Since JosiahW was practically begging for us to snark on him

[formergothardite]

I checked out his blog and his latest post is just laughable. It is a letter he wrote to some editor. I'll be honest and admit I didn't read the original article he is complaining about and I frankly, just got bored half-way through his actual letter.

He tries so hard to sound deep and spiritual, and that is exactly what it looks like. Someone who isn't deep and spiritual, but just trying to sound that way.

But the one thing that stood out from me (besides his claims that the Bible doesn't really say a rape victim should marry her rapist) is this:

The golden rule outside the context of the Church is simply impossible to consistently live out.

No, actually it isn't. In fact, since I have dropped Christianity, I have found it easier. No more judging people for not being Christians or living in the way that Christians are supposed to live. I want to have the right to get married, so I support other consenting adults having the same right. I don't want to get robbed, so I don't rob other people. I don't want to be ripped off, so I don't rip off others (Josh Duggar I'm looking at you!) I even support the rights of the fundies to say pretty much whatever the hell they want to say because I don't want people to take away my freedom of speech.

I would actually say, from my experience from being a fundie and being around lots of fundies, it is much, much harder for fundamental Christians to follow the golden rule. When you see people through the lens of "They are all wrong and I am all right, they need to be like me, act like me, believe like me." you are less likely to want to really treat them like you want to be treated. Fundamental Christians don't want to have other religions and beliefs treated equally to them. They want their beliefs to be made law and forced on other people, yet would freak out if another religion even talked about doing. They don't want to treat others like they want to be treated, they want others to become like them. And if you refuse, well screw you and forget about being treated like they want to be treated.

biblicalbeginnings.com/

[deelaem]

The golden rule outside the context of the Church is simply impossible to consistently live out.

Spoken with the wisdom of all his short, sheltered years. :roll:

I agree that's it's easier to live the golden rule when you take religion out of it. When you no longer hang the responsibility for your conduct on a deity, you begin to experience real empathy and a deeper understanding of consequences for actions. In my opinion, taking full responsibility for your life and not passing everything off to a god or a devil is far closer to being "holy".

[Conuly]

Given that the ethic of reciprocity is found in ethical systems worldwide, I'd have to say that... no, it's not impossible. It's plain common sense that even rats can do. (Yes, rats. Apparently, rats with access to food and the ability to free their companions who do NOT have food access will choose to free their companions first rather than gorge themselves silly alone. Go rats!)

[emmiedahl]

Spoken with the wisdom of all his short, sheltered years. :roll:

I agree that's it's easier to live the golden rule when you take religion out of it. When you no longer hang the responsibility for your conduct on a deity, you begin to experience real empathy and a deeper understanding of consequences for actions. In my opinion, taking full responsibility for your life and not passing everything off to a god or a devil is far closer to being "holy".

I had this discussion last night on facebook. Apparently Christians believe that they had the first religion with morality? So when I asked them why their religion should be law, they basically asked where I thought we got all of our other laws.

They really believe that they invented ethics. Which is totally wrong; the Golden Rule was discussed by Confucius and also by ancient Egyptian writings. I introduced them to a bit of Hillel as an example of people before Jesus saying the exact same things and they still were insistent.

Apparently Christians are willing to come up with any number of lies to soothe their ego and quest for power.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Spoken with the wisdom of all his short, sheltered years. :roll:

I agree that's it's easier to live the golden rule when you take religion out of it. When you no longer hang the responsibility for your conduct on a deity, you begin to experience real empathy and a deeper understanding of consequences for actions. In my opinion, taking full responsibility for your life and not passing everything off to a god or a devil is far closer to being "holy".

Another reason the golden rule is easier to live outside a religious context is that if you think people will burn in hell (and deserve it), it's hard to treat them in a way you want to be treated. It seems like he thinks that without religion people would be killing each other and stealing all the time without religion, yet ignores the millions of non-religious people who don't do that. He doesn't live in the real world.

[Guest Anonymous]

Wow, it is very dull, isn't it?

Two things:

First this:

Lastly, the interracial principle has nothing to do with 'race' as we think of it. You do not marry anyone outside of the Christian Church.

Of course the Bible does not prohibit interracial marriages. It just prohibits interfaith marriages. I'm sure that's fine. /sarcasm

Also, can someone please decipher this one for me?

Israel was the Christian Church up until Jesus Christ came, at which time the Gentiles were grafted in, and the Israelites became only those who believed in the risen Saviour, not by genealogical descent (Matthew 21:43-44).

[heinz57]

Wow, it is very dull, isn't it?

Two things:

First this:

Of course the Bible does not prohibit interracial marriages. It just prohibits interfaith marriages. I'm sure that's fine. /sarcasm

Also, can someone please decipher this one for me?

I'll try! This is the explanation I heard (I'm only repeating, this is not what I believe):

Since the Bible says that Jews are the Chosen People, Christians had to do some creative thinking around this one, to explain why now *they* are the real Chosen People.

So it goes like this: the Original Jews were the Chosen People, then the Messiah came, but Jews didn't believe in him. So Jews lost their status and went on to be a sect you can hate, because ya'know, they didn't get Saved when they had a chance. Instead the title went to Christians.

It's a way of saying that it's not christianity that strayed from judaism, but rather that christianity is a direct continuation of the original judaism, and the Jews are the ones who strayed.

