Donate SIGN UP

The More I Learn About This Religion Lark, The More I Hate It.

Avatar Image
wildwood | 05:32 Sun 08th May 2016 | Religion & Spirituality
69 Answers
A popular ploy by the learned religious to excuse the unpopular bible parts seems to be that "one must not take certain passage in the bible and take them to be as read".

I'd like someone to explain away the Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 69rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by wildwood. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It just goes to show the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
What's there to explain ? The tribe shall have members obedient to the rules under threat of execution. As people become more civilised more and more realise it's wrong until few are still claiming that, that's the way to deal with them.
Well put OG.
Wildwood...one of my favourite excuses that I hear religious people trot out is "God moves in mysterious ways "

In other words.....sorry, I haven't a clue !
//A popular ploy by the learned religious//

I think the 'learned religious' are very few and far between. Many know very little about the literature of the religion they profess to follow.
I have always loved how the parents are to tell the elders that the son is a glutton and a drunkard regardless of whether that is the truth.

Moreover it doesn't matter what the parents tell him to do. No room for the son to express his own sense of morality.

Contrary to the claims of the religious, the Bible is not a worthy source of moral guidance. Quite the opposite.
And what about the bit that says a rapist can be allowed to get away with rape if he marries the victim ? Perfect way to get to marry a woman whom you fancy who doesn't fancy you - rape her, then she has no choice, or they both get punished by death !
Mind you, I like the bit which forbids any man who has any bodily imperfections from becoming a priest. No glasses, no diseases or missing bits - priests have to be perfectly formed.
-- answer removed --
This is the word of the lord.

Be just as well saying 'This is the voice of the Mysterons, we know that you can hear us Earthmen'.

It's all fiction, invented for control and profit.
Question Author
The tax free status of commercial run businesses really gets on my goat. Most of it is siphoned off towards the' headoffice' of each religion and provides ostentatious luxury for a few.
Scholars tell us that the core of Deuteronomy was composed in Jerusalem in the 7th century BC.
That was a long time ago old son. It wasn't so long back that we were hang, drawing and quartering folk, and spiking their heads on the gates of London. We've moved on, - do yourself a favour and don't worry about it.
Although the bible is referred to as the 'word of god' I don't think there is any evidence that that is the case even accepting that god might exist. The only words directly attributable to god in the bible are the 10 commandments which themselves are a reduced and edited version of the alleged original. The old testament is simply a history of the Jews. Why anybody would consider using the behaviour of one ancient society as opposed to any other as an example of moral righteousness I cannot imagine, we might just as well use the Mayans or Mongols as a blueprint for a just and moral society.
"shall stone him with stones". As opposed to stoning him with, what, fluffy teddy bears?
Doing a bit of quick research I discovered it (above) should properly be called drawing, hanging and quartering as the condemned was drawn to the place of execution, tied to the hurdle or sledge which was dragged by a horse. This is confirmed by contemporary law books. Drawing does not refer to the removal of the intestines in this context and remained part of the sentence for High Treason long after the disembowelling and dismemberment had ceased. The hurdle was similar to a piece of fencing made from thin branches interwoven to form a panel to which the prisoner was tied to be dragged behind a horse to the place of execution. Once there, the prisoner(s) were hanged in the normal way (i.e. without a drop to ensure that the neck was not broken) but cut down whilst still conscious. The penis and testicles were cut off and the stomach was slit open. The intestines and heart were removed and burned before them. The other organs were torn out and finally the head was cut off and the body divided into four quarters. The head and quarters were parboiled to prevent them rotting too quickly and then displayed upon the city gates as a grim warning to all.
At some point in this agonising process, the prisoner inevitably died of strangulation and/or haemorrhage and/or shock and damage to vital organs.

This was nothing at all to do with religion of course, but was the punishment for treason. It began in the 13th cent. and was last carried out (amazingly) in 1782 and was not abolished until 1867.

I think, given the option, I'd go for the stoning!

Probably a problem with the translation Jim.

Well Khan, it you would prefer that option I think there are places in the world you can still go try it if you wish.
Exodus 21 (just after the 10 commandments)

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free
How does one buy, rather than employ, a servant ?
OG; I would personally go for the "double stoning", i.e. my last wish would be for a bottle of scotch before commencement, but unfortunately in those places you are thinking of, alcohol is banned too.
OG "How does one buy, rather than employ, a servant ? "I think in this context we are referring to slaves rather than servants, they are bought from their "owner".
Oh, it means slavery OG, that's OK apparently.

I can even sell my daughter into sexual slavery, again immediately after the 10 commandments so it must be acceptable.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."

1 to 20 of 69rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The More I Learn About This Religion Lark, The More I Hate It.

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.