Refuting Scripture

[Esprix]

Got to thinking the other day (which, as we all know, is a dangerous thing ;) )...

From The West Wing (http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0200276):

President Bartlet: I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.

Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

This is based off of an e-mail letter that was going around a while back challenging Dr. Laura's stance on homosexuality (it's quoted in the "Dear Dr. Laura" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=40590) thread). Now when someone brought this letter up here in the "Dear Dr. Laura-would she answer?" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26093) thread (and also here in the "Following the Bible(?!?!?)" (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26247) thread), several people jumped in and refuted the letter point by point, attempting to knock down those counterarguments using various means (relativity to the times, parables, and whatnot - read the threads for details). I don't want to argue each and every point, so for the sake of this discussion I will assume that those counterpoints are at least valid points of view, if not accurate Biblical interpretation.

Now, one of my favorite pieces of religious writing is the Rev. Dr. Walter Wink's "Homosexuality and the Bible" (http://www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html). One of the reasons I like this is because he says, Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but it also says quite a lot of other things are sins that today we've wholly abandoned, yet we continue to see homosexuality as a sin.

So, here's my point - in the article, he refutes the Bible's admonitions of homosexuality (notably Rom. 1:26-27) very similarly (and just as educatedly) as the folks who refuted the points in the Dr. Laura letter.

Please tell me why, then, should we be expected to accept that the refutations to the points in the Dr. Laura letter are sound, but that Wink's refutations are not? (NOTE: This is no way meant to malign any of the posters in the above-linked threads.)

Discuss.

Esprix

[Gaspode]

I know Polycarp’s just going to love seeing me in this thread but anyhoo.

I’m not sure I quite understand the question Esprix, but here’s my thoughts on what I think you’re asking.

I think that in general the refutations to the Dr Laura letter are based on Jewish law since the questions are based entirely on Leviticus. Jewish law was then and is now very explicit. There were judges and arbitrators to make rulings in cases of disputes of the law and the laws themselves went into a fair degree of detail so as not to be ambiguous. This included the use of various illustrations and case studies which can be used as precedents from the thousands of years covered by the OT. Added to this there are still courts or similar to give rulings on any vague areas of law so these questions can be resolved fairly definitively.
Now Wink’s refutations include quite a few points of New Testament ‘law’. This is nowhere near so clear cut, with no distinct rulings on individual matters and IIRC only one reference to setting up a court of Christians to judge disputes so that matters between Christians don’t get taken into ‘heathen’ courts. Wink’s refutations, while admittedly educated and well thought out, are no more than speculation on the intent and knowledge of the writers of the NT. He speculates about Paul’s knowledge of psychology and makes assertions about our modern knowledge of the reasons behind homosexuality being inherently more accurate than the knowledge of the NT Christians. While he is almost certainly correct in both assumptions his answers don’t constitute fact.
It is the fact that there are no ‘graven in stone’ rulings and precedents on these and other matters in the NT that have allowed people to give so many interpretations to so many parts of the book.
So basically IMHO it comes down to our having to accept the refutations of Dr. Laura because the law being questioned is quite explicit in it’s wording, the courts have ruled on the matter in the past and left precedents and there are still courts capable of making a ruling on these matters of Jewish law even today. The answer then becomes fairly black and white.
No one is going to feel compelled to accept Wink’s refutations because he is not a recognised court, is making assumptions based on education and not law and there are no precedents in the NT that clarify the picture very much. Added to this few Christians are going to accept it because it requires an acceptance that Paul is capable of writing material that contradicts G_d’s will. The wholehearted acceptance of the NT, if not the whole ‘Bible’, as the unerring word of G_d is fairly central to most Christian faiths (at least in theory), Asking them to believe this would probably be tantamount to asking them to abandon their current faith.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Gosh, darn, esprix- is that not what I have been saying all along?

