Saturday, October 5, 2013

Deuteronomy Part IV: Just a Few Questions

With ALL of these questions posed in regards to the Bible wouldn't it be nice to be able to access the questions in one place instead of flipping between blog postings? Now you can! The questions for the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch are now in one compilation, and there is no need whatsoever to flip-flop between various posts! Go here for your copy:
http://www.amazon.com/Turkey-Broth-Spirit-Questions-Pentateuch-ebook/dp/B00GVLQ0CY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385651545&sr=8-1&keywords=ester+lighthorse


And the Beat Goes On:
If You Begin Questioning, You MUST Complete Questioning

If you truly desire to have the answers to the things that you question it is extremely important to follow through with your questions. Be sure to review as much as possible of what it is you are questioning. You should not stop with just a few questions since what you will end up with, even if you DO come to see/understand/recognize/discover some of the answers to the questions you posed, stopping at just a few questions will leave you with just a few answers. What is the satisfaction in receiving just a few answers?

Perhaps there are those individuals who would say that there are not answers for everything. Of course, an individual thinking from the other end of that argument would likely respond how do you know that there are not answers to everything unless you ask all of the questions? What will really put your mind into ribbons if you think about it long enough is this: How can you ever know whether or not you have asked all of the questions there are to ask? Is there even a satisfactory answer to that seemingly simple question alone?

In a way, this oddly shaped conversation reminds me of the Tootsie-Roll Pop commercials from when I was a kid, the one with the little kid that asks the tortoise how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Pop. The tortoise says he does not know and to go ask the owl. So, the boy asks the owl his singular question: "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Pop?" What does the owl do? He takes the Tootsie-Roll Pop from the kid and says, "Let's find out."

The owl licks the Tootsie-Roll Pop three times and then bites into it, saying to the kid, "Thuh-reee!" The commercial voice then reiterates the target question and offers an interesting answer: "The world may never know." 

In a very generic approach the style of this line of thinking may be applied to the gaggle of questions that sprout from the Bible and from the faiths that are founded on that same Bible. How many questions must believers/Christians answer before atheists and opponents to the Bible and God are satisfied and thus forced to put a cap on their questions and criticisms? How many questions must atheists and those who do not believe in God or the total truth of the Bible pose to believers/Christians before said believers actually get it through their noggins that not only are a good number of stories/yarns in the Bible totally impossible (like Balaam's donkey talking to Balaam), but that there are also striking similarities between Christianity/the Bible and religious mythologies the world over? When will either the questions posed or the answers returned in regard to the truth of the Bible and the existence of God finally signal that enough is enough? 

The world may never know. Why? Not everyone comes to believe in or refute the Bible and God in the same manner and with reference to the same questions and answers.

Some people need many questions answered before they finally decide that the Bible is pure fantasy with a light sprinkling of possibilities. Some people need only a few questions answered before they are ready to place the entire value of their soul into the supposed loving arms of the Divine as so described in the Bible. Some people do not bother to question God and the Bible but rather believe the entire spiel from the very beginning. Some people refuse to believe on the grounds that the mountains of questions that many within religion refuse to answer (or give crap answers to) are very good, very strong indicators that religion in totality is about as valuable as a giant shitburger. Lovely.

So what can be done to figure out this rat's nest? First try to understand that, as noted above, not everyone who is a believer/Christian will come to their final assessment of the truth and finality of the Bible in the same manner with the same questions. Likewise, atheists and non-believers will not all come to their final assessment of the fiction and absurdity of the Bible in the same manner by the same questions. 

     Secondly, ask questions, lots and lots of questions. Pay full attention to any and all answers given. Be sure to ask as many people as possible. Do not be partial to those who believe in the same manner as you do. 

     Thirdly and lastly, you do want to make the choice that is best for YOU, correct? Yes. That is why you must be sure to hunt down the answers to the questions that bug you the most. The more answers you can glean, the better the decision you will be able to make as far as believing whatever is good for YOU.

     Way too many people treat belief and the associated emotions and mental states with about as much respect and appreciation as the peso garners. Not much. Not much at all.

     Maybe you think it is okay to believe in the total truth of the Bible and the supposed absolute existence of the God of the Bible. Maybe you have found that for whatever questions you had you received adequate, acceptable answers and so choose to believe. What were your questions? What were the answers you received?

     I do not believe that the Bible is anywhere near the truth, and I DO NOT believe in God. These posts cover the many questions I have for each book of the Bible. I do have some answers to some of these questions, but I will not bother to note such answers because my purpose is to hear YOUR answers. 

     I am well aware that there are individuals quite unhappy with my often crass, crude, rude approach to what I think are problems within the arguments for the truth of the Bible and the absolute existence of God. I would like to remind you that people have been asking these questions for just as long as people have been claiming God is real and the Bible is the literal truth. 

     Unfortunately, many of those who offer answers talk in circles and riddles, refusing to give definitive responses. Some people seem to be happier simply ignoring the questions. I am tired of some of the people who believe running from the questions. Screw that. So now, what I choose to do is present the questions I have in such an aggravating manner that people will be driven, forced to answer questions both large and small. 

     I often use profanity, slang terms, purposely distorted descriptions and representations of what is in the Bible and Who God is supposed to be. And why not? Why not warp and distort what is in the Bible and Who it stands for? I can even say with great confidence (and recorded history backs up this claim) that the proponents of the Bible and of the faiths founded on the Bible or the monotheistic ideals of Abrahamic religions have many MANY times, and quite unabashedly so, made use of distortions great and small in misguided efforts to recruit as many people as possible into a faith/belief system that often takes far more than it gives. 

     Sometimes people ask me if I hate Christians or believers and God/Jesus/LORD. I think they ask this question mainly because they misinterpret the purpose of my questioning to be an evil effort to turn as many people as possible away from God, or to rook people who already believe out of their faith. Nope. I write the way I do specifically to ruffle whatever feathers possible in order to elicit from believers the answers I seek. If that is what I must do to get some freaking real, valid, truthful, stable and verifiable answers, dammit, I WILL DO IT. Sometimes people get pissed off enough to actually grow some balls and at least attempt to answer some of the questions. So, I am relaying to you why I do not believe. Return the favor. Tell me WHY you believe.

And now...the next installment for the questions I have for the book of Deuteronomy.

1. 21:1-4
If in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess someone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him,

then your elders and your judges shall come out, and they shall measure the distance to the surrounding cities.


And the elders of the city that is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer that has never been worked and that has not pulled in a yoke.


And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley.


Questions

     1) HOW does breaking the neck of a heifer in a valley with running water solve the mystery of who killed the fellow lying dead in the field?

     2) Why is the heifer killed? Go step-by-step and explain to me, tell me how killing the heifer benefits the situation where a man has been found dead and no one knows what happened? HOW DOES THIS WORK? I mean, if killing a heifer will help to reveal the killer...well, why not kill a whole bunch of heifers to find out who killed Hoffa, who really killed Kennedy, who killed King Tut, who killed Lizzy Borden's parents, who killed the Black Dahlia...doesn't this list go on and on?


     3) Sooo...how complete was the investigation by the authorities here? How hard did these guys look for clues as to who or what may have killed the dead man?



2. 21:10-11
10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,

11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife...


Questions

     1) Well, what have we here but a fine example of what God really thought of women in the Old Testament?

     2) Why don't people still do this today? Do you suppose that after the Gulf Wars it would have been acceptable for the victors to take the most beautiful women from those that were defeated?

     3) This was a real command from God to His people, so since it came directly from God shouldn't people be able to follow this divine edict today without suffering the wrath of God? Well, I suppose the wrath of man and these 'things' called laws might be suffered, but so long as God is cool with it a person is good to go?

     4) If God's words stand forever and never wither or fade away does that then mean that it does not matter at what point in history God says whatever He said, that it does not matter to any cultural reference it may have been intended to be applied to, and it does not matter whether or not such an edict is contrary to current laws and moral considerations?



3. 21:16-17
16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn,

17 but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first fruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.


