy if you're the type who can't be bothered with context of any sort.

@Obiwan - I'm calling you out here, buddy. I hope you can take this well, since I actually kind of like you, but I think some tough words are called for here. Obi, you posture as this uber-literary dude, but in the half-year I've been on this site you have demonstrated absolutely no will (I don't /think/ it's a lack of ability) to apply normal processes of literary interpretation to the Bible. It's pretty embarassing to watch. Besides completely and utterly ignoring context in every situation, you haven't even demonstrated an ability to read the actual text - this passage, where you didn't correctly identify whose testicles the woman was grabbing, being a glaring example.

I don't know what you think you're doing with your little pot-shots at the Bible, but if you think you're demonstrating that you're some intellectual atheist who's too smart to believe in God, I suggest that you ratchet up your game. If you're actually interested in understanding the Bible, I suggest that you adopt a slightly more humble attitude and engage people in dialogue instead of indulging in mockery. After all, "Blessed is the man who does not walk inthe counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers."

Apparently, although I don't wish to make an issue of it because I believe every man is born equal, Jesus was gay. I think if you look back at the key facts it is obvious.

McBride, yeah, they were inspired by God and their writing contains their own personalities, and in the context of their culture--It's not like giving dictation. We know this from Paul's writings--and he points out when it's his own advice and not from God. To put this information into context though, I'd like to call your attention to these verses:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Tim. 3:14-17, NIV.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ti&c=3&v=16&t=NIV#16

Paul was writing to Timothy, who learned the Jewish scriptures from a young age.

obviously not well enough

"Compared to eating children, sacrificing your son"

No sons were sacrificed no children were eaten, making stuff up.

"@Obiwan - I'm calling you out here, buddy. I hope you can take this well, since I actually kind of like you, but I think some tough words are called for here. Obi, you posture as this uber-literary dude, but in the half-year I've been on this site you have demonstrated absolutely no will (I don't /think/ it's a lack of ability) to apply normal processes of literary interpretation to the Bible. It's pretty embarassing to watch. Besides completely and utterly ignoring context in every situation, you haven't even demonstrated an ability to read the actual text - this passage, where you didn't correctly identify whose testicles the woman was grabbing, being a glaring example.

I don't know what you think you're doing with your little pot-shots at the Bible, but if you think you're demonstrating that you're some intellectual atheist who's too smart to believe in God, I suggest that you ratchet up your game. If you're actually interested in understanding the Bible, I suggest that you adopt a slightly more humble attitude and engage people in dialogue instead of indulging in mockery. After all, "Blessed is the man who does not walk inthe counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers."

Agree with everything here besides the fact that someone can actually like a stuck up compulsive liar.

@SC - I guess I have this bad habit of taking the Bible literally when it says God made us in his image, so I chronically look for the best in people, and there are some things about Obi that make me think that if I knew him in real life we could hang out and get along.

Also, regarding: "No sons were sacrificed no children were eaten, making stuff up."
There are several Biblical references to people eating their children during seiges, but this is a classic case of reading what is descriptive and interpretting it as prescriptive, which is just lazy reading. Or maybe bigoted reading. Or both.

Well, now, I suppose I must respond... ;)

But before we rekindle that old Jew vs. Jew rivalry SC and I have going, let me first address FlemGem:

So, @FlemGem:

"I mentioned above the passage from Dueteronomy 23:1 that prevents men with crushed testicles from entering the assembly of the Lord. So if a woman grabs a guy's junk and crushes his testicles, he is cut off from the most vital part of the Israelite community experience, and from the most vital part of his spiritual experience."

First, though I hate to have to restate what would seem a most obvious position...

Deuteronomy's laws are backwards, insipid, barbaric and utterly absurd--no more so is this the case than in reference to our discussion of men, women, and the situation regarding a man's maimed Matzoh balls (if you'll pardon the pun.) :)

I HOPE you realize what an incredibly stupid and inane law that rule is, to disallow someone with crushed testicles entrance to a holy site...or anywhere, for that matter...

Which is rather my point with reference to MY quoted Deuteronomy passage--

It's a stupid, stupid rule made by ignorant people at a time when the world was, largely, rather ignorant, and so when I, living in these United States, have to put up with classmates citing the Bible as "the perfect, unalterable word of God" or "the basis of morality," I HOPE every thinking man here would join me in pointing to Deuteronomy 12 and showing what utter tripe that is...