1. The OT Laws do not aplly to Christians- we have a "New Covenant"- this includes the one about homosexual sex. In any case, altho Homosexual sex is certainly condemned in the OT - it is not singled out as being much worse than wearing a linen/wool mix in ones clothes, or having sex with ones wife during her period. Note also, the OT Laws are for the Jewish folk, only- there is nothing wrong with goyim eating traif.

2. Yes, there are two Pauline verses that likely condemn gay sex. They are both in of long lists of many, many other sins, which are just as bad, including: drunkeness, debating, envy, the proud, boasting, fornication, coveting, the decietful, backbiters, inventors of evil things, & idolators- etc. Oddly enuf, the "gay haters" seem to never mention all these others, and are in many cases guilty of several of these. I also want to point out that Paul thought it was best for NO-ONE to have sex at all, for any reason, including man with wife.

In general, these Pauline list of sins are directly against what JC himself taught, which had a very strong bent towards tolerance. After all, we are not "Paulians" we are Christians- so we should listen to JC first.

[puddleglum]

Many of the old testament laws were concerned with keeping people clean and kosher. Since the death of Jesus has rendered all Christians permanently clean and since kosher laws were explicitly rejected in the NT Christians no longer have to follow those either. However, the moral laws in the OT still have validity. The commandments about sexual matters fall under the moral laws. They are still useful as guides to behavior and as to what does or does not please God.
In the essay by Dr. Wink he dismisses what he admits are clear prohibitions by Paul with assertions that Paul did not understand as much as Dr. Wink does about the nature of sin and the nature of homosexuality. If Dr. Wink really thinks he understands more about his religion than the founders of his religion did, he should start his own religion with his writings in the place of Paul's. Homosexuality is included in lists of sins because it is a sin. If it is not than neither is adultery, idolatry, lying, or stealing. Dr. Wink's assertion that there is no sexual ethic in the Bible is just libertine wishful thinking. The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can't make it say something else by wishing.

[Freyr]

puddleglum wrote:

The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can't make it say something else by wishing.

True enough, but values and mores do change over time. Consider slavery. In the times when the Torah and NT were being written, slavery was acceptable. It's practice is condoned in both the OT & NT. Yet today, no rational thinking person would accept it or practice it. The social attitudes toward slavery have certainly changed, without God's intervention, why can't the attitudes toward homosexuality (or homosexual acts) also change?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr
puddleglum wrote:

The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can't make it say something else by wishing.

True enough, but values and mores do change over time. Consider slavery. In the times when the Torah and NT were being written, slavery was acceptable. It's practice is condoned in both the OT & NT. Yet today, no rational thinking person would accept it or practice it. The social attitudes toward slavery have certainly changed, without God's intervention, why can't the attitudes toward homosexuality (or homosexual acts) also change?

Freyr, I answered this one in another thread.

Slavery is a permitted thing. One is (according to the Bible) allowed to own slaves. If we, as a society, choose not to own slaves, then we don't have to. Similarly, the Bible allows us to eat meat. If we choose, however, we don't have to eat meat. We're not violating any commandment by not eating meat or not owning slaves.

Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a forbidden thing. Just as (Orthodox) Jews today will not eat pork, even if everyone else on the planet eats it, so to homosexual behavior cannot be permitted just because society has become tolerant of it.

Zev Steinhardt

[Opus1]

Puddlegum:
The commandments about sexual matters fall under the moral laws. They are still useful as guides to behavior and as to what does or does not please God.


I take it then that you don't have sex with your wife/husband during her/your menstrual cycle?

What about other moral laws in the OT? Dt. requires two witnesses in a capital crime. Should we base US law on this? Exodus says that if a man owns a bull which he knows to be dangerous, and the bull kills someone, he should die. Should we enforce this law today with, say, Pit bulls instead of bulls?

Genesis says that God is pleased by the smell of roasting animal flesh. Should we continue sacrificing animals? (I realize that animal sacrifice is a ceremonial, not moral law, but you said that we should use OT laws as guides to what "does or does not please God.")

