A really hard question on Satan and deception.

[mooeypoo]

Even though I'm not currently religious, I still find many of Jesus's and other religious figure's moral teachings good.

 

I find some good, some horrific, some so-so. I find the discussions that they cause incredibly satisfying.

 

 

As long as we're sharing our belief systems, for the record, I'm an agnostic atheist. I believe I can't say definitively that there is no god just like I can't say there is one (that's where the "agnostic" part comes in), HOWEVER, I also believe that the existence of god is irrelevat -- according to everything we know, nature operates independently of divine intervention, so I'm quite satisfied with the knowledge that "according to everything we know, the possibility of god's existence is so minute, it's irrelevant."

 

But again, I believe not only in remaining open minded,but also that the mere discussion itself is more important than the answer. By discussing ethics, we improve our own ethics.

 

Certainly. You have to be careful of unworkable rhetoric though.

 

Turn the other cheek. ------ Great for inconsequential. What are you to do if a man rapes your wife? Offer your daughter.

 

Divorce. Let no man put asunder.------Even if a woman gets beat twice a week?

 

The greatest command. Love your neighbor as yourself.-----Can you be commanded to draw out emotions like love and hate. No.

 

Love, to be true love has to be shared and must have deeds attached to be true love.

 

You cannot love who you do not know. I love Shania Twain. She does not know me so that love is not true love.

 

Rhetoric is great as long as you do not analyze it.

 

See what I mean?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

I see EXACTLY what you mean, and I completely agree. I do want to point out, though, that a lot of the rules in the bible depend on context, both about what they're refering to and about the time they were written.

 

Today, we find the idea that you should offer a raped woman to her attacker appalling. However, and I say this while being appalled, but still, we should consider the fact that 2000+ years ago, especially in the semi-nomadic tribal culture that the bible refers to in its rules, a woman who's not a virgin is unfit to marry. No man would take her. This also means no man will take *care* of her, since back then the only way for women to be really taken care of is by their husbands. They did not own their own flock or property or land. So while, again, I'm extremely appalled at this rule, still worth mentioning that it was meant for that type of population, and the purpose of it was to make sure the attacker is now responsible for the woman he defiled.

 

Rarely did men and women marry out of real love back then, the marriages were mostly a "transaction" -- unity of families, transaction of flocks, etc. Men wanted maidens, because that means they are "pure", and can give them children (and have no one else's children). A defiled woman was cast aside, or, at the very least, had A LOT of problems.

 

As much as it pains me to say so, the main idea behind this appalling rule was mercy.

 

Today this rule is ridiculously offensive, harmful and appalling. 2000 years ago, maybe not.

 

It's all about context, and part of the reason I have a lot of problem with literalists is that they take rules that were "okay" 2000 years ago and say they are valid today.

 

~mooey