Saturday, 1 May 2010

C'est a Rire

Which, translated, if I am not mistaken means, "It is to laugh!"

Where is the liberal press on this one...

Iran has won a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women...
In Iran, women are required to be covered from head to toe in public, and may be beaten for dressing in what is considered an “immodest” manner. Earlier this month a top Iranian cleric blamed immodest women for earthquakes. Women also possess fewer rights in the areas of marriage, parenthood, inheritance and career.

Would that it were indeed, only a joke.

Take Care


GB Shaw said...

This reminds me of this story out of Bangladesh:

Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant:
A 16-year-old girl who was raped in Bangladesh has been given 101 lashes for conceiving during the assault. ... According to human rights activists, the girl, who was quickly married after the attack, was divorced weeks later after medical tests revealed she was pregnant. ... The girl was raped by a 20-year-old villager in Brahmanbaria district in April last year. ... Her rapist was pardoned by the elders. She told the newspaper the rapist had "spoiled" her life.

Awful, horrible, backward, evil, right? I guess that depends upon how dogmatic you are.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. -- Leviticus 19:20-22

John K said...

I checked out the passage you quoted on the Blue Letter Bible
In Lev 19:20, the phrase you quote from the King James Bible, "...she shall be scourged..." is a translation of the single Hebrew word, "biqqoreth," meaning, "punishment." The King James translators applied their own particular meaning to it. The NIV translates it, "...there must be due punishment." Obviously, quite a different slant.

GB Shaw said...

Is scourging not punishment? Is not the fact that she received 101 lashes biqqoreth? Did they not carry out god's command, of which no jot and tittle shall pass until heaven and earth pass away?

Your response is very curious, pointing to the NIV translation rather than dealing with my point. But fine, I'll bite: which translation/slant is right? Whichever one is convenient? I assume you believe in the trinity--there's no evidence for it in the NIV, only in the KJV.

This gets at the point I made in a later post about how christianity/the church ignores the unsavoury/inconvenient/ridiculous/disproven aspects of the bible (in the context of the biology of sexuality). Of course, I heartily approve of this--it means that christians are far more moral than their god, which is terrific. The example from Bangladesh is what happens when that isn't the case (or when people live in a theocracy, I guess).

John K said...

'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed...'(Lev 19:20)
As mentioned above, the original word translated meant only, 'punishment'. Why the KJV translators assumed it was only for the woman, I don't know, but as far as I can tell it is not specified in the original text. It might have been for both; it might have been for the man only.
In addition, the situation is not one of rape, where the woman is totally innocent, as was the case in the original news story.
As for your assertion that the Trinity is not in the NIV, I don't know why you would say that. Evidence for the Trinity is all over the NIV.

GB Shaw said...

I John 5:7 is the only verse that makes explicit reference to the trinity, and it doesn't appear in the NIV.

Obviously, if what you mean by "Evidence for the Trinity is all over the NIV" is that all of the contradictory statements about Jesus being God, the Father being God, and the Holy Spirit being God, about them being "one" in the same sense as a man and woman becoming one flesh or in the sense of "your mother and I are of one mind on this"--all of which need to be balanced by the contradictory statements in the old testament that there is only one god, along with the statement repeated by Jesus that "ye are gods", then YES, I agree. If what you meant was the trinity is explicitly referenced, then you are mistaken.

And yet again, though I've asked you to comment on the disgraceful words and deeds of the god of the bible, you haven't. This incredible hard-headedness or willful disregard for the horrible, horrible character of the christian deity is very frustrating, especially when it is so clearly and pornographically articulated in the bible!

John K said...

OK, first the Trinity:
Aside from all the verses you agree about Jesus being God, the Father being God, and the Holy Spirit being God, and about them being "one," (all of which point toward the concept of the Trinity), I would ask you to consider and reconcile the following verses:
"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." (Isaiah 6:5)

Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. (John 12:41)

"The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:...(Acts28:25b ff)
I will attempt to address your other points in the next comment.

John K said...

You say you referred in other posts to what you call, "...disgraceful words and deeds of the god of the bible." I searched back several months and I can find no other reference to them but this thread. I believe I have addressed the specific issue involved in my previous comments. As far as other, "disgraceful words and deeds," there are a couple of reasons why it is pointless to discuss them. First of all, in the absence of a belief in God, you need to give me a rational and logically consistent reason why you find any action, word or deed anything but morally neutral.
Secondly, I believe there is a difference between the world and circumstances before Christ and after, but to try to discuss it would be like speaking in two different languages, from two entirely different points of view. I have been on both sides of the fence, but anyone who has not come to a personal relationship with God through Christ can know only one side.
Again, and thirdly, anyone who does not know God and accept Him as the sovereign creator and LORD of all the universe cannot, I repeat, CANNOT see things the same as someone who does. We are in two entirely different universes.