Furrycatherder moved from Freethinker forum

FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Furrycatherder moved from Freethinker forum

MOD EDIT: THIS POST MOVED FROM FREETHINKING ANONYMOUS.  THEISTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POSTS IN FREETHINKING ANONYMOUS.

 

 

ex-minister wrote:
What you talkin' bout, AE? Isn't the sermon on the mount platitudes and things of this nature more evolved than the brutal Levitical laws? Your premise intrigues me. Tell me more.

Which brutal Levitical laws?

Oh, the ones you don't understand either.  Like, if you own a farm, you have to leave something for poor people to come and pick so they don't starve.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3269
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
What you talkin' bout, AE? Isn't the sermon on the mount platitudes and things of this nature more evolved than the brutal Levitical laws? Your premise intrigues me. Tell me more.

Which brutal Levitical laws?

Oh, the ones you don't understand either.  Like, if you own a farm, you have to leave something for poor people to come and pick so they don't starve.

if i were a poor person's kid, i think i'd want my folks to forego the fruit if it also meant i could disagree with mom or dad and not be killed in the worst way possible for it. (deut. 21.18-21)

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
What you talkin' bout, AE? Isn't the sermon on the mount platitudes and things of this nature more evolved than the brutal Levitical laws? Your premise intrigues me. Tell me more.

Which brutal Levitical laws?

Oh, the ones you don't understand either.  Like, if you own a farm, you have to leave something for poor people to come and pick so they don't starve.

Sharing with the poor - what a divine concept - no one human could have thunk that up, only G-d.

 

Oh, do you not comprehend what stoning to death means?

In case you need a refresher here is a modern day Islamic stoning. This is what Judaism was like at the time of Moses.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9eb_1293414372

 

Tell me which ones of the list below are not brutal and if so what ones should be law today?

 

 

Things the Torah says you can be put to stoned to death for :

 if you are a medium (Lev 20:27)  <<<=== do you believe in mediums?

 if you blaspheme Jehovah's name (Lev 24:16)  <<<== This nullifies what you said

 if you worship a different god (Deu 13:6-10)  <<<=== This nullifies what you said

 if you rebel against your parents (Deu 21:18-21)

 if you are a drunk (Deu 21:18-21)

 if you are a woman who is not a virgin when she marries (Deu 22:20,21)

 if you are gay (Lev 20:13)

 if you work on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-26)

 if you are a witch (Lev 20:27)  <<<=== Do you believe in witches ?

 if you are a woman and you didn't scream loud enough when you raped (Deu 22:23-24) 

 

For this burning to death is the punishment. Are you saying burning someone to death is not brutal?

 if your father is a priest and you become a prostitute (Lev 21:9)

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

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

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't forget slavery

ex-minister wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
What you talkin' bout, AE? Isn't the sermon on the mount platitudes and things of this nature more evolved than the brutal Levitical laws? Your premise intrigues me. Tell me more.

Which brutal Levitical laws?

Oh, the ones you don't understand either.  Like, if you own a farm, you have to leave something for poor people to come and pick so they don't starve.

Sharing with the poor - what a divine concept - no one human could have thunk that up, only G-d.

 

Oh, do you not comprehend what stoning to death means?

In case you need a refresher here is a modern day Islamic stoning. This is what Judaism was like at the time of Moses.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9eb_1293414372

 

Tell me which ones of the list below are not brutal and if so what ones should be law today?

 

 

Things the Torah says you can be put to stoned to death for :

 if you are a medium (Lev 20:27)  <<<=== do you believe in mediums?

 if you blaspheme Jehovah's name (Lev 24:16)  <<<== This nullifies what you said

 if you worship a different god (Deu 13:6-10)  <<<=== This nullifies what you said

 if you rebel against your parents (Deu 21:18-21)

 if you are a drunk (Deu 21:18-21)

 if you are a woman who is not a virgin when she marries (Deu 22:20,21)

 if you are gay (Lev 20:13)

 if you work on the Sabbath (Num 15:32-26)

 if you are a witch (Lev 20:27)  <<<=== Do you believe in witches ?

 if you are a woman and you didn't scream loud enough when you raped (Deu 22:23-24) 

 

For this burning to death is the punishment. Are you saying burning someone to death is not brutal?

 if your father is a priest and you become a prostitute (Lev 21:9)

 

 

 

 

 

That's in the OT, also. Worth pointing out there are also rules there that make sense/made sense that weren't violent in any way.  

Personally, I don't think there's any value in attempting to elevate the social mores of the Levant circa 1500BC to the giddy heights of modern social democracy. 

