# Refuge?



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

I follow the Old Testament along with a few other people.  We are looking for a refuge from modern culture which we consider to be evil.  This is partly for our families.  We do not want our children to grow up around evil, and we ourselves would like to associate with moral people.  We do not care what other people believe, we only care that they are moral.  We do not want to convert anyone to our beliefs and we have no interest in converting to other beliefs.  We would strongly support a religion if it can offer us a moral refuge from modern culture by allowing us to associate with their community.  We need this because we are too small to stand alone.

As a crude but simple way of judging religions, I look to see if men and women are separated during service.  Feminism is one of the greatest evils of modern culture.  Feminism is a {censored} power movement designed to encourage adultery and promiscuity.  It always works to mix men and women whenever possible in order to encourage these things.  A moral religion will separate men and women during service in order help people focus on God.

Based on this simple criteria, the possible religions are Islam, traditional Anabaptists, Orthodox Judaism, and Sikhism.  Islam and Christianity (Anabaptists) are very exclusive and don't tolerate those with other beliefs.  Orthodox Judaism is racist, but it is an option that we are considering.  I have only started looking at Sikhism recently, but what I have seen so far, I like.

I do not live near a gurdwara, but I would certainly travel to visit one if Sikhism is a real option.  So please let me know what you think.  Could a gurdwara community provide the refuge that we are looking for?


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

Sikhi views men and woman equally.  Although men and women sit on opposite sides in Darbar Sahib (the prayer hall), they are free to mingle at will in the rest of the Gurdwara.

This includes eating together, cooking together, talking and learning.

I do not think you will find refuge among Sikhs.  Also, if you think the scarf worn over the head by women in Gurdwara is for modesty, that is incorrect.  While the chunni/dupatta is an important part of traditional clothing, it is not worn in Gurdwara for modesty, but to show respect to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

Additionally, I find your views on feminism very narrow-minded and offensive.

*Use the word '{censored}' again and it will be removed.  Thank you. *


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

The Old Testament also views men and women equally (meaning of equal value but not the same).  My wife is looking for exactly the same thing as I am.  She wants to socialize with women and I want to socialize with men.  But if Sikhi supports feminism, then obviously it isn't for us.

And what should I use to replace the word you don't like?  Should I say "loose women" or "promiscuous women" or what would you suggest?


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

Define 'feminism'.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

Also, I'm pretty sure you could find a Jewish community that isn't "racist".


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Define 'feminism'.


I did in my initial post, using a word you asked me not to repeat.  For a complete explanation of feminism, see:

Sexual Utopia in Power


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure you could find a Jewish community that isn't "racist".



Judaism is racist by definition since it grants membership based on ancestry.  An evil person with a jewish mother is a full member while a person who follows Old Testament but hasn't gone through the long conversion process is not.

I actually know a lot about Judaism because I meet their racial criteria and attended Orthodox synagogue for 2 years.  I absolutely hate racism, but in spite of this defect, Judaism still seems to be the leading candidate at the moment.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

So... feminism is just a movement to encourage adultery and promiscuity?


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Ishna said:


> So... feminism is just a movement to encourage adultery and promiscuity?


Yes, this is what it is mostly about.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> Judaism is racist by definition since it grants membership based on ancestry.  An evil person with a jewish mother is a full member while a person who follows Old Testament but hasn't gone through the long conversion process is not.
> 
> I actually know a lot about Judaism because I meet their racial criteria and attended Orthodox synagogue for 2 years.  I absolutely hate racism, but in spite of this defect, Judaism still seems to be the leading candidate at the moment.



Yes, please go with Judaism. Or, anything besides Sikhi.  After all, we have women like this, leading men into battle and clearly astray.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> Yes, this is what it is mostly about.



Um, no.

*Feminism* is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A *feminist* advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Sure, feminism has its extremists, just like some religions do .  But I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for my foremothers.

Perhaps your wife would like to join here and share her own point of view.

Or isn't she allowed on the internet?


