An atheist riffs on the Bible (New International Version): Exodus 22

Regular paragraphs are the verses as written in the Bible.
Indented italicized paragraphs feature my comments on the previous paragraph.
Note that I might appear especially nitpicky and I know that some of these verses are not taken literally by everybody; I'm just having some fun basically.
Why the New International Version or NIV? Why not? The Bible has already been translated countless times before and I can't read or speak the original languages in which it was written, which is why it is stupid in the first place to assume that a divine being would communicate with us through a book.

New International Version

Exodus 22

Protection of Property

¹ "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

The payback seems rather arbitrary, but it's not too bad a law overall. Except that it doesn't apply all that much in today's world.

² "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; ³ but if it happens ^[a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.

But you know, when there's a thief in your house and you catch him in the middle of his act, he starts with a disadvantage. The guy is the one infiltrating your house, trying to take your stuff against your will and you just don't know if he's going to hurt you or your family. I'm not saying for instance that policemen who shoot a criminal too quickly are always innocent, but I'm not going to pity too much a guy who comes at you with a gun, he's the one starting with the disadvantage of being considered the bad guy in that situation. All I'm saying is that sometimes, even after sunrise, you could accidentally panic and kill the thief or he could be uncooperative. And the alternative is not too good either. God is once again endorsing slavery. I don't know about you, but I would consider prison and slavery somewhat similar in a way; but the whole act of a single PERSON OWNING A HUMAN BEING seems less moral even if we're talking about a thief here. Also of note is the fact that maybe the thief is a thief because he doesn't have anything (not always, but in some cases), so there are chances that he might have really been in a bad situation and tried to steal something to feed his family. Should he be a slave for that? (And yes I talked about maybe accidentally shooting the guy, that's something else, but if you don't panic and he clearly doesn't try to harm you and you talk with him after that, you might come to realize that selling him as a slave is the worst you could do.)

⁴ "If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—he must pay back double.

OK, fine, but what if the guy stole my HDTV. Let's face it, it's just more likely in this day and age.

⁵ "If a man grazes his livestock in a field or vineyard and lets them stray and they graze in another man's field, he must make restitution from the best of his own field or vineyard.

Kinda like if my dumbass kid (which I don't have one by the way) breaks something in a store, I'm likely to have to pay for it. This is not too bad a law either, but if God himself has to get that specific (and not let humans come up with this very simple logic rule), I certainly hope he can specify more important things.

⁶ "If a fire breaks out and spreads into thornbushes so that it burns shocks of grain or standing grain or the whole field, the one who started the fire must make restitution.

Hey, shit happens. I'm just glad some people have insurances today. Why didn't God suggest anything about that? (Not that insurance companies are that moral, but then neither is God.) But you know, sometimes it's really not someone's fault when a fire starts. In today's world, we can talk about electricity going wild. Even at the time, I guess there were wildfires and maybe sometimes lightning.

⁷ "If a man gives his neighbor silver or goods for safekeeping and they are stolen from the neighbor's house, the thief, if he is caught, must pay back double. ⁸ But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges ^[b] to determine whether he has laid his hands on the other man's property. ⁹ In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, 'This is mine,' both parties are to bring their cases before the judges. The one whom the judges declare ^[c] guilty must pay back double to his neighbor.

Once again, not too bad a law. But you know who'd know who was guilty and who was lying every single time, no mistake possible? God. Why is he letting so much power in the hands of the judges who are faulty humans? He must be tired, after all it's not like he has unlimited powers. Oh wait...

¹⁰ "If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, ¹¹ the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required. ¹² But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, he must make restitution to the owner. ¹³ If it was torn to pieces by a wild animal, he shall bring in the remains as evidence and he will not be required to pay for the torn animal.

Here I was confusing "is taken away while no one is looking" with "the animal was stolen from the neighbor". Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't see the difference. And anyway, while this law is not immoral, it gives place to lies, easy lies. (I guess you believers would say that God knows he's lying and will punish him later. Fine, prove it.)