Things were harsh then and that's the way it was and such behaviour would be unthinkable now.

Today's muslim stonings are profoundly abhorrent to me. Especially given it is applied to arbitrary moral failures. And most always to women by men. Jesus/Paul got that one right. 

Ex-min, all I am referring too is the core doctrine of my evangelical upbringing. Humans are born into sin and unless they repent they will be cast into a lake of fire. 

Inherited sin, in this case eating fruit offered by a gabbling boa constrictor, is passed down by some supernatural evolutionary process (snicker) and ensures the eternal torture of all sinners (skeptics). 

My disbelief centres around the fact the god I perceive in the bible is an intolerant monster who can't bear the humanity he supposedly loves. I was just having fun with it. 

Conversely, my family, who embrace original sin, are able to rationalise all god's acts as being our own fault. We are evil, he is perfectly just. We cannot question. To do so is pride = lake of fire. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
That's in the OT, also. Worth pointing out there are also rules there that make sense/made sense that weren't violent in any way.  

Personally, I don't think there's any value in attempting to elevate the social mores of the Levant circa 1500BC to the giddy heights of modern social democracy.

Nor is there any value in pretending the OT has any relation to such things. It is contrary to all the available evidence with none in its favor.

Quote:
Things were harsh then and that's the way it was and such behaviour would be unthinkable now.

Today's muslim stonings are profoundly abhorrent to me. Especially given it is applied to arbitrary moral failures. And most always to women by men. Jesus/Paul got that one right.

As I have often noted Islam is Judaism Lite. Compared to Judaism, Islam has only a few crimes for which that is punishment while even a cursory romp through the Torah will quickly use up all the fingers and toes tallying them. As for implementing them, that only ended in Europe after the Treaty of Westphalia when civil law replaced religious law within religious communities. The last gasp was in Romania in the late 19th c. when Shtetl executions for violations of the Torah were finally prohibited.

Quote:
Ex-min, all I am referring too is the core doctrine of my evangelical upbringing. Humans are born into sin and unless they repent they will be cast into a lake of fire. 

Inherited sin, in this case eating fruit offered by a gabbling boa constrictor, is passed down by some supernatural evolutionary process (snicker) and ensures the eternal torture of all sinners (skeptics). 

My disbelief centres around the fact the god I perceive in the bible is an intolerant monster who can't bear the humanity he supposedly loves. I was just having fun with it. 

Conversely, my family, who embrace original sin, are able to rationalise all god's acts as being our own fault. We are evil, he is perfectly just. We cannot question. To do so is pride = lake of fire. 

Try God Hates You Hate Him Back Making Sense of The Bible CJ Werleman.epub It is rather superficial but it makes the main points.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
As long as we're having fun with Bible interpretation...

 

...here are a couple of favorites of mine.

 

1. Read 2 Cor 13:13 (the very last verse in the letter.)  Observe how "God" is distinguished from both "the Lord Jesus Christ" on the one hand, and "the holy Spirit" on the other.  Does this mean that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are God?  Just asking.

 

2. Also in the "just asking" department...read 1 Tim 1:1.  Note how it is "God" and not "Jesus" who is called Savior.  So...in addition to not being God, now Jesus isn't Savior, either?

 

3. Read Gen 2:18-25.  Bear in mind as you are reading, that 1) this is all one story, and 2) this story is about Adam's sexual loneliness.  Do not skip verses 18-19.  In a word: Ewww.  (And to think: this was "God's" *first* idea to solve Adam's loneliness!)

 

4. Read the Song of Songs.  Yes, the whole thing.  It won't take you that long.  Remember all of those "metaphorical" readings through the centuries.  (You know...it's about the Sabbath, or it's about Christ and his Church, or it's about Christ and the individual soul...that kind of thing.)  Now understand that The New Jerome Bible Commentary (...sorry, I can't seem to get the italics to work...) actually admits that this poem...is similar to Egyptian erotic poetry...which isn't supposed to be read metaphorically.  Which means that, in all likelihood, the author of the Song of Songs...meant what he/she wrote...literally.  Kind of changes the experience of reading it, no?

Conor Wilson

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh...and one more:

Here's Isaiah 13:9, as presented in the New American Bible.

 

"Lo, the day of the Lord comes,

   cruel, with wrath and burning anger;

To lay waste the land

   and destroy the sinners with it!"

Okay...we've got this...sinners need to die.  <<<SIGH>>>  It's not as if we can expect better from the Bible.  But now look at this more famous verse:

 

"all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God."  Rom 3:23, of course.

 

Great.  "God" just gave himself, and the more ruthless members of His flock...an excuse to kill literally anybody.

 

Conor Wilson

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:4. Read

Conor Wilson wrote:

4. Read the Song of Songs.  Yes, the whole thing.  It won't take you that long.  Remember all of those "metaphorical" readings through the centuries.  (You know...it's about the Sabbath, or it's about Christ and his Church, or it's about Christ and the individual soul...that kind of thing.)  Now understand that The New Jerome Bible Commentary (...sorry, I can't seem to get the italics to work...) actually admits that this poem...is similar to Egyptian erotic poetry...which isn't supposed to be read metaphorically.  Which means that, in all likelihood, the author of the Song of Songs...meant what he/she wrote...literally.  Kind of changes the experience of reading it, no?

Shir Ha'Shirim is porn.

Don't like it?  Don't read it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I always like the songs

 

Tho' it probably should have been 'the way of maid with a man' and not the other way around...the way of a man with a maid is clangingly obvious. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Tho'

Atheistextremist wrote:

Tho' it probably should have been 'the way of maid with a man' and not the other way around...the way of a man with a maid is clangingly obvious. 

So it is.  So it is Smiling

But as a friend told the guy I seem to have recently broken up with "If you don't do anything, she won't do anything back."  Which is why I like women who have the sexual appetite of teenaged boys.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm a little confused, FurryCatHerder...

1. I never said "I don't like the Song of Songs."  Oh, I don't *believe* any of it, in any religious way, but I was attempting to demonstrate that the Bible can be very entertaining reading, when bearing in mind the conclusions (...pardon the expression...) that Christians sloppily draw from their favorite book.

 

2. You referred to "Shir Ha'Shirim;" in context, I take it that this is the title, in Hebrew, of the Song of Songs.  You also referred to it as "porn."  The only other person that I have heard so refer to that book was a Latter-Day Saint.  So the question arises: are you LDS?  (I hope you don't mind me asking.  If you do, just say so, and I'll move on.)

 

Conor

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm a little confused, FurryCatHerder...

EDIT: Deleted accidental multiple post.

 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm a little confused, FurryCatHerder...

EDIT: *Another* deleted multiple post.  Apologies to the mods.

 

Conor


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:1. I

Conor Wilson wrote:

1. I never said "I don't like the Song of Songs."  Oh, I don't *believe* any of it, in any religious way, but I was attempting to demonstrate that the Bible can be very entertaining reading, when bearing in mind the conclusions (...pardon the expression...) that Christians sloppily draw from their favorite book.

2. You referred to "Shir Ha'Shirim;" in context, I take it that this is the title, in Hebrew, of the Song of Songs.  You also referred to it as "porn."  The only other person that I have heard so refer to that book was a Latter-Day Saint.  So the question arises: are you LDS?  (I hope you don't mind me asking.  If you do, just say so, and I'll move on.)

Judaism isn't a prudish religion.  Right now, on a Friday evening, there are millions of Jewish couples getting ready to get busy for no other reason that it's the Sabbath.

Read the book for whatever you get out of it.  Which is why a nice bottle of wine or other adult beverage may be in order.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Judaism

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Judaism isn't a prudish religion.

 

 

Hell no Judiasm isn't a prudish religion !  

Just look at the breeding habits of Abraham ( married his half sister then had conjugals with the maid ), Jacob / Israel ( married two sisters who were also his first cousins and then with the approval of his wives he even diddled their two female servants ) David and Solomon who between them had so many wives and concubines I doubt they even bothered to learn their names. 

Am I leaving out any other noteworthy marital arrangements Furry ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Judaism

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Judaism isn't a prudish religion.  Right now, on a Friday evening, there are millions of Jewish couples getting ready to get busy for no other reason that it's the Sabbath.

 

Doesn't that count as work?  Or do they just hire goys to do it for them on Friday?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Judaism isn't a prudish religion.

Hell no Judiasm isn't a prudish religion !  

Just look at the breeding habits of Abraham ( married his half sister then had conjugals with the maid ), Jacob / Israel ( married two sisters who were also his first cousins and then with the approval of his wives he even diddled their two female servants ) David and Solomon who between them had so many wives and concubines I doubt they even bothered to learn their names. 

Am I leaving out any other noteworthy marital arrangements Furry ?

Polygyny was pretty common until the Christian church got their hands on things -- Jews engaged in polygyny until after the Church took to killing Jews who practiced it.  If you look at the historical life expectancy of men, even ignoring deaths during war, there was going to be the need for men to have more than one wife, assuming all the women were married (I know, not a safe assumption, but ...)

My recollection of Sharia is that Islam tidied things up a bit and insisted that there not be "favored" wives, which is nonsense.  I can't imaging a man having two wives and not preferring one over the other.  But sometimes rules are meant as guidelines, not absolutes.

As for the consanguinity of their marriages, at the time of Abraham, the global population was, as I recall, about 7 to 10 million.  By 5000 to 4000BCE most of the Earth was inhabited, so it isn't like they all lived next door to each other.  Small towns still have major issues with consanguinity -- an ex-lover of mine went to a wedding in which the bride and groom only got around to discovering they were second cousins AT the wedding.  I mean they GOT TO THE CHURCH and found this out.  One of my other ex's is from the same small town as a friend's family.  They are apparently 3rd cousins and have never met.  I'm not concerned about consanguinity in ancient times -- my guess is natural selection solved the problem: people with genetic defects just didn't reproduce because they just plain died.  That's the real reason not to marry too closely -- increased risk of passing on genetic defects since both parents are more likely to be carriers.  Now we do everything possible to prevent genetic defects from resulting in death and we've got people with some pretty nasty genetic issues passing those genes along.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Isn't any of what you typed

Isn't any of what you typed giving you a clue? First off, the life expectancy back then was much shorter, so the more wives(fyi, not via consent but via sale, barter with the other family) the wives would have been sold to the other family between the ages of 9-14.

This reflects the sexist gods of Abraham in their holy books. The once exalted women in polytheism they stole the names from become scape goats or mere baby factories and the two main heroens in the bilbe, on a prostitute and the other merely a baby factory.

Women in  the books of Abraham are second class citizens at best and mostly props and or property to exalt the male characters.

That is because of the REAL male dominated societies of the time. The God of these books and the characters in these books reflect the culture of the time. The books were written as literary devices reflecting the cultures of their time. They DO NOT reflect modern culture which at least in the west, reflects much of the sexist attitudes written in these books.

Humans invent gods, and the books reflect the cultures of their time. They are not accurate history books and not even close to being science textbooks. They are merely books of myth that humans wrote reflecting the cultures of their time.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Women in  the

Brian37 wrote:

Women in  the books of Abraham are second class citizens at best and mostly props and or property to exalt the male characters.

 

 

 

I'm inclined to agree.

Reproductive issues aside,  why wouldn't it have been just as acceptable for polyandry ( A wife with multiple husbands ) to be practiced ?   (  Were females in marital situations simply to function as baby making machines ? )

Why was a Hebrew mother who gave birth  to a female child  ceremonially unclean for two weeks while if she gave birth to a male child she was only ceremonially unclean for one week ?   ( females are just dirtier ?   because Eve was traditionally seen as a temptress of Adam  in the Garden of Eve myth ?  )

Or for instance a Hebrew male could divorce his wife but were Hebrew women afforded this same right of divorcing their husbands ?

A Hebrew female who was raped must marry her attacker after the rapist had paid the rape victim's father fifty pieces of silver ( Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 )

When the Hebrews went on a war party the females ( virgins ) of the conquered people were collected as prospective mating stock.

Were female Levites ever allowed to function as Priests ( Priestesses ? ) during their religious rites ?

etc, etc.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:why wouldn't it have

Quote:
why wouldn't it have been just as acceptable for polyandry( A wife with multiple husbands ) to be practiced ?

I can answer that one. Sticking out tongue
Because men were killing themselves off in war, and had all the jobs, in a time when workplace safety was irrelevant.
The biggest cause of death for women was childbirth, correct me if I'm wrong, while men were dying for all sorts of reasons, including protecting the women.

It seems only logical that there'd be significantly more women than men in such a society. As a result, in order to protect and provide for the women, they'd need to assign multiple women to a man.

I'm sure that polyandry would have been implemented were the females the dominant gender of the time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Why

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Why was a Hebrew mother who gave birth  to a female child  ceremonially unclean for two weeks while if she gave birth to a male child she was only ceremonially unclean for one week ?   ( females are just dirtier ?   because Eve was traditionally seen as a temptress of Adam  in the Garden of Eve myth ?  )

More likely, atheists are just dumber and think a woman who's just given birth should have sex immediately, instead of getting a couple of weeks to recover?

Ritual impurity means, among other things, the man CANNOT approach her for sex.  But "ritual impurity" has squat to do with being physically clean or physically dirty.

Quote:
Or for instance a Hebrew male could divorce his wife but were Hebrew women afforded this same right of divorcing their husbands ?

If you think it's really that simple, you have no CLUE.  The amount of effort a community can apply to a man who refuses to provide a get (bill of divorce) is huge, even today.

Quote:
A Hebrew female who was raped must marry her attacker after the rapist had paid the rape victim's father fifty pieces of silver ( Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 )

Well, that's the usual anti-semetic crap interpretation.

Bill and Sue are in a field.  Bill winks at Sue, Sue winks back.  They get naked.

There are two possible outcomes --

1). Bill is stoned for rape.

2). Sue says "Hey, I really like Bill".  Bill owes Sue's father 50 zuzs (pieces of silver) and the dowry should still be 200 zuzs (pieces of silver) as she was a virgin.  Bill can't later say "Whew!  Glad she pretended to like me so I didn't get killed -- I think I'm going to dump her now!"  However, should Sue decide Bill is a bore, she dumps him, gets the 200 zuzs as the bride price, her dad gets the 50 zuzs and they call it square.  Sounds like a deal to me.  In Happy Atheist Land there are no rules about what happens to some guy who fancies himself the Don Juan.

Quote:
When the Hebrews went on a war party the females ( virgins ) of the conquered people were collected as prospective mating stock.

Yeah, because you're completely ignorant of all the laws relating to sex ...

Quote:
Were female Levites ever allowed to function as Priests ( Priestesses ? ) during their religious rites ?

No, of course not.  The Levites weren't ever allowed to function as priests either.  But to answer the question you think you asked, no, a bat Levi is not required to clean up after the priests get finished doing their thing in the Temple.  On the other hand, a bat Levi can marry and own land.  A ben Levi can't -- the entire tribe of Levi GETS NO LAND AT ALL.

I look forward to when the Temple is rebuilt and I can take an animal in for some free butchering and cooking.  In Happy Atheist Land there is no such thing as a free butcher and if you want food cooked, you probably don't get that for free either.

 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:why

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
why wouldn't it have been just as acceptable for polyandry( A wife with multiple husbands&nbspEye-wink to be practiced ?
I can answer that one. Sticking out tongue Because men were killing themselves off in war, and had all the jobs, in a time when workplace safety was irrelevant. The biggest cause of death for women was childbirth, correct me if I'm wrong, while men were dying for all sorts of reasons, including protecting the women. It seems only logical that there'd be significantly more women than men in such a society. As a result, in order to protect and provide for the women, they'd need to assign multiple women to a man. I'm sure that polyandry would have been implemented were the females the dominant gender of the time.

Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense.  One man can get 1, 10 or even 100 women pregnant.  The rest of the men are surplus to reproductive requirements.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Why was a Hebrew mother who gave birth  to a female child  ceremonially unclean for two weeks while if she gave birth to a male child she was only ceremonially unclean for one week ?   ( females are just dirtier ?   because Eve was traditionally seen as a temptress of Adam  in the Garden of Eve myth ?  )

More likely, atheists are just dumber and think a woman who's just given birth should have sex immediately, instead of getting a couple of weeks to recover?

Ritual impurity means, among other things, the man CANNOT approach her for sex.  But "ritual impurity" has squat to do with being physically clean or physically dirty.

Quote:
Or for instance a Hebrew male could divorce his wife but were Hebrew women afforded this same right of divorcing their husbands ?

If you think it's really that simple, you have no CLUE.  The amount of effort a community can apply to a man who refuses to provide a get (bill of divorce) is huge, even today.

Quote:
A Hebrew female who was raped must marry her attacker after the rapist had paid the rape victim's father fifty pieces of silver ( Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 )

Well, that's the usual anti-semetic crap interpretation.

Bill and Sue are in a field.  Bill winks at Sue, Sue winks back.  They get naked.

There are two possible outcomes --

1). Bill is stoned for rape.

2). Sue says "Hey, I really like Bill".  Bill owes Sue's father 50 zuzs (pieces of silver) and the dowry should still be 200 zuzs (pieces of silver) as she was a virgin.  Bill can't later say "Whew!  Glad she pretended to like me so I didn't get killed -- I think I'm going to dump her now!"  However, should Sue decide Bill is a bore, she dumps him, gets the 200 zuzs as the bride price, her dad gets the 50 zuzs and they call it square.  Sounds like a deal to me.  In Happy Atheist Land there are no rules about what happens to some guy who fancies himself the Don Juan.

Quote:
When the Hebrews went on a war party the females ( virgins ) of the conquered people were collected as prospective mating stock.

Yeah, because you're completely ignorant of all the laws relating to sex ...

Quote:
Were female Levites ever allowed to function as Priests ( Priestesses ? ) during their religious rites ?

No, of course not.  The Levites weren't ever allowed to function as priests either.  But to answer the question you think you asked, no, a bat Levi is not required to clean up after the priests get finished doing their thing in the Temple.  On the other hand, a bat Levi can marry and own land.  A ben Levi can't -- the entire tribe of Levi GETS NO LAND AT ALL.

I look forward to when the Temple is rebuilt and I can take an animal in for some free butchering and cooking.  In Happy Atheist Land there is no such thing as a free butcher and if you want food cooked, you probably don't get that for free either.

 

 

  You know Furry I was hoping that you could express yourself without automatically flipping into your sarcasm mode.  Why you feel the need to condescend to me when making your reply is most discouraging.  I was hoping we could bypass such emotionally charged dialog but I see that you still prefer to disparage and insult while you attempt to enlighten.   I mean, you sling the "Anti semitic" accusation at me again ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense. 

                                                             

    Employing birth control doesn't make reproductive sense either......but be that as it may, many women still enjoy sex just for the sake of sex and for some of them one cock may not be enough.  Why not let them acquire multiple husbands ? 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Why

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Why was a Hebrew mother who gave birth  to a female child  ceremonially unclean for two weeks while if she gave birth to a male child she was only ceremonially unclean for one week ?   ( females are just dirtier ?   because Eve was traditionally seen as a temptress of Adam  in the Garden of Eve myth ?  )

FurryCatHerder wrote:
More likely, atheists are just dumber and think a woman who's just given birth should have sex immediately, instead of getting a couple of weeks to recover?

Ritual impurity means, among other things, the man CANNOT approach her for sex.  But "ritual impurity" has squat to do with being physically clean or physically dirty.

Uuuhh, okay.

Why are mothers "ritually impure" for a longer period of time if they give birth to a female child?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I mean, you sling the "Anti semitic" accusation at me again ?

Hey, historically, there's been a lot of anti-semitism. They have to milk that, lol. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shmeichel dos Shmeckle

FurryKatzHerder wrote:
Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense.  One man can get 1, 10 or even 100 women pregnant.  The rest of the men are surplus to reproductive requirements.

 

But when Sarah's sea went dead, Abraham got to hire a call girl so he could sire Ishmael (whose descendants apparently went on to start islam -- thank you for that).  So if the husband happens to shoot blanks, shouldn't the wife be able to get her milk & honey elsewhere?

 

butterbattle wrote:
Anyways, why are mothers "ritually impure" for a longer period of time if they give birth to a female child?

Just remember to say your Daily Prayer and thank g(0) = D for not making you a woman. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3269
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
zarathustra wrote:Just

zarathustra wrote:

Just remember to say your Daily Prayer and thank g(0) = D for not making you a woman. 

these days that little mistake of g-d can be corrected, to a certain degree...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense.  One man can get 1, 10 or even 100 women pregnant.  The rest of the men are surplus to reproductive requirements.

You can't tell me you'd have absolutely no use for three or five adoring husbands who obeyed your every word. Sticking out tongue
Besides, multiple men instead of women may slow things down a bit, but gene diversity intensifies just the same. So it wouldn't be pointless.
You'd also be more likely to survive regular life since you'd have disposable mates to throw at dangers, and wouldn't have to worry about that pesky mourning bs before finding a replacement!
Actually, I can probably come up with dozens of reasons why polyandry would make sense reproductively and otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I couldn't have multiple

I couldn't have multiple partners considering all the jealousy I see far to much of. The idea of a one night stand with a couple of women I would be for. But an on going relationship with several women, even if they know what is going on, not so sure it would not involve at some point some level of rivalry.

I've dated too much and seen too much of that to want to even go there.

The only way I could do that is to pay some psychologist to examine all of us to insure it could work. But even now, I like being by myself. I don't have to answer to anyone.

So unless I can go to a swingers party and wrap it so they wouldn't get pregnant and so neither of us could catch anything,  or simply stick to hand masturbation, living with even non sexual room mates is a pain in the ass.

I couldn't imagine 5 women going "Brian, pick up that beer can. Brian, mow the lawn" Holy crap, even if they all got along........No no no no no.

I've had room mates. I've lived with my mother. I've been married. One person living with you is enough and hard enough, even outside the issue of sex.

I'd be for going to the Bunny Ranch and paying for two women at one time, but that is about as close to polygamy as I want to get.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your experience is

Your experience is restricted to a gender equal society, more or less. In a gender dominated society, things are significantly different.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Which is why I like women who have the sexual appetite of teenaged boys.

 

Good luck finding yourself one of those...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:

"Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense. One man can get 1, 10 or even 100 women pregnant. The rest of the men are surplus to reproductive requirements."

 

FurryCatHerder, what you said is true as far as it goes.  However, the few societies that practice polyandry do so, not out of an attempt at reproduction, but rather as an attempt to conserve what arable land they have, such as the Tibetan and Pahari societies.  *They* attempt to keep land within one (small) set of heirs, because they don't have much land to divide.  So...one woman will marry a set of brothers, and her offspring inherit the land.  Obviously, this does nothing to make women even remotely equal to men, in those societies.

 

Conor

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Polyandry doesn't make reproductive sense.  One man can get 1, 10 or even 100 women pregnant.  The rest of the men are surplus to reproductive requirements.

You can't tell me you'd have absolutely no use for three or five adoring husbands who obeyed your every word. Sticking out tongue Besides, multiple men instead of women may slow things down a bit, but gene diversity intensifies just the same. So it wouldn't be pointless. You'd also be more likely to survive regular life since you'd have disposable mates to throw at dangers, and wouldn't have to worry about that pesky mourning bs before finding a replacement! Actually, I can probably come up with dozens of reasons why polyandry would make sense reproductively and otherwise.

The only depiction of polyandrous relationships I've run into that make sense are the ones from "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

I'm not going to give away the story, so if you've not read it -- tough!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Uuuhh,

butterbattle wrote:

Uuuhh, okay.

Why are mothers "ritually impure" for a longer period of time if they give birth to a female child?

                                                               bump.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Uuuhh, okay.

Why are mothers "ritually impure" for a longer period of time if they give birth to a female child?

                                                               bump.

Why do people insist that's a bad thing?

"Ritual impurity" provides a number of advantages, not the least of which is being free from possible religious obligations.

Oh, and men get to be ritually impure for all sorts of reasons.

And finally, because the Temple isn't standing (may it be rebuilt soon and in our days), all Jews are currently "ritually impure" ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Which is why I like women who have the sexual appetite of teenaged boys.

Good luck finding yourself one of those...

They aren't hard to find, if you know where to look.  They just aren't all that appealing to straight guys, which is why most straight men have no clue they exist Eye-wink

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 ProzacDeathWish

 

 

butterbattle wrote:

Uuuhh, okay.

Why are mothers "ritually impure" for a longer period of time if they give birth to a female child?

                                                               bump.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Why do people insist that's a bad thing?

 

You'd have to ask the people who came up with the concept of "ritual impurity."  

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Ritual impurity" provides a number of advantages, not the least of which is being free from possible religious obligations.

 

Being an atheist accomplishes the same thing.  I am not bound to any religious obligations.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Oh, and men get to be ritually impure for all sorts of reasons.

 

Yes, I've read about it , thank you....nocturnal emissions and all that rot.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
And finally, because the Temple isn't standing (may it be rebuilt soon and in our days), all Jews are currently "ritually impure" ...

Ritual impurity just seems like such a non-issue in the real world.   There seems to be a plethora of more pressing matters in day to day life, if I were Jewish I'd have to say that the issue would rank pretty low in my priorities. 

 

Lastly, why is the period of ritual impurity twice as long for the birth of a female as opposed to the birth of a male ?  Why the disparity ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3269
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:[the

FurryCatHerder wrote:

[the Temple isn't standing (may it be rebuilt soon and in our days)

for fuck's sake, hasn't there been enough goddamn bloodshed in that shitty, useless, arid country already?  are you really so eager to see blood spilled (because there are plenty of fanatical fucks on both sides of the equation ready to slaughter thousands for that worthless hunk of rock) in order for a bronze-age barbecue pit to be rebuilt in jerusalem?

go to tony roma's if you want to see a burnt offering.  fuck...

just, really.  you try to pass off your bullshit religion as some kind of enlightened philosophy based on permissiveness and rationality and then you spew nostalgia over some ancient fetish whose ruins, for some totally incomprehensible reason, people still kill each other over.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Why do people insist that's a bad thing?

You'd have to ask the people who came up with the concept of "ritual impurity."  

Okay, when people start giving "ritual impurity is a good thing" equal time, I'll answer questions about "ritual impurity".

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Ritual impurity" provides a number of advantages, not the least of which is being free from possible religious obligations.

Being an atheist accomplishes the same thing.  I am not bound to any religious obligations.

Yup, and you don't get anything that might be construed as positive, either.  Being an Atheist works that way.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Lastly, why is the period of ritual impurity twice as long for the birth of a female as opposed to the birth of a male ?  Why the disparity ?

Because G-d said so.

In Jewish debates there are two kinds of answers -- the official one ("G-d said so&quotEye-wink and everything else.  The official answer is "Because G-d said so."

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:FurryCatHerder

iwbiek wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

[the Temple isn't standing (may it be rebuilt soon and in our days)

for fuck's sake, hasn't there been enough goddamn bloodshed in that shitty, useless, arid country already?  are you really so eager to see blood spilled (because there are plenty of fanatical fucks on both sides of the equation ready to slaughter thousands for that worthless hunk of rock) in order for a bronze-age barbecue pit to be rebuilt in jerusalem?

I seem to recall the White House was rebuilt after the British put fire to it about 200 years ago.  Being a big Commie, I'm sure you don't much care about the White House, but I'm sure you'd want to rebuild something like the Kremlin or Lenin's Tomb if it were destroyed.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I seem

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I seem to recall the White House was rebuilt after the British put fire to it about 200 years ago.  Being a big Commie, I'm sure you don't much care about the White House, but I'm sure you'd want to rebuild something like the Kremlin or Lenin's Tomb if it were destroyed.

If something else had been constructed on the site in the intervening time -- even something as preposterous as the Dome of the Rock -- I'm sure the fledgling U.S. would have selected an alternate site for reconstruction.

Is there any available space in Crown Heights, by chance?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 ProzacDeathWish

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Why do people insist that's a bad thing?

                                            

                                                  You'd have to ask the people who came up with the concept of "ritual impurity."  

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Okay, when people start giving "ritual impurity is a good thing" equal time, I'll answer questions about "ritual impurity".

 

                                                                         Okay, that's pretty much of an evasive, non-answer.  

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Ritual impurity" provides a number of advantages, not the least of which is being free from possible religious obligations.

 

                                                   Being an atheist accomplishes the same thing.  I am not bound to any religious obligations.

 

FurrycatHerder wrote:
Yup, and you don't get anything that might be construed as positive, either.  Being an Atheist works that way.

 

                                                                         Somehow I just I just don't feel any sense of loss.  Sorry.

 

                    Lastly, why is the period of ritual impurity twice as long for the birth of a female as opposed to the birth of a male ?  Why the disparity ?

FurrycatHerder wrote:
Because G-d said so.

In Jewish debates there are two kinds of answers -- the official one ("G-d said so&quotEye-wink and everything else.  The official answer is "Because G-d said so."

 

 

                                                                                           Again, another non-answer. Pretty weak Furry

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3269
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Being a

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Being a big Commie, I'm sure you don't much care about the White House, but I'm sure you'd want to rebuild something like the Kremlin or Lenin's Tomb if it were destroyed.

being a marxist, i see buildings as buildngs.  end of story.

nonetheless,  the kremlin was built by the tsars and lenin's tomb was stalin's project, against the clear wishes of both lenin and his widow.  so no.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Why do people insist that's a bad thing?

You'd have to ask the people who came up with the concept of "ritual impurity."

I have.  It's not a "bad thing".

In Judaism, the reward for doing a mitzvah, is getting to do another one.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Okay, when people start giving "ritual impurity is a good thing" equal time, I'll answer questions about "ritual impurity".
Okay, that's pretty much of an evasive, non-answer.

Not at all -- you've made up your mind it's a "bad thing", you need to justify that position.  Now, maybe back when you were a Christian someone taught you it's a "bad thing", but it isn't.

This is a true story --

A man goes up to one of our greatest rabbis of all times and he tells the rabbi he wants to convert to Judaism and become a priest.  The rabbi tells him no.  The guy gets upset, until the rabbi explains that even King David, the greatest king we ever had, couldn't become a priest.  Ritual impurity is just ritual impurity.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Ritual impurity" provides a number of advantages, not the least of which is being free from possible religious obligations.
Being an atheist accomplishes the same thing.  I am not bound to any religious obligations.

Not being a Jew accomplished that long before you gave up dead carpenter worship ...

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurrycatHerder wrote:
Yup, and you don't get anything that might be construed as positive, either.  Being an Atheist works that way.
Somehow I just I just don't feel any sense of loss.  Sorry.

Oh, come on -- you want to wear the funny hat and learn to write right-to-left.  Deep down inside you really want to have a deep-seated urge to eat corned beef on rye with a bit of Thousand Island dressing and a pickle on the side.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Lastly, why is the period of ritual impurity twice as long for the birth of a female as opposed to the birth of a male ?  Why the disparity ?

Because G-d said so.

In Jewish debates there are two kinds of answers -- the official one ("G-d said so&quotEye-wink and everything else.  The official answer is "Because G-d said so."

Again, another non-answer. Pretty weak Furry

Okay, it's so mothers get twice as much time to bond with their newborn daughters.

That's as valid an answer as any other I could make up for you, seeing as you didn't like "G-d said so", which is the correct answer.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."