----------



## Harry Haller (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> I follow the Old Testament along with a few other people. We are looking for a refuge from modern culture which we consider to be evil. This is partly for our families. We do not want our children to grow up around evil, and we ourselves would like to associate with moral people. We do not care what other people believe, we only care that they are moral.



what is moral? define it please


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

harry haller said:


> what is moral? define it please


Moral is what is good for your tribe/culture/society in the long run.  So being moral is largely about consideration for others in your tribe.  Moral behavior can be best described as the exact opposite of the behavior of members of modern culture.  Members of modern culture are inconsiderate, liars, hypocrites, disloyal, backstabbers, selfish, lazy, stupid, obnoxious, etc.  This is typical of a decaying culture and is described by the prophets of the Old Testament when Israel was in cultural decay.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

Is slavery a moral action?


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Is slavery a moral action?


No.  But remember that I view morality as tribal which means that morality says nothing about how to treat people outside your tribe.  The Old Testament strongly limits slavery among Israelites by requiring that an Israelite "slave" is released after a limited time, meaning that this is more like an indentured servant than a slave.  And of course these rules are from long ago and there is no more need for indentured servitude (which evil modern culture still has in America with the H-1B visa).

I know that Sikhism is universalist and effectively treats all of humanity as its tribe.  I don't share this view, but I don't condemn this view either.  What matters to me is whether Sikhism supports morality and opposes immorality (leftism, feminism, and modern culture generally).  If another religion provided refuge for us (Old Testament followers), then we would extend our loyalty to followers of that religion.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

The Old Testament allows slavery in a range of circumstances.  It also allows you to beat your slave as long as he or she doesn't die within two days.

If a master gives his male slave a wife, and the male slave does his time and becomes a 'free man', he can go free but his wife and any children have to stay with the master.  The male slave can then choose to leave his wife and children, or he can remain with the master forever.

Why do you follow a scripture that allows these things when you* *know* *it is not moral?


----------



## Harry Haller (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> Moral is what is good for your tribe/culture/society in the long run.



decided by who?


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

The Old Testament never endorses slavery, it only regulates what was a universal practice at that time.

I am quite used to these kinds of attacks on the Old Testament.  One indication of how great the Old Testament is is that it is the most hated book by members of modern culture.


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

harry haller said:


> decided by who?


Any attribute has to be measured by someone.  In my case, I was raised atheist and studied history to discover what kind of behavior correlates to rising cultures and to declining cultures.  The Old Testament does an excellent job describing both.  The moral principles it advocates are those found in rising cultures, and what the prophets condemn are typical of decaying cultures.  In my small Old Testament group, there are some chinese who compare Old Testament principles to chinese history (which I never studied) and again it matches.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

*Leviticus 19:20-22*: "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."

In lay man's terms: 



*Sexual Activity with an Engaged Female Slave*: A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.

Old Testament

It is interesting to notice how you  embrace these atrocities in the name of your  god and call yourself an atheist. I can discuss the OT with you and show your hypocricy and double standard. Please do not underestimate the knowledge of Sikhs in here about other religions. That would be a self defeating prophecy. OT is as barbaric as many claim Koran to be.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> I know that Sikhism is universalist and effectively treats all of humanity as its tribe.  I don't share this view, but I don't condemn this view either.  *What matters to me is whether Sikhism supports morality and opposes immorality (leftism, feminism, and modern culture generally).  If another religion provided refuge for us (Old Testament followers), then we would extend our loyalty to followers of that religion.*



Please elaborate with concrete examples about your claims and also explain what you mean by* modern culture society? 
*
Do you have any kids or others who belong to the *"modern culture society"? *


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)




----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> The Old Testament never endorses slavery, it only regulates what was a universal practice at that time.
> 
> I am quite used to these kinds of attacks on the Old Testament.  One indication of how great the Old Testament is is that it is the most hated book by members of modern culture.



Is regulation not an endorsement in and of itself?  It is was against it, it would have abolished it.  Instead of being counter-culture, it was happy to go along with it.

I don't hate the Old Testament - it is just a book.  Books don't kill people; people kill people and use their books to justify it.  Or in this case, you would be well within your rights to take\buy\sell slaves.

Another reason why your group probably wouldn't jive well amid Sikhs.


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Tejwant Singh, your interpretation of Leviticus 19:20-22 is so absurd as to be funny.  Leviticus 19:20-22 says:

“If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is a slave designated for another man, but she has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there must be punishment. They are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. However, he must bring a ram as his restitution offering to the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. The priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord with the ram of the restitution offering for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven for the sin he committed."