¹⁴ "If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. ¹⁵ But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.

OK, but technically you could borrow a sick animal without knowing it. Leave town for a couple hours and come back to see the animal in a very poor state. Unlikely, but how do you know he wasn't sick when you borrowed it? Maybe the owner tricked you.

Social Responsibility

¹⁶ "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.

Man, in a time where men didn't want anything to do with women who weren't virgins, her father would be a jerk to refuse to let her marry the guy, especially if she likes him (I guess he was not that bad if he seduced her). I'm not saying he should absolutely let her be with the man, I think this whole virgin thing is a stupid concept from the start. But more than that, let's ask her dammit. Maybe she wants to be with the guy, maybe she doesn't. It's up to her; she's a human being like men!

¹⁸ "Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Wow, I have plenty of things to say, but I'll try to make it short. People, you haven't even proven that there's a God, but now we're talking about witches. I mean, we've never seen any example of a witch really existing outside fiction and if anyone would claim to be a witch, I'm sure we could prove her wrong. Something else, maybe being a witch is not that bad (if it existed) if you don't do bad things you know. And just what is a sorceress or sorcerer, because frankly I can't differentiate it from what Moses did with the help of God.

¹⁹ "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.

Huh? WTF! On the other hand, I'm sure some farmers happen to be both believers and animal fucker. Now on the topic of killing an animal fucker, I don't know that I would agree. I'm not a vegan. I like animals and having sex with them is bad if they don't agree (and I'm sure they don't most of the time at least) and we should avoid as much harm towards animals as we possibly can. If we find out someone has done that, we should maybe punish that person, make sure they're not around animals anymore, but don't kill them. They have a sick perversion, that's all.

²⁰ "Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. ^[d]

I'm tired of this book not being clear about the number of gods there are. But on the other hand, that's a stupid law I won't ever break since I in fact don't sacrifice to any other god.

²¹ "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Here, take that racist people! But here would have been a good opportunity to say "Do not treat your fellow man as a slave, for you were slaves too."

²² "Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. ²³ If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. ²⁴ My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.

I'd like it better if God could somewhat intervene before any harm is done rather than waiting for the guy to do his whole thing with the widow or orphan, whatever it is, and then punishing him. I'm against thought crime, because even if we had a way to know what you're thinking, it doesn't mean you're going to do it. God is something else though, because he knows.

²⁵ "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest. ^{[e] 26} If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, ²⁷ because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

But if he doesn't pay you back eventually, break his legs, because I'm not THAT compassionate.

²⁸ "Do not blaspheme God ^[f] or curse the ruler of your people.

Goddamn the Canadian prime minister is dumb. I curse him and fuck God too! But seriously, I would not have too many reasons to curse my ruler compared to people in some other countries. Are they bound by this law too?

²⁹ "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. ^[g]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. ³⁰ Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

Wh-wh-what!? Offer your firstborn as a sacrifice to the LORD? I know nobody does that anymore, well almost nobody. The point is no matter whether you do it or not, that's a law that the same God many people believe in once gave to his people and arguably the law was not meant to be abandoned someday. That the guy you worship people. I mean with Isaac, even if the LORD decided otherwise, it was already telling that a believer (Abraham) thought God could be one to give this kind of law, but now there's no denying it. And once again there's this obsession with the number 7, but it's particularly cruel since the mother will get to know her child a little bit and lose it.

³¹ "You are to be my holy people. So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.

I just don't get the connection. You are my holy people, so don't eat meat from an animal that wasn't killed by you. Not a lot to criticize compared to the rest, but I still don't get it.

Footnotes:

a. Exodus 22:3 Or if he strikes him
b. Exodus 22:8 Or before God ; also in verse
c. Exodus 22:9 Or whom God declares
d. Exodus 22:20 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them.
e. Exodus 22:25 Or excessive interest
f. Exodus 22:28 Or Do not revile the judges
g. Exodus 22:29 The meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain.