In the Old Testament, we read how God laid down that certain sinners such as homosexuals were to be stoned to death. Jesus if he is this God, as he supposedly claimed to be, is responsible. Christians who say that God had no choice but to command the executions cannot tell us why he had no choice. They only guess that. Also, even if he had no choice did it really have to be done by stoning? That was ultra-cruel. It is a lie too that the rules were civil rules. They were religious rules and to be enforced by religion. If the laws were really civil rules they would be more detailed and read like legislation. And Israel was a wandering tribe not a state at the time the rules were given.
Ezekiel 23 uses honour killing ideology but not against individuals but against two kingdoms represented as women. Why women? That shows how toxic he was! There was no real need for anybody to write and write like that and make demands on scribes to preserve the writings when that was a costly and long enterprise. Why just not keep it short and sweet?
The kingdoms of Olahah and Ohalibah are treated as women who are mocked and degraded and slain for debauchery by God and by implication his cohorts. Now only somebody that hated women and wanted honour killings against them would use such an allegory in a religious text. And especially in a society that was engaging in such murders against young girls in particular. Women haters would have enjoyed Ezekiel's piece. Harm is normalised by being written about in that way and then soon actual women are killed. Do not forget that the societal or collective honour killing of a kingdom is an honour killing. That is what the text and its God demands. Only an evil God would fantasise that killing the kingdoms was like honour killings of women. Only evil men would preserve such garbage.
Jesus of course regarded the likes of Ezekiel as valid scripture and banned
any tampering with scriptural texts "not an iota shall pass away".
John Loftus writes in The Case Against Miracles, "Joseph's dream is used in
Gospel of Matthew's narrative to help explain why Mary was not put to death
for dishonouring him because of adultery." The story says that Joseph
decided she deserved to be stoned to death but decided to divorce her
quietly so that the authorities would not kill her. It calls him a
righteous man agreeing that he had a dilemma and either option was okay.
Loftus says that one option was honour killing. "Honour killings were
justified in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus even agreed with the
Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9) against his opponents on behalf of
honour killings of children who dishonoured their parents (Mark 7:8-13).
The tale of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus exposes the hypocrisy
of her accusers, doesn't change what Jesus thinks of the law either (John 8;
Matthew 5:18." Clearly the point Jesus made in this case was that hypocrisy
was going to be the subject not the woman's capital crime of adultery. The
text cannot be used against capital punishment. It is not about that. It
is about the hypocrites not the woman.It is odd that making a saint of Jack the Ripper
is unthinkable for Christians when they make saints of Moses who was a
mass-murderer and of St Paul. And they make a God of the man that condoned
murders that surpassed anything the Ripper ever did.