Hell, I don't know if my explanation is any more clear than his :oops:

[gingernut]

Another reason the golden rule is easier to live outside a religious context is that if you think people will burn in hell (and deserve it), it's hard to treat them in a way you want to be treated. It seems like he thinks that without religion people would be killing each other and stealing all the time without religion, yet ignores the millions of non-religious people who don't do that. He doesn't live in the real world.

I agree! It has been much easier for me to follow the golden rule since leaving Christianity.

[pixydust]

I'll try! This is the explanation I heard (I'm only repeating, this is not what I believe):

Since the Bible says that Jews are the Chosen People, Christians had to do some creative thinking around this one, to explain why now *they* are the real Chosen People.

So it goes like this: the Original Jews were the Chosen People, then the Messiah came, but Jews didn't believe in him. So Jews lost their status and went on to be a sect you can hate, because ya'know, they didn't get Saved when they had a chance. Instead the title went to Christians.

It's a way of saying that it's not christianity that strayed from judaism, but rather that christianity is a direct continuation of the original judaism, and the Jews are the ones who strayed.

Hell, I don't know if my explanation is any more clear than his :oops:

This is exactly what I was taught.

[formergothardite]

The victim of the rapist is not forced to marry her antagonist, but the rapist is put to death. (start reading Deuteronomy 22 at verse 25)

So, lets start at verse 22 and see what the Bible really says:

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So this only applies if the woman is betrothed to be married. Lets see what happens if she is raped and isn't betrothed:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Josiah, needs to read his Bible more.

[formergothardite]

Okay, so I read the article he was complaining about and totally agree with it. It is about basing laws on the Bible:

First, which Bible? I have several that have been given to me, most of them variations on the King James version. This translation supports payment to the father of fifty shekels in exchange for raping the daughter (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29), forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist and stay married to him for the rest of her life (same passage), slavery (multiple passages, look it up on the internet), forbidding interracial marriage (multiple passages, see the internet) etc., etc., etc.

“Bible-based†laws have created chaos throughout America’s history. The King James Bible is a cruel bronze age document. This same Bible also says, by the way, that we should have a king (for example, King James), instead of a president. It is un-American.

Josiah's reply just made him look stupid, especially since he was completely wrong and the Bible only commands the rapist to be stoned if the person they raped was engaged. Just a random, unattatched maiden, rape her, pay her dad and you got a wife for life.

[deelaem]

The King James Bible is a cruel bronze age document

I may have that stitched on a sampler.

[formergothardite]

Someone commented and pointed out that the verse that said the rapist should be stoned only applied to someone who was engaged. Josiah replied:

Please also reference exodus 22:16-17 to see more on the law. Also, beware of phariseeism as you do so. Lastly, please identify yourself, or I will have to remove your comments

Lets look at those verses shall we and see if it says a rapist will be put to death:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Nope, still doesn't say that a guy who rapes a maiden who is not engaged will be put to death. It says the father has the option to not give the daugther up for marriage and that the rapist will have to pay money for taking her virginity, but nothing about putting him to death.

So Josiah was still very, very wrong in saying this:

The victim of the rapist is not forced to marry her antagonist, but the rapist is put to death.

The only time the rapist is to be put to death is if they raped somone who is engaged. If they rape someone who is not engaged the dad gets to decide if he wants to force the poor rape victim to marry her rapist, but he can opt out of the marriage and just take the money. So a rape victim is not always forced to marry her rapist, but can be.

[Guest Anonymous]

Lastly, please identify yourself, or I will have to remove your comments

Why is he so obsessed with people identifying themselves? Is it just because he knows most sensible people won't do that?

[Anxious Girl]

Why is he so obsessed with people identifying themselves? Is it just because he knows most sensible people won't do that?

To to stalk us in "revenge". He doesn't realize that people reading a blog and commenting on it isn't stalking; people have a right to read his misognystic bigoted crap and comment it on another forum because he put his blog up publicly on the internet. He's a pig who doesn't understand the concept of stalking.

[Guest Anonymous]

To to stalk us in "revenge". He doesn't realize that people reading a blog and commenting on it isn't stalking; people have a right to read his misognystic bigoted crap and comment it on another forum because he put his blog up publicly on the internet. He's a pig who doesn't understand the concept of stalking.

Yep. Anxious Girl knocked that one out of the park.

[formergothardite]

I think he wants to be able to get all into the lives of the people who are debating him so he can try and use something about their personal lives to discredit what they are saying.

[debrand]

When Josiah visited us, we pointed out the verse about a victim marrying her rapists. He tried to justify stoning homosexuals and slavery with the bible. When we used the exact same text he was using, he accused us all of legalism. Yet, he wants to use the Old Testament as a moral guide. :roll:

Even if Josiah does not intend to stalk us, he can't be certain that some nut that reads his blog won't hurt his readers. Actually, I think that it is also unsafe for him to use his real name. He is not only endangering himself but his siblings as well. He needs to be a bit more cautious and less trusting on the internet.

A lot of male fundamentalists are obsessed with their posters' real names. It's an intimidation tactic. They want to shut up those who disagree with them. That makes this site all the more powerful. They can't stop of us from discussing them on Free Jinger.

When I was fundamentalist, I wasn't a very nice person. :oops:

[Anxious Girl]

He sounds like a wannabe-teacher. Someone anonymous commented on his blog; and he's all like; "Identify yourself or I will be forced to delete you're comment." So that means somebody is forcing him to type on his blog? Lol. :lol: