Love Thy Neighbor

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

Noticing other people's mistakes and problems is probably the easiest thing to do. Forgiving oneself and loving one's self is probably the hardest thing to do. I think that's why we put so many limitation on the phrase, because of our own shortcomings.

Never the less, even if "your neighbor" needs to be chastised, they still deserve to eat and be dealt with compassionately.

I never said it didn't just that too many preach the all happy, happy, joy, joy warm and fuzzy concept of love these days without also pointing out that love also has some harder edges to it.

Any parent knows that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is say, "No," even as it breaks your heart.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

the Jews do it at 8 days old.

Did. Did do those things, but not these days. 'Aint gonna happen, their wives would kill them, these days.

Yes they still do, well not all of them, but some do. My best friend had her son circumcised.

But it reminds me of what Moses' wife did....

Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

She threw it right back on him then left him.

She was allowed to get a divorce from him, her dad Reuel came to visit Moses to ask if they could work it out and apparently not, they didn't seem to be married any more after that.

But it shows that even Moses was fallible, even though he was a great leader. His wife could divorce him and he had to agree to it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I never said it didn't just that too many preach the all happy, happy, joy, joy warm and fuzzy concept of love these days without also pointing out that love also has some harder edges to it.

Oh! I agree. I think that's why it says:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou SHALT in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

You can rebuke and discipline someone without shunning them to the point of starvation, for example. That would be a sin. The scripture warns YOU not to sin while chastising your "brother".

I don't support most of the Old Testament law, as you may already know about me. However, I don't believe that Jesus' teachings supported the death penalty, generally, and there seemed to be some schism in applying it according to the Law of Moses, in the day of Jesus. He criticized the Pharisees, in my opinion, for using the law as they saw fit in a self serving hypocritical way.

Mark 7
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

You can't love your neighbor if you're stoning them to death.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes they still do, well not all of them, but some do. My best friend had her son circumcised.

Oh, okay. I thought we were talking about child brides.

Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

LOL! Good stuff, right there!

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: WarminIndy

Originally posted by Warminindy
To be fair, slavery was common in those days. But the Bible does not allow for mistreatment or cruelty to slaves and a man could not just have sex with a slave girl, he had to manumit her first.

“manumit” lol

You mean make her free, by selling/forcing her, to be a wife…?

You do realise, that girls who weren’t virgins were just immediately killed, according to “Gods commands”, described in Numbers 31…

Numbers 31:17
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

The reason there were Laws against having sex with female slaves, had nothing to do with fair treatment IMO, but was about not defiling them, so that they would remain pure, when the time came to sell them, to their future husbands!!!


- JC

I'm sorry, but that wasn't a law instituted or codified, that was Moses being angry because they had killed every man and burned the cities.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. 20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.

You didn't post the whole thing. Apparently, the women gave the men a sexually transmitted disease...because the men decided to go sleep with the temple prostitutes, Moses was angry and knew that these women were going to die anyway.

Only after this did a law come into effect.

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses; 22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead, 23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water. 24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

This is the law for men who go out fighting.

As cruel as it may seem to us, that was the ancient world, back then it was kill or be killed. For the preservation of groups, sexually transmitted diseases were the same as today, unless you have medication, death is the result.

The war was supposed to be fought against the Midianite men only, but the men slept with the women, got a disease and then Moses had to do what people did back then.

As we read, these were women of Peor

The Peor cult is also called the "celebration of the phallus." This particular cult was really a public orgy. It began with an exhibitionist show of people engaged in various sexual acts. The finale would involve those in the audience joining in. The cult of Peor had the ass as their animal symbol and bestiality was a part of the show.

So there was a group of people performing bestiality and sleeping with a donkey, and Moses had a new group of people that he was trying to get some civility into, these women that he had killed had a sexually transmitted disease.

Some of the first references to sexually transmitted diseases are found in Ancient Babylonia, mainly gonnorhea and syphillis. These diseases were said to be caused by the gods and their mismatches which were shown in the sky by the crab and the scorpion. The chancre sore from syphillis was said to literally be a crab bite. In King Hammurabi's Codes, there is a sexual warning to those who oppose him, that "...an evil disease, a dangerous sore which cannot be cured, which the physicians cannot diagnose, which he cannot allay with bandages, and which like the bit of death cannot be removed; and that he, until he brings his life to an end, may lament the loss of his vigor...curse him, his seed, his land, his army, his people and his troops with an evil curse."

Sounds a little like the Code of Hammurabi.

I think you might just be a little too hard on Moses here, because Hammurabi certainly did the same thing. It was a big deal back then, these women would have died anyway or have gone mad. Remember the world that Moses was from.

a reply to: ketsuko

Any parent knows that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is say, "No," even as it breaks your heart.

Truth. Your statement is correct. Being a parent is the hardest (and most rewarding) job there is.
It is heart-breaking, it is agonizing. But the other side is the overwhelming love you feel for your child - the "magic" of falling in love with them from first sight.......
Yes, we have to administer "discipline" as parents of young kids.
That is the situation for HUMAN parents.

GOD is not a person, not a human 'parent.'

