Comments on: Those Sinful, Lustful Eyes (Job 31)

By: michael

michael — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:06:12 +0000

Jacob, I don’t see how it can possibly be considered the “same” crime. From my reading Jesus’s point was that his followers should be *even stricter* in following the law than the Pharisees, I can’t see for a second how this could be lifting any sort of yoke.

By: Takis Konstantopoulos

Takis Konstantopoulos — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:54:30 +0000

Jacob: Precisely. This is why we need to get rid of all organized religion. It always produces pedophiles, thieves, hypocrites, fundamentalists; it encourages self-righteousness and conservatism; it sides with all kinds of dictatorial regimes and is encourages wars; it encourages stupidity; it goes against human nature and values; it ultimately destroys human morality.

So, indeed, there have been people who tell something nice, such as `hey man, don’t eat that woman with your eyes, it’s not nice for her or her husband’, but the religious zealots always find ways to twist anything.

The reason is that religion has no basis of reference, and contradicts both itself as well as other human systems.

So, I agree, religion should go.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:42:03 +0000

When Jesus said,“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart�? (Mat 5:28), he was making a point: That all are sinners and none can claim to be pure and sinless; that you cannot judge your brother as you yourself are guilty of the same crime although it may appear to be on a different level. He came to expose the hypocrisy of the people of the time and to give solace to the poor and downtrodden. However, the priesthood and the religious zealots have perverted his message to make it into another law to burden mankind. He came to lift the yoke of the law and set people free but formal religion always has a way to ultimately dominate the human psyche.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:35:30 +0000

Rich: right, and Nathan rebukes David strongly just a few chapters later. But he mentions nothing about David merely looking at Bathsheba. So I guess the point remains that it was likely not considered such a big deal at the time, so the law got only harsher as time went by.

Takis: most people are probably the same, but according to the strictest religious senses, the onus is on you not to look, whether a woman is dressed in a burqa or a bikini!

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:52:31 +0000

Here is a thought. David’s conduct, as well as other men in the Hebrew scriptures, show that no one can follow the letter of the law. In my humble opinion, that is why Jesus in John 8 said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. They all knew that they were guilty.

By: Takis Konstantopoulos

Takis Konstantopoulos — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:24:55 +0000

If a burqa is supposed to protect a woman from men’s gazes, then I can assure anyone it doesn’t work with me: when I see women in burqas I can’t control myself from trying to look out of curiosity.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:42:09 +0000

Indeed — although I think there are only about 5-6 cases of incest.

But yeah, it’s like the statement in the Talmud that two men can’t sleep under the same cloak, and rabbi chimes in with a contrary opinion that “the children of Israel are not suspected of [male-to-male-sex]“.

That rabbi was so serious at the time and yet I reckon it’s impossible for anyone to read it these days (even a religious person) without giggling.

By: keddaw

keddaw — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:41:03 +0000

A man can’t be alone with a woman other than his wife (or a relative).

Somewhat ironic given the amount of incest contained withing the Old Testament.