There is NOTHING holy, NOTHING moral, NOTHING *LOGICAL* about Deuteronomy 12, and if this is supposedly "the word of God transcribed by the hand of man," as I am so very sick of hearing, then quite frankly, I have to wonder at the insecurity of such a deity towards the testicular region.

But you appear to be arguing for the law in context, so let's continue...

"Further, given the wide variety of legal options that a woman would have to help her husband (grab the assailant's beard or hair; hit him with a pan, jug, or pot; stab him with a knife or pointy stick; etc.) it may well be that the main reason for grabbing the dude's junk would be a deliberate motivation to crush his nuts and get him kicked out of the religious community. She's not just trying to help her man; she's acting as judge, jury, and executioner in a dispute between her husband and another man. Deuteronomy provides a number of mechanisms whereby disputes can be resolved by duly appointed judges. Please resort to those legal mechanisms instead of crushing a guy's nuts."

And CONTINUING with that theme of judge, jury, and executioner...

In WHAT sense, sir, in WHAT SENSE AT ALL is it acceptable to CUT OFF A WOMAN'S HAND for crushing another man's testicles, especially when she is doing this in defense of her husband?

But wait! You GIVE an answer...she's acting as "judge, jury, and executioner," you say?
She's crushing his nuts to exile him from the religious community?
And this is injustice...
Injustice which is to be met by the justice of...

Cutting her hand off and "show[ing] her no pity?"

Well! How remarkably progressive your interpretation of that law IS, FlemGem!

CLEARLY a man's un-maimed testicles are more valuable than a woman's hand!
CLEARLY this is a just law...
CLEARLY this makes perfect sense and is just when put *that* way!

"Now, if you're a skeptic sitting here three thousand years later and you don't value community religious involvement, the law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is totally crazy. It's especially crazy if you're the type who can't be bothered with context of any sort."

No.
It's not just crazy, immoral, and illogical 3,000 years later...
It's crazy, immoral, and illogical PERIOD, for all time.
Slavery was WRONG 3,000 years ago morally, and it's WRONG today...
It's wrong PERIOD.
Valuing a man's hurt testicles, social standing, and pride above a woman's hand?
Crazy, wrong, immoral and SEXIST in ANY time period.

That's the part that seems to be troubling you here, and apologists on this charge...
When you need to take God or the Bible as universal, literal, or eternal...it is...
But when you need obviously-wrong, archaic, or immoral acts to be taken "in context"...
Or when you need the absurd-if-literal to be taken as metaphor...
Or when you need previous laws to expire and no longer be eternal...
They are, they do, and you thus create a double standard.

As you were so good as to mention my standing as a literary (or a literary-to-be), allow me to build upon that in asking--

Have you ever read "Animal Farm," FlemGem?
If not, I highly recommend you just listen to the free audiobook of it on YouTube now...
Or read it online for free, if you can find the Orwell site which provides the text...
But in any case--

The Seven Commandments of Animalism?
The pigs lay them down...
And every time they need to, well, explain away their violating one of those Seven...
Be it their drinking alcohol or wearing clothes or killing other animals or describing away the inequalities on the farm...

They simply change their interpretation or, indeed, change the law.

And that's the case with Bible, has been throughout the centuries:
When Southern plantation owners wanted to justify slavery, they pointed to Exodus' laws on the acceptability of buying and selling slaves, and how to do it...
When Abolitionists wanted to do away with slavery, they pointed to other passages.

When one sect wants something in the Bible to be literal, it is...
And when science shows that to be laughably inept, it's now metaphor...well, either it's metaphor or said group rejects and demonizes science and evolution for pseudo-scientific theories and then demand it be taught alongside real science, but I digress, one Bible banality and problem at a time. ;)

The point is, FlemGem, you attempt to give this "context" when, and I cannot stress this enough, IN NO CONTEXT DOES CUTTING A WOMAN'S HAND OFF FOR HURTING A MAN'S TESTICLES AND SENSE OF "HOLINESS" OR "MANHOOD" MAKE SENSE, AND IN NO SENSE IS IT JUST. AT ALL. WHATSOEVER.

It's wrong, sexist, and to try and explain it away as the WOMAN trying to act as "judge, jury, and executioner" when SHE'S GETTING HER HAND LOPPED OFF is first absurd and second smacks of male-centric sexism that's best left buried in those desert sands of 3,000 years ago.