Should we still have cities of refuge for criminals like they did in the Old Testament? Should we follow the procedure for an unsolved murder in Dt. 21? If not, why not? Is this not a moral law? If not, how should we treat unsolved murders? Why did God see a need to give a rule, eliminate it, and then not replace it with a something better?!

[Freyr]

Esprix, sorry to hijack your thread, but I want get the STRAIGHT DOPE on this point from Zev.

Zev wrote:

Slavery is a permitted thing. One is (according to the Bible) allowed to own slaves. If we, as a society, choose not to own slaves, then we don't have to. Similarly, the Bible allows us to eat meat. If we choose, however, we don't have to eat meat. We're not violating any commandment by not eating meat or not owning slaves.

Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is a forbidden thing. Just as (Orthodox) Jews today will not eat pork, even if everyone else on the planet eats it, so to homosexual behavior cannot be permitted just because society has become tolerant of it.

So, to summarize; because it has God's sanction, slavery is permitted, whereas homosexual acts are forbidden?

[Polycarp]

Puddleglum commented:

The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can't make it say something else by wishing.

Neat! You must have one of those new Talking Bibles! The ones my wife and I use just sit there and don't say a word. You have to pick them up and read them.

And it helps if you use your mind in doing so. That, after all, is one of the things you are to love the Lord with when you become a Christian.

As for Walter Wink, may I presume you've never read the book Esprix refers to? We have, as part of a Church-sponsored study. And I'd say that the last thing he wants to do is be a libertine. Rather, he's a sincere Biblical scholar and moral theologian who is trying to make sense of Scripture for the modern age. (Not "accommodate Scripture to the modern age.")

And as for making up a new religion, I tend to like the one I have, myself. The Founder of it said moving things like "Judge not, lest you be judged" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." And when a woman was caught in active sexual sin and brought to Him, He refused to condemn her to death by stoning, and defied the men who brought her to Him to allege they were sinless by starting the stoning.

Be glad to tell you more about my faith sometime if you like. It means a lot to me.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden
The OT Laws do not apply to Christians- we have a "New Covenant"I have one question:

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Jab- because the "Old Covenant" applied ONLY to the Jews.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Freyr

So, to summarize; because it has God's sanction, slavery is permitted, whereas homosexual acts are forbidden?

Yes...slavery is permitted unless it is against the law of the society. Homosexual acts are forbidden, regardless of the law of the society.

[jab1]

DITWD: What was Jesus? A Catholic?

You just don't get it. If God is All-Knowing, He should have been able to get it right the first time. It should not have been necessary for Him to EVER change the rules. Human beings had not changed so much in just 4,000 years (more or less) to make it necessary to change the rules. And, even if we had, God would have known EXACTLY how we would change and would have taken this into account when He first laid down the Law.

Unless you are arguing that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just wayyy too complicated for Moses and his people to understand?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What kind of God permits slavery? Surely not a god who loves every person, including those who would be made into slaves.

[Freyr]

Captain Amazing wrote:

Yes...slavery is permitted unless it is against the law of the society. Homosexual acts are forbidden, regardless of the law of the society.

The Judeo-Christian God says slavery is okay, there's nothing immoral about it, but homosexual acts are immoral.

Have I got it right?

[Lemur866]

Here's the thing. Dr. Laura is Jewish. That means that she really does follow all those silly laws about not eating horses and wearing poly-cotton blends and such. So you can't call her a hypocrite, like you could all those christians who cite Leviticus for the anti-gay laws but ignore all the others.

Observant Jews follow the law because it's the law. It doesn't have to make sense, God asked them not to so that's what they do. Now, humans can come up with some ideas about WHY the rules are the way they are, but observant Jews feel they have to follow them EVEN IF they don't make sense.

That's what you have to remember. It doesn't have to make sense to human rules, since the whole point is to submit to God's will, not human desire.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr
Captain Amazing wrote:

Yes...slavery is permitted unless it is against the law of the society. Homosexual acts are forbidden, regardless of the law of the society.

