Sarong Party Girl posted her birthday suit up. Generated alot of interest in horny males and self-moral witchhunters. Her photobucket bandwidth have since busted and i never managed to get a peek, @#$%^& Stoopid males and witchhunters : p

Anyway, many people have been coming in from different variations of search keywords sarong party girl blog on the yahoo search engine. I guess they were dissapointed that they didn't find anything here, except a link to her blog in the blog roll.

So i thought i'll oblige, and write something about ... i don't know what about, i don't read her often enough to form a speech signature. But i'll point you to one of her musings, Monogamy and the Bible.

Excerpt :
"At least week’s sermon, the pastor briefly mentioned the very interesting point that there is no word for wife in the languages the Bible was originally complied in. According to him, Hebrew and Greek are two of humanity’s most expressive languages, yet, they never bothered inventing a word for wife. If people had actually bothered to translate the bible directly from those languages, What will read, in place of wife, would be woman. Or ‘your woman’."

More Excerpt :
"There are a lot of things the bible is against, and most of them are not natural to the human state. Things like murder, or stealing something that belongs to someone else."

A small technicle error there. Sarong Party Girl was probably referring to the human determined ten commandments to say that the bible was against murder. The bible actually condones a vast amount of murder. But murder in the bible is made righteous as destruction of the enemy.

Sarong Party Girl brings up a very interesting point, that about "wife". The wife concept, and women equality, was never of importance in those days.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Exodus 20:17)

As seen from the above bible verse, women are treated as nothing more than a man's property. In around the same hierarchical level of ox and ass.

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18)

God instigating followers to kill aside, the above verse does show that monogamy is not a requirement for males. But non-virgin females, irregardless of whether they were monogamous, were to be killed.

I was discussing the Numbers verse with a friend and she said, "God told them to 'keep alive for themselves' as wife". There was really nothing in the verse, or the verses before or after that says the women would be kept as wives and not slaves or anything else. In fact, since there is no such member in Hebrew as "wife", imagine my friend's words coming out as "God told them to 'keep alive for themselves' as their women". Astounding.

At this point on, she began the age old debate tatic of flaming me. "Why are you so judgmental? Who are you to judge God?" she asked. Which was actually true, for i was pointing out to her, evil biblical verses which she would normally choose to skip. But she has forgotten that judging is a neutral process. Judging something as good and holy does not make it any less of making a judgement.

Who am I to judge God? The more appropriate question is, who i am to judge God as evil. But why ask such a question? Would the poser of such question be ready to answer who he/she is to judge God as good?

Digression.

Many theists would accuse me of lifting verses out of context. Two points of contention for such argument.

Point one. Most people who say that atheists like to quote out of context do not really understand the meaning of "out of context". They would accuse and then go on to say singular quotes like,

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (1 John 4:8)

Then tell me, what is the definition of "out of context". They contend that quoting out of context is distortion of the context. So is the above verse a distortion of the context? If the context is inherent within the verse, then there is no distortion of context.

Point two. Is there a context in which we should accept killing (males and non-virgin females) as justifiable?