I'll readily grant that it's an odd choice to grab a man by the balls in a fight...

But you know, we DO hear today that oh-so-eloquent expression, "Go for the family jewels!" if you're in a tough fight?

I have a great number of female friends...I'd have to imagine ANY of them would give a swift kick to the balls and crush some testicles if they or a loved one were in rather mortal peril...

And NO ONE in this society would DARE talk of cutting their feet off!

If a man can't enter a "holy site" because of crushed testicles, first off all, that's not exactly then a holy site or community worth being a part of, but more importantly, perhaps said man shouldn't have been an ASSAILANT in the first place and instigated such a fight...

In NO SENSE does a woman deserve to have her hand or foot cut off for daring to defend her husband in painful-if-effective manner...

In no way does she deserve her hand or fut cut off PERIOD.

"Obi, you posture as this uber-literary dude, but in the half-year I've been on this site you have demonstrated absolutely no will (I don't /think/ it's a lack of ability) to apply normal processes of literary interpretation to the Bible."

And I don't apply literary interpretation to the Constitution, either.
Or to the Koran.
Or to lunacy that is Dianetics and all that Scientologist nonsense (I myself hailing from what is--sadly enough--the "capital" of Scientology, Los Angeles County)

They're not Hamlet.
They're not Sons and Lovers.
They're not Huck Finn.
They're not Death of a Salesman.

The Bible is, in many places, written in a VERY legalistic sense...and no more so than here, Deuteronomy, where LAWS are being given--

I'm not going to read LAWS in a literary sense any more than I'd read Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech in a legalistic sense!

That's absurd!

The Bible, if I were pressed to give an account, is written in four main styles:

Legalistic (which applies here, hence my not interpreting it in a literary way), Prophetic (Clearly not this), Historic (if we can call it that) and Creationist, that is, giving an account of how and why things came into being.

NOW.

There is at least one exception--

The Psalms.

I'd readily AGREE the Psalms are written in a literary sense...and if you want to quote me a Psalm, I'l GLADLY read it in a literary sense, the mode in which it seems intended and definitely a sense which is warranted.

I'll EVEN say that if you wanted to take, say, the Moses story or Jesus story and discuss it STRICTLY in terms of literature...

I'd grant that.
So long as we don't break into a discussion of religious truths...
If we take them JUST as myth and legend...
Sure.

The Iliad and Odyssey are taken in that light, so I can see taking the Moses and Jesus stories that way (in fact, I'd argue if these stories have any future, it's in a literature sense, as I do believe religion will in the coming centuries erode more and more as scientific advancement and reason prevail.)

But that's NOT the case here...

Deuteronomy, by its nature, is a LEGALISTIC text.
It's giving LAWS.
I'm not going to read THAT in a literary sense...
Again, that's applying an improper reading lens--as it were--to the text.

"Besides completely and utterly ignoring context in every situation,"

You're confused, allow me to clear that up:

I'm not confused about the context...I simply don't think the context here matters or, to put it another way, the context doesn't change my assessment of the law's being immoral.

Slavery was immoral in Exodus, and it's immoral today.
Deuteronomy 12's law cited here is immoral in both 2012 and 1000 B.C., or what have you (whatever date you want to ascribe to it.)

"you haven't even demonstrated an ability to read the actual text - this passage, where you didn't correctly identify whose testicles the woman was grabbing, being a glaring example."

In fairness, I read this with others and THEY also thought it was referring to the husband at first as well...

If my greatest textual misreading is which pair a woman is grabbing before she loses her hand to a completely unjust, superstitious, and sexist law, I'll take it...

I'll apologizing for getting it wrong at first if that is the case, but I WILL say that it doesn't change my stance on it either way, so...

"I don't know what you think you're doing with your little pot-shots at the Bible,"

Well, here I was citing a completely-absurd law to show the rather absurd nature of those who claim the Bible is perfect, literal, unalterable truth...and maybe that's not you, and maybe that's not your view, but there ARE those with such a view...so again, my point with this was 1. a brief laugh at how absurd that position is and 2. a challenge to see if any Bible defenders here would DARE try and defend such an almost Python-esque passage in its almost-comically-unjust nature (I say almost-comical as it DOES kind of kill the fun for me thinking about some poor women getting their hands brutally cut off...yeah...)