Questions

     1) Uhmmm...did Abraham know of this heavenly edict when he treated Ishmael shabbily, even forcing Ishmael and his mother to flee?

     2) Did Abraham's wife know of this? I bet she did. So, why did God allow her to disregard Ishmael who was the rightful heir instead of Isaac? Well, actually since the man in the family has the last say Abe cannot pass this one to his wife. By not doing what he should have done Abe made himself responsible. Sure, he gave Ishmael some door prize blessings, but they were nothing like those he gave to Isaac, the second born. Isn't that right?

     3) Sooo...the right of the firstborn is his? Are you sure? If that is the case and if God sees it as so ever-loving important then WHY did He allow Jacob to trick Esau out of his birthright? The Bible says Esau was faint from hunger, but his asshole brother Jacob would not give him the freaking food he needed to survive unless Esau pledged his birthright for a bowl of stew. Nice. Why did God allow that exchange to stand when it clearly was NOT honest and Esau agreed under duress and fear for his life?

4. 21:20-21
20 and they shall say to 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 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear


Questions

     1) Do I have children? Yes. I have children, and when they were younger teens oh my LORD I tell you there were a few times I was sure they were trying very hard to make me bonkers. But overall the vast majority of the time they were wonderful and still are. When my children disobeyed or were stubborn does this mean that back in fairy tale Bible times both of my children would have been stoned?

     2) Did I ever become frustrated with them? Yes, a very few times. Are they still considered by God to be eligible for death by stoning? 

     3) Were there ever any times when what I perceived as their willful stubbornness,  purposely wanton eye-rolls, squinty-eyed glares, and loud sighs drove me right up to the edge and very nearly over? Not very many times, but yes I did experience that. Would God STILL condemn my children...for doing nothing more than being normal adolescents?

     4) Sooo...considering the edicts of the divine in relation to proper respect and treatment of parents by their child would my children have been condemned to be stoned?

     5) Do you think it is possible that when Jesus said, "Suffer the little children unto me," (thereby making people think it is perfectly normal for children to be mistreated; in fact, don't worry about the children at all since if they die as a result of being mistreated they go directly to Jesus) that He was actually providing 'cover' for His Father, Who by all accounts did not know what the f**k He was doing when it came to children, and thus regularly mistreated them? 


5. 22:5
A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

Questions
     1) Is this verse referring to the garments that men wore about their hips and loins? The priests' garments? What?



6. 22:9-12
You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole yield be forfeited, the crop that you have sown and the yield of the vineyard.

10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

12 You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

Questions
     1) These verses are amongst the more hilarious and entertaining, right? Don't mix the grape seed? Is that because the wines from various types of grapes each have distinct tastes and they want to keep them separate?

     2) An ox and a donkey may not plow together? Why? Is it because one is stronger than the other? Do they not get along? Does each animal have an assigned duty based on animal type and capabilities?

     3) Do not mix the garments? You mean like wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants or separating the lights and darks when doing laundry? 

     4) What is the deal with the tassels? Is their purpose to spruce-up the fashion statement of God's people?


7. 22:17
17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 

Questions
     1) Evidence of virginity? Is that something that applies only to the women, and if so why?


8. 22:20-21
20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman,

21 The woman must be taken to the door of her father's home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents' home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.

Questions
     1) How is that for airing out your dirty laundry for all to see?

     2) I wonder how many women would have been able to hold onto their lives instead of being stoned to death if people knew that all women do not bleed just because they are having sex for the first time?

9. 22:28-29
28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Questions
     1) These verses are SO fucked up in so many ways, right? Sooo...a man who rapes a woman will be afforded the opportunity to marry her? And this is a command/decree issued by God?

     2) Sooo...isn't it true that in an earlier post in this series we discussed the command where God said that if a woman grabbed the testicles of a man attacking her husband, even though her intentions were to render aid to her husband, that woman must be put to death?

     3) Why is there no balance here? The testicle grabbing woman has her hand CUT OFF even though her intentions were good, but the man who wilfully, and with obvious bad intent who rapes a woman comes away from the situation not only fifty shekels of silver lighter, BUT he has the option to acquire another wife as an excellent door prize?

     4) You know what I am going to put next, right? Now, take a deep breath...now THINK. If God's commands never fade in their justness and righteousness, if the law of the LORD is perfect in every way for all of eternity, if, "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work," (II Timothy 3:16-17) why don't believers follow such a thing in modern times?

10. 22:30
30 “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.

Questions
     1) A man cannot take his father's wife, but God allows that that same man may procreate with his freaking sister or other close relative?

     2) God is concerned with a man uncovering his father's nakedness but seemingly shows ZERO concern for a woman uncovering her father's nakedness, such as when Lot's daughters seduced their father so that they might conceive? 


11. 23:1-3
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD. 

No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever,

Questions
     1) I think that the most obvious question here is whether or not God meant a man's entire penis had been cut off, or perhaps just a skin sample? I mean, remember that the people of Israel have been instructed by God to circumcise all of the males? 

     2) Does God have an aversion to maimed or crippled individuals paying homage to Him?

     3) If God is fair and just and loves everyone why is He constantly creating situations or requirements that end up separating people into groups of who has the right to worship Him and and who does not?

     4) If God wants EVERYONE to know Him why does He impress disqualification after disqualification? Isn't God supposed to be just? Is this just?

     5) Is God a racist considering that He is singling out certain peoples? Is it a divine case of xenophobia?

     6) God says the Ammonite and the Moabite may NEVER come before Him, right? It DOES say FOREVER, doesn't it? Sooo...does this mean that all of these descendants may never know God? Does it mean that these descendants may not know salvation?

     7) It DOES say forever, right? I know I keep harping on this but it DOES require attention, because again we are faced with problems in the supposed infallibility of God's Word, correct? Almost every single well-versed Christian that I ask about this says that the New Testament is the NEW covenant with man, thus the whacko instructions in the Old Testament no longer apply. The Blood of Jesus takes care of everything. Oh, and by the way, the use of the word 'whacko' is my insertion.
     But...wouldn't that mean that God's Words and instructions of the Old Testament have withered and faded away so that God can create yet another covenant or agreement? If God's words in the Old Testament are absolute truth WHY would God/Jesus/Holy Spirit find the need to hew out another trap-riddled agreement with man?
     Let's do a little thought exercise here, okay? So, if something is not broken is there any need to fix it or try to offer any kind of repair? Would attempting to fix something that is not broken be considered a waste of time? Considering the purposed perfect and precise nature of God (which out of necessity would dictate that God NEVER wastes anything) why in the big blue yonder would He find the need to create ANOTHER, NEWER covenant UNLESS something was not quite right with the old one?


12. 24:16
16 Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Questions
     1) Sooo...if children are NOT to be put to death on account of their father, WHY are the children of God frequently on the receiving end of corporal punishment when in many situations their failings may be directly linked to some highly important tidbit of information that God (the Father) PURPOSELY did not tell them or that they did not even know existed?

     2) Wouldn't such be putting children to death (the people of Israel) for the sin of their Father (God)?

     3) Each one shall be put to death for their own sin? Did Abel sin? Wasn't Abel put to death, if by the hand of his brother? Didn't Cain sin? Why didn't Cain suffer the consequence of death for his sin?

     4) Did Jesus sin? If everyone is supposed to die for their own sin WHY did Jesus die for sins He never committed?

     5) If Jesus really did die on the cross for all the sins of man, doesn't such totally deflate the idea that God's Word stands forever? How? Well, if Jesus is dying for the sins of others then it is no longer true that each person dies for their own sin, right?

     6) Considering question five directly above doesn't it logically follow out of necessity that God's Word, at least some of it, does fade after all?


13. 25:3
Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.

Questions
     1) Forty lashes, huh? He we go with that number of numbers yet again...forty! 

     2) Why does it seem like God/the LORD goes out of His way to inject as much violence as possible into the instructions He provides for His people?

     3) By surrounding His own people with so much death, is God/the LORD trying to toughen up, desensitize His people to death and murder so that one day they may kill everyone on the planet who thinks or believes differently than they do and once done with that may finally take over this planet?


14. 25:7-10
But if the man refuses to marry his brother's widow, she must go to the town gate and say to the elders assembled there, 'My husband's brother refuses to preserve his brother's name in Israel--he refuses to fulfill the duties of a brother-in-law by marrying me.'

Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’

then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’

10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’

Questions
     1) Whenever the people of Israel have problems and issues they are shown as traveling down to the town gates to confer with the elders. Why are the elders seemingly always loitering at the town gates?

     2) What the hell kind of off the wall ritual has a woman remove a man's sandal before spitting in his face?

     3) Where in the world is the righteousness in trying to force one man to marry his deceased brother's wife so that he may impregnate her with children that will never be considered as his own? And God WONDERS why people want nothing to do with Him?


15. 25:11-12
11 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts,

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Questions
   1) So tell me...if the woman's only option to help defend and save her husband is to seize the attacker by his 'nads, but she does not wish to have her hand chopped off and refrains from helping her husband would she then be condemned for doing nothing to help her husband? Would she be shown NO PITY on the grounds she was not faithful to her husband in defending him? 


16. 26:17-19
17 You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice.

18 And the LORD has declared today that you are a people for his treasured possession, as he has promised you, and that you are to keep all his commandments,

19 and that he will set you in praise and in fame and in honor high above all nations that he has made, and that you shall be a people holy to the LORD your God, as he promised.”

Questions
     1) Isn't it the LORD God Who is declaring that the LORD God is the God of the people of Israel?

     2) Why is God making this announcement instead of His people making the announcement?

     3) Sooo...God treats His people as though they are treasure? Is leading His people in circles in the desert for forty years treating His people like treasure?

     4) Don't these verses sound suspiciously similar to the verses where Jesus is being tempted in the desert by Satan, and where Satan promises to give Jesus a laundry list of voon-der-bar benefits so long as Jesus will bow down to Satan and do Satan's bidding?

     5) How did Jesus respond to Satan? Wasn't it something like, "Get thee behind me?" Jesus wanted NOTHING to do with Satan's offer. Man is not in that much of a different position as God is promising His people all sorts of kick-ass benefits if His people will only follow Him, right?


17. 27:9
Then Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, “Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the LORD your God.

Questions
     1) Sooo...I take it this was not a democratic approach, right? I mean, considering all of the horrible bullshit and mental and physical trauma God/the LORD has put his people through I very highly doubt that the people would be all that excited to place themselves in the charge of the schizophrenic God of the Bible, right?

     2) What would you say to a man who says to you, "If you promise to feed me and clothe me and sustain me I promise NOT to burn down your house?? What makes it any different when God says it? 


18. 27:19-20, 22
19 Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

20 Cursed be anyone who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s nakedness.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.

22 Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Questions
     1) Does God mean the justice due an alien or orphan or widow who believes in and only worships the LORD God? Because if that isn't the case God has a lot of explaining to do to the aliens and orphans and widows of the towns God ordered to be completely destroyed a couple of chapters back, right? And all the people say, Bullshit.

     2) Does God mean that the man who is intimate with his father's wife is doomed, but the man who impregnates his sister (Abraham did marry his half-sister which resulted in Isaac being born) is good to go since that was a common thing for people to do way back in antiquity? And all the people say, Bullshit.

     3) Sooo...incest was okay so long as it was in the first couple of thousand years after God created the earth and needed people to multiply? And all the people say, Bullshit.


http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ester+lighthorse

https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/


http://toleratingaggressivereligioushumor.blogspot.com/

http://realbookofrevelation.blogspot.com/

https://sites.google.com/site/esterlighthorse/theopoly

http://www.zazzle.com/smartytwoshoes




1 comment:

Ester Lighthorse said...

The inference in question two is that there has been NO CONSENT given by the woman. Surely there is a brave Christian out there willing to explain this. Come on, guys. No cop-out here. This IS what you believe, so DEFEND IT.