There is no mention of rape at all.  And there is no mention of punishment for her.  Only he has to pay a fine.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> Tejwant Singh, your interpretation of Leviticus 19:20-22 is so absurd as to be funny.  Leviticus 19:20-22 says:
> 
> “If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is a slave designated for another man, but she has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there must be punishment. They are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. However, he must bring a ram as his restitution offering to the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. The priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord with the ram of the restitution offering for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven for the sin he committed."
> 
> There is no mention of rape at all.  And there is no mention of punishment for her.  Only he has to pay a fine.



Fschmidt,

Nice cop out to say the least but that is expected. 

Common sense would require from us to inquire if the above text is mine. Is jumping to conclusions your forte taught to you by the OT? Claiming that "Tejwant Singh, your interpretation of Leviticus 19:20-22 is* so absurd as to be funny. * Leviticus 19:20-22"

Please post Leviticus 19:20-22  and give us your spin is a nice cop out because raping is not funny. Has anyone ever gotten raped in your family and you found it funny?


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> Tejwant Singh, your interpretation of Leviticus 19:20-22 is so absurd as to be funny.  Leviticus 19:20-22 says:
> 
> “If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is a slave designated for another man, but she has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there must be punishment. They are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. However, he must bring a ram as his restitution offering to the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. The priest will make atonement on his behalf before the Lord with the ram of the restitution offering for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven for the sin he committed."
> 
> There is no mention of rape at all.  And there is no mention of punishment for her.  Only he has to pay a fine.



In fairness I have not seen 'rape' mentioned in many translations, but without a doubt she is to be scourged.  Therefore punishment is due to her.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

> "fschmidt, post: 204912, member: 20953"]The Old Testament never endorses slavery, it only regulates what was a universal practice at that time.



How can OT regulate something that it does not endorse?



> I am quite used to these kinds of attacks on the Old Testament.  One indication of how great the Old Testament is is that it is the most hated book by members of modern culture.



I thought we were having an intelligent conversation to learn from each other but your above defencive stance says it all. Nice cop out again.


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

Ishna said:


> Is regulation not an endorsement in and of itself?  It is was against it, it would have abolished it.  Instead of being counter-culture, it was happy to go along with it.


Regulation is not endorsement.  Regulating tobacco, for example, isn't endorsing tobacco.

At the time of the Old Testament, it wasn't practical to be against slavery, so the Old Testament just says nothing.  Slavery wasn't eliminated by some moral movement, it was eliminated by the industrial revolution which replaced slaves with machines.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

*Morality* in the Old Testament according to *fschmidt.

Genesis 19:31-35 – Lot’s Daughters Sleep With Their Father

“Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.” Gen. 19:31-35

fschmidt: Please explain your moral compass as based on the above from the book you embrace.*


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

*1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead* (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

_  So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan._


_  The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."_


_  Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes._



  Obviously these women were repeatedly raped.  These sick {censored}s killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more.  How can anyone see this as anything but evil?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> *Regulation is not endorsement.  Regulating tobacco, for example, isn't endorsing tobacco.*
> 
> At the time of the Old Testament, it wasn't practical to be against slavery, so the Old Testament just says nothing.  Slavery wasn't eliminated by some moral movement, it was eliminated by the industrial revolution which replaced slaves with machines.



One can not regulate before endorsing it, just like the tobacco-your example. Paying taxes on tobacco to the govt is an endorsement first by the govt so it can regulate it with taxation. 

Let me try once again,How can OT regulate something that it does not endorse?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

*Laws of Rape * (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

_  If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her._

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? 

 Answer:  Abrahamic God.


----------



## fschmidt (Dec 22, 2015)

I didn't come here to debate, I came to see if Sikhism can provide a refuge from modern culture.  And the answer is clearly no.


----------



## Ishna (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> I didn't come here to debate, I came to see if Sikhism can provide a refuge from modern culture.  And the answer is clearly no.



Correct


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

fschmidt said:


> I didn't come here to debate, I came to see if Sikhism can provide a refuge from modern culture.  And the answer is clearly no.



Perhaps you did not come here to debate but you did come here to talk about morality as per Old Testament, which results into a debate.

Once again read my question to you about modern culture and respond with all honesty.

Sikhi has provided refuge to many many peoples around the world through out its history. You just need to study things before jumping to your own baseless conclusion.

Here is just one glimpse of Sikhi:


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Dec 22, 2015)

_Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. _  (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

*Ravished *means *Raped.*


----------