"but if you think you're demonstrating that you're some intellectual atheist who's too smart to believe in God, I suggest that you ratchet up your game."

Hey, let's be fair here--
I don't think you have to be smart OR intellectual to see God vanish in a poof of logic... ;)

But while this is far from my best game here...I find it hard to go on the defensive when my position is "cutting off a woman's hand PERIOD is immoral, especially in the circumstances listed above" and yours appears to be "Well...everything in context...and after all, she DID main a man's nuts...and holiness...and self-esteem...and pride..."

" If you're actually interested in understanding the Bible, I suggest that you adopt a slightly more humble attitude and engage people in dialogue instead of indulging in mockery."

I'm sorry--

But that law...those verses...they DESERVE mockery, and derision, and disgust.

So...that's my quick-if-to-the-point retort...maybe you still disagree...

If so, tell us--how do you read a passage which is legalistic in a literary sense and justify it (and not in doing so skewer its intent) and how do you find it in you to stand up for a law that's sexist, cruel, without pity by its own admission, and utterly disgusting?

And if you do...well...

If one of my female friends (your-God forbid) is accosted today...and they go for the nuts to escape...

Will anyone here REALLY demand they have their hand or foot lopped off?

If so--you'll have to get past me (and their considerably-more-bulky-than-me boyfriends) first.

OK, that's that for FlemGem, and now, onto SC...

"Agree with everything here besides the fact that someone can actually like a stuck up compulsive liar."

Better than make a historical mistake and say as much (which I have) than be a compulsive whiner and troller with nothing better to do than sling mud (and nothing more original or well-thought-out than that) months later.

Besides, if we're going to talk about the Bible and YOU'RE going to complain about MY readings of it or failures...

Let's not get into that endorsement of genocide of yours again in the case of the Amalekites (and you can cry about it until the cows come home, sir, it's genocide advocated in that verse, genocide you're OK with, INFANTICIDE AT THE LEAST...so, really, when the Defenders of God back THAT and lopping off a woman's hand if she dares go for the nuts in defense, and *I* say such things are immoral and get a historical point wrong and mistake which nuts were crushed before that poor woman was to lost her hand...yeah, I'll take my stance as a silly atheist schmuck, thanks.)

Obi, to give you credit, your point about genocide is indeed a very good reason to claim that the Bible is not inspired of God. However, it does not outweigh all of the other Biblical evidence of a loving God who did inspire men to write the various books of the Bible through thousands of years of history. You are certainly intelligent enough and probably experienced enough to realize that if your argument is based on false assumptions, then it doesn't stand--and one basic assumption you are making is quite obviously that the God of the Bible is not real. As I once asked my friend who just passed away, "But what if it's true? What if it's real? What if God did come down to Earth in the person of his son, Jesus, teach many disciples his truth, and give up his own life to pay for our sins?"

FlemGem's explanation is certainly possible, and reasonable. You can't reject arguments just because they run counter to yours the way some fundamentalists have done, or you are no better than they are. (Please note all that I'm not referring to fundamentalists in general here.)

Reason and an open mind are both necessary, and so is a third thing: The willingness to believe the truth, even to seek for it.

God is real, because he gave us the Bible. See, it says so in the Bible.

Something something circular reference.

And if it was true, then we had a creature create us to be his abject slaves, for no other purpose than to adore it. And I'm quite pleased that its not true. Thankfully, its all a pile of crap. The entire idea I find disgusting.

Obi, you continue to ignore the third way. I've presented it here, and I've presented it before. Those who see the Bible as neither "perfect" nor the "transcribed word of God." That fundamentalist view is actually a recent development in Christianity--in the last two centuries, and it is not a view that matches what the Bible claims for itself. I really recommend Timothy Beal's Rise and Fall of the Bible to understand this third way-- a way that is both more mature and more in line with history and fact.

You're absolutely right--Deuteronomy is a legalistic book. It's as if passages from the US Code were recovered thousands of years from now as part of a holy book of the Americans. They would find it tedious, uninteresting, and perhaps even worthy of mockery. So what? Nobody in modern Christianity is spending much time on Deuteronomy. That's not what the religion is about.

Seriously, if you wanted to encourage people to read Shakespeare, would you let them use Titus Andronicus as their standard? How barbaric that work is! That Shakespeare guy is inhumane. Or King Henry Sixth! Tedium! There can't possibly be anything to this Shakespeare guy, if you want to focus on those.