And even if he was, NO GOOD PARENT would threaten their child with abuse or death or abandonment if the child "misbehaved."

a reply to: Akragon
I don't know what all the hilarity is about, isn't it written?

1 Samuel 18:24When Saul’s servants reported what David had said, 25Saul replied, “Here is what you should say to David: ‘There is nothing that the king wants as a price for the bride except a hundred Philistine foreskins, so that he can be avenged of his enemies.’” (Now Saul was thinking that he could kill David by the hand of the Philistines.)

26So his servants told David these things and David agreed to become the king’s son-in-law. Now the specified time had not yet expired 27when David, along with his men, went out and struck down two hundred Philistine men. David brought their foreskins and presented all of them to the king so he could become the king’s son-in-law. Saul then gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

a reply to: windword

'Aint gonna happen, their wives would kill them, these days.

There was a bit of name calling though, even way back when.

Ex 4:24Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me." 26So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood "-- because of the circumcision.

ETA

WarminIndy beat me to that one.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Akragon
I don't know what all the hilarity is about, isn't it written?

1 Samuel 18:24When Saul’s servants reported what David had said, 25Saul replied, “Here is what you should say to David: ‘There is nothing that the king wants as a price for the bride except a hundred Philistine foreskins, so that he can be avenged of his enemies.’” (Now Saul was thinking that he could kill David by the hand of the Philistines.)

26So his servants told David these things and David agreed to become the king’s son-in-law. Now the specified time had not yet expired 27when David, along with his men, went out and struck down two hundred Philistine men. David brought their foreskins and presented all of them to the king so he could become the king’s son-in-law. Saul then gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

He must have really wanted Michal. She turned out to be a little harpy though.

See, the Bible does show us that people back then were like people today, there is nothing new under the sun. But I look at them like what not to do. There are consequences for what we do. If you married the wrong person, terrible things might ensue.

But if you are going to do something, at least do it in a big way.

a reply to: WarminIndy

But I look at them like what not to do.

A few years ago, I was having a forum dialogue with a Gentile ( hope I spelled that right ) Judaism lover who claimed that she also took them as examples of what not to do.

Then I started writing things about David. Our dialog quickly devolved from there.

Based on the Peleset inscriptions, it has been suggested that the Casluhite Philistines formed part of the conjectured "Sea Peoples" who repeatedly attacked Egypt during the later Nineteenth Dynasty.[30][31] Though they were eventually repulsed by Ramesses III, he finally resettled them, according to the theory, to rebuild the coastal towns in Canaan. Papyrus Harris I details the achievements of the reign of Ramesses III. In the brief description of the outcome of the battles in Year 8 is the description of the fate of some of the conjectured Sea Peoples. Ramesses tells us that, having brought the prisoners to Egypt, he "settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year." Some scholars suggest it is likely that these "strongholds" were fortified towns in southern Canaan, which would eventually become the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistines
Philistines Wikipedia

The Philistines were subject to Egypt. They may have been used by Egypt as military force to keep Canaan under Egyptian authority. The Israelite bid for independence would be seen as insurrection by Egypt and the Philistines.

So compare David's actions with Jesus in Roman province of Judea. If a father said to Jesus, "You can marry my daughter, but first bring me the foreskins of 100 Romans." See, comparing David to Jesus very quickly falls apart. Of coarse there are people who do think Jesus was like David.

a reply to: pthena

I don' know who compares Jesus to David (maybe there are some).

But Jesus said "Behold a greater than Solomon is here" and people really thought Solomon was greater than David.

Good thing that in that thousand years between David and Jesus, a lot changed.

(You spelled it right, but that other poster, I still want to remember that one).

a reply to: WarminIndy

Originally posted by Joecroft
You do realise, that girls who weren’t virgins were just immediately killed, according to “Gods commands”, described in Numbers 31…

Numbers 31:17
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Originally posted by Warminindy
I'm sorry, but that wasn't a law instituted or codified, that was Moses being angry because they had killed every man and burned the cities.

Maybe war was unavoidable, hence the command given in Numbers 31 verse 7…

But if that wasn’t a Law by God, (in Numbers 31:17) then that means Moses was acting outside of what God had commanded, by killing every boy and woman …which clearly goes against, “the love thy neighbour” part…especially considering that the battle had all ready been won at that stage…

Not really sure how they (the Israelites) could know, if someone was carrying a fatal STD back in those days, or whether it would have been fatal in all cases…

Originally posted by Warminindy
You didn't post the whole thing. Apparently, the women gave the men a sexually transmitted disease...because the men decided to go sleep with the temple prostitutes, Moses was angry and knew that these women were going to die anyway.

But how could they know back, then that it would lead to definite fatal consequences? And even if they somehow knew in advance that it would lead to death, then why kill the boys…if only the men and woman were taking part in those (sexual) practices…?



- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Do you think STDs are a new phenomenon?

I linked to Hammurabi's law about STDs. And the reason for the boys, in the cult of Ba'al, Peor and Molech, child sex abuse was common. Peor was a phallus cult.

It wasn't just men and women, but men, women, boys and donkeys.