But, no, you'd point them to Macbeth, to Hamlet, to Lear, to Twelfth Night, to Midsummer Night's Dream. In the same way, if you want to talk about the Bible, talk about Genesis, about the Gospels, the Psalms, Isaiah, Job, 1 Samuel and 1 Corinthians.

Your own messiah says that the Law is still completely active and relevant.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished


So all those odious and disturbing things in the Torah? Still completely relevant. Your God says so.

And if you're going to go and say "Well, X doesn't really apply, but Y and Z do"... you must tell me the reasons for that.

And I'm fairly sure that you're choosing to like Y and Z and disregard X because you think they're batshit, and not on any basis in the text. You're picking and choosing the parts you like, and tossing the parts you don't. But if its a holy book, its either all holy, or its all not holy. If you can pick and choose and disregard anything you don't like, then this isn't the Truth. Its whatever you want it to be.

And its that kind of thing that makes people in my camp laugh our asses off. :)

Jack K,
That passage predates the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which is when, in Christian belief, Jesus did "accomplish everything." The Law is no longer binding. I will refer you to the books of Romans and Hebrews if you need further instruction.

It is also not a "holy book." It is a collection of many books. The Catholics have a Bible that is different from the Protestants. In earlier times, there was even more diversity--some Christians embraced the Book of John for instance, while others did not. As far as the Old Testament goes, the OT we have was not formed as it is until barely before the advent of Jesus. The Bible is not a monolithic book. It has been packaged that way for so long that we have forgotten that in reality it is an anthology. It is something akin to the Complete Works of Shakespeare. There are parts that are stronger, parts that are more important, and parts that almost nobody reads. There are segments that have more than one version. There are parts that are of dubious authenticity. That's not an exact analogy, as the Bible was written over many centuries, and not all by the same author.

Oh, good. I'm relieved for you to agree with me that its not a holy book.

So you can say some parts are more important than other parts. How do you determine this?

The answer is, you're picking and choosing the parts you like to support the ideas you already have. So congrats. You still haven't told me why anybody else should buy into your particular interpretation of it, if all interpretations are equally valid.... after all, if all interpretations are equally valid, they're also equally invalid.

So yeah. A bunch of semi-literate yahoos from the desert came out, wrote some stuff down, and we are supposed to give a shit two thousand years later?

I find the entire idea of revelation to be disturbing. Exactly what is the difference between Jesus claiming he was the Messiah, and David Koresh claiming the same?

You know, other than their followers being a bit looney.

Yeah, you're not really interested in what I have to say.

Also, how dare you call Isaiah a semi-literate yahoo? That prophet wrote some of the most powerful poetry, that has survived and inspired millions of people through centuries? Have you ever heard Handel's Messiah? Those amazing lyrics are lifted verbatim from the Bible. The Bible has inspired every great writer from Melville to Steinbeck to Mann. Are you smarter than them?

What arrogance.

You're right dipplayer, some parts of the bible are exceptional and inspirational works of fiction. They send a positive message and have numerous derivative works of great quality.

And if that is all you get out of it, I'm fine with that. I think you're missing something essential, but at least you're not an ignorant, arrogant jackass.

People have been inspired by many works in the past.

Doesn't mean those works have any intrinsic truth to them at all. There are Arabian poetry that is quite beautiful, derived from the Quar'an. Doesn't mean its true.

I can find great beauty in the Illiad, but it doesn't mean I think Aphrodite existed.

So answer me this one. If you're picking and choosing the bits you like, and discarding the bits you don't, why is your book more valid than say... the Qua'ran. What makes your true, and the other not true?

Honestly, if believer's just imposed their own silly ideas on themselves, I'd not have any issue.

But ever day, we see theocratic intrusion on free society. Its not enough that you're free to believe you're superstitions. It must be imposed upon others. It must be brought in the schools, and forced upon all. It demands not equal time, but all time.

Keep your superstitions in your temples, and you will find that I'll be the first to stand at the door against anybody who would come in there and tell you what you can or cannot believe.

The Quran does claim to be a book given direct verbatim from God, all of one piece, which is different from the Bible, as I explained above. The Bible is a collection, for the hundredth time. The Quran, and the Book of Mormon btw, both have a weaker historical and textual position precisely because they claim to be one monolithic piece. The Bible is a buffet.