The Judeo-Christian God says slavery is okay, there's nothing immoral about it, but homosexual acts are immoral.

Have I got it right?

Well, I can't tell you about Christianity, but, in Judaism, slavery is tolerated while homosexual behavior is forbidden. Yes, you heard right, Freyr.

Zev Steinhardt

[Esprix]

That has to be one of the saddest things I've ever read.

Esprix

[Opus1]

A believe I shall be quoting Zev next time I explain to someone why I don't think that the Bible is the word of God.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Umm, folks- there was nothing immoral about slavery some 4000 years ago. Even in this great nation, a majority did not think it was immoral until some 150 years ago. You cannot judge those of the past by the morals of the today. Geo. Washington & Thom Jefferson, who were both great beleivers in freedom & the 'rights of man"- both owned slaves. And, around then, folks were starting to have second thoughts about slavery.

Many slaves were "POWs', who if not enslaved, would have been killed. Many criminals were enslaved, as there were no prisons to speak of. Slavery 4000 years ago- was often the "humane alternative". What is "hard labor'- but legalized slavery?

When the Hebrews "enslaved" their own people, it was more like a "bondservant", where a man, with no goods or skills- could "sell himself"- and after 7 years would be freed with enough to get him a start. True, the hebrews were not this nice to outsiders they captured in battle, etc- but even then they were not treated as bad as many other nations seemingly did. However even if the Isrealites treated their foriegn slaves as badly as everyone else did- again, in those days, slavery often was the humane alternative.

Don't be guilty of the crime of "presentism"- ie judging those of the past by todays standards- remember, a couple hundred years from now it is YOU that will be judged. What have YOU done to get Chimps or Dolphins the full rights of humans? A hundred years from now, all of us who eat meat may well be considered "inhuman savages". You must strive only to be a humane man of the present, you don't know what the future will bring, and neither did those of the past.

It would be hard to show me a "great man" of several hundred years ago, that could stand up to todays standards- and MUCH harder to do that with someone several THOUSAND years ago.

Zev- good job, bro.

[Opus1]

DITWD:

So, let me get this straight:

1) Slavery is wrong now, but it wasn't 4,000 years ago
2) Slavery was better than the alternative, usually death
3) Slavery wasn't really slavery, more like indentured servitude

You remind me of a lawyer arguing that his client didn't commit a murder because he has an airtight alibi, it was self defense, and he was insane to boot!

Now, I will be the first to agree that morals and norms change over time. But this is not just any book of laws: it's the Bible!

Whatever happened to Ps. 19?:

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple
The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes
The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever.
The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb


And besides, aren't we told that "The Lord changeth not"?

If you want to argue that the ancient Israelites' moral code should be judged by the standards of their time, fine. But most people in America consider it the law of God, not an ancient tribe of goatherds. So excuse me if I hold it to a slightly higher standard.

[Ben]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

Well, I can't tell you about Christianity, but, in Judaism, slavery is tolerated while homosexual behavior is forbidden. Yes, you heard right, Freyr.

In reference to DITWD's usual claims about "presentism," let me ask for clarification.

In *modern-day* Judaism, slavery is tolerated? In theory, Orthodox Jews would see nothing immoral about instituting slavery in Israel?


Or by "Judaism" are you only referring to the Judaism of 4,000 years ago?


-Ben

[Freyr]

Zev wrote:

Well, I can't tell you about Christianity, but, in Judaism, slavery is tolerated while homosexual behavior is forbidden. Yes, you heard right, Freyr.

So, slavery is considered moral, it doesn't break God's rules. Homosexual acts are immoral, they DO break God's rules.

Zev, this is the logical inconsistency that I was trying to get at. That may have been fine some 3200 years ago, but I think it's pure idiocy in modern society.

DitWD wrote:

Don't be guilty of the crime of "presentism"- ie judging those of the past by todays standards- remember, a couple hundred years from now it is YOU that will be judged.

I'm not trying to judge anyone. I was merely trying to point out a major, glaring logical inconsistency in Judeo-Christian law. I think I've made my point.

[Freyr]

Whoops, my bad, my bad!

Freyr wrote:

I was merely trying to point out a major, glaring logical inconsistency in Judeo-Christian law.

That should read major, glaring, MORAL inconsistency

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Freyr

So, slavery is considered moral, it doesn't break God's rules. Homosexual acts are immoral, they DO break God's rules.



No, slavery isn't considered moral, it's considered legal. The rule doesn't go, "Have slaves"...the rule goes, "If you have slaves, treat them like this.", but there's nothing wrong with saying, "We, as a society have decided slavery is a moral evil, so we won't let anyone have slaves, no matter how they're treated.", which is what most of the world has decided, today. You can also find verses in the Torah that say that slavery probably shouldn't be done at all.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Originally posted by Freyr

So, slavery is considered moral, it doesn't break God's rules. Homosexual acts are immoral, they DO break God's rules.



No, slavery isn't considered moral, it's considered legal. The rule doesn't go, "Have slaves"...the rule goes, "If you have slaves, treat them like this.", but there's nothing wrong with saying, "We, as a society have decided slavery is a moral evil, so we won't let anyone have slaves, no matter how they're treated.", which is what most of the world has decided, today. You can also find verses in the Torah that say that slavery probably shouldn't be done at all.

And one more thing I should point out. If Jews live in a place where slavery is outlawed, then they are forbidden to own them.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

There is another item I should mention. It is simply this: just because something is permitted, it does not necessarily recommend that it be done.

For example, smoking is permitted in the United States. However, I personally (as do many other people) find the practice detestable and would never do it. Eventually, we as a society may learn not to smoke at all. Will smoking remain legal? Yes, but not really practiced anymore. The same could be said about slavery (not that I'm really equating the two). Although it is technically "on the books," I like to think that we, as a society, have moved beyond that and no longer want or need it, even if it is still technically legal. And please note that slavery IS outlawed in Israel (despite the fact that the Torah permits it).

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

:: Just sitting back and waiting for a Pit thread about me to open ::

:D

Zev Steinhardt

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
And please note that slavery IS outlawed in Israel (despite the fact that the Torah permits it).

Zev Steinhardt


If you now recognize that slavery IS a moral wrong, then do you also acknowledge that the Torah did not go far enough to protect human rights in this case? Is the omission of this protection equivalent to being wrong *in this case*?

And if so, could you then recognize that perhaps other parts of the Torah, particularly concerning the treatment (murder) of homosexuals, also be wrong?

Although I'm asking Zev about this, the same principle applies to the NT.

The arguement made about judging people of ancient times by today's standards is not relevant to a discussion of supposedly *G-d* inspired directions. If it is wrong to G-d now, it must surely have been wrong then.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Opus1
Whatever happened to Ps. 19?:

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple
The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes
The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever.
The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb


And besides, aren't we told that "The Lord changeth not"?Which is EXACTLY what I mean by my sig line!

DITWD is banned? :D

[andros]

Color me a bit confused still.

slavery isn't considered moral

Certainly it's not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in "the righteous man owns slaves"). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?

I guess I still don't understand. Cap, Zev, are y'all saying that unless the Torah and the Talmud explicitly forbid something, they can be trumped by "societal morals?"

[Freyr]

First, I want to say I'm not trying to bash on Judeaism here, just get a clarification and understanding of the point of what is and isn't allowed and wondering, after some 3200 years of history, if things couldn't change.

But Zev & Captain Amazing, you both seem to agree with the inconsistency that I've been driving at; one activity was once accepted and practiced, but now is considered morally repugnant and rightfully shunned, even tho technically allowed. The other activity, then considered repugnant, is still considered repugnant and forbidden, even tho it's totally innocuous. If the interpretation of the rules for one can change, why not the other, too?

[Freyr]

Puddlegum wrote:

The Bible says what it says, you can either accept it or reject it but you can't make it say something else by wishing.

The Bible says lots of things and is open to interpretation by many people and that's the point we're making here. The conservative Christians say it means one thing, the liberal Christians say it means something else. Which is the correct interpretation? Biblical verses were onced used to show that the earth was the center of the universe and was stationary. Like I said, it all depends upon your interpretation.

[Ben]

Originally posted by andros
Certainly it's not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in "the righteous man owns slaves"). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?

Actually, I remember reading about a Rabbi of the 19th century who argued that not only was slavery moral, but that since Abraham was a slaveowner, and since Abraham is declared by the Bible to be a righteous man, it must be immoral to be anti-slavery because by doing so you are criticising the Bible's moral judgement.

-Ben

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Homebrew
Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
And please note that slavery IS outlawed in Israel (despite the fact that the Torah permits it).

Zev Steinhardt


If you now recognize that slavery IS a moral wrong, then do you also acknowledge that the Torah did not go far enough to protect human rights in this case? Is the omission of this protection equivalent to being wrong *in this case*?


No. God has, for whatever His reasons, decided to allow slavery. However, just because the law exists, it doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to accept or institutionalize it. We can, among ourselves, say "We aren't going to allow anyone to own slaves." And that is what we have done. There is no law *requiring* the ownership of slaves. A similar case could be made about marriage laws. In Judaism, a boy of thireen can, technically, get married. However, as a society, we've come past that to the point where we encourage men to wait until they are older before they contract a marriage.


And if so, could you then recognize that perhaps other parts of the Torah, particularly concerning the treatment (murder) of homosexuals, also be wrong?


First of all, the Torah doesn't advocate the open murder of homosexuals. It is true that homosexual behavior *does* carry the death penalty in Judaism, however, the practical application of that is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Secondly, as I pointed out above, there is a *big* difference between forbidding the permitted and permitting the forbidden. Forbidding slaves is possible (as was forbidding polygamy). Permitting homosexual behavior, OTOH, is not possible.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by andros

Color me a bit confused still.

slavery isn't considered moral

Certainly it's not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in "the righteous man owns slaves"). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?

I guess I still don't understand. Cap, Zev, are y'all saying that unless the Torah and the Talmud explicitly forbid something, they can be trumped by "societal morals?"

Not at all.

Just because something is permitted, that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Smoking, for example, is permitted, but I don't think you'll find anyone who says that Judaism encourages people to smoke.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr
First, I want to say I'm not trying to bash on Judeaism here, just get a clarification and understanding of the point of what is and isn't allowed and wondering, after some 3200 years of history, if things couldn't change.

But Zev & Captain Amazing, you both seem to agree with the inconsistency that I've been driving at; one activity was once accepted and practiced, but now is considered morally repugnant and rightfully shunned, even tho technically allowed. The other activity, then considered repugnant, is still considered repugnant and forbidden, even tho it's totally innocuous. If the interpretation of the rules for one can change, why not the other, too?

Because there is one fundemental difference. As I said above permitting the forbidden is not the same as forbidding the permitted. THAT'S the difference.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Ben
Originally posted by andros
Certainly it's not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in "the righteous man owns slaves"). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?

Actually, I remember reading about a Rabbi of the 19th century who argued that not only was slavery moral, but that since Abraham was a slaveowner, and since Abraham is declared by the Bible to be a righteous man, it must be immoral to be anti-slavery because by doing so you are criticising the Bible's moral judgement.

-Ben

Yes, I heard about that one too. It happened in the days leading up to the Civil War. I wouldn't be surprised if his personal opinion didn't color his interpretation.

In any event, I doubt you'll find many rabbis who share the same interpretation that you presented above.

Zev Steinhardt

[Opus1]

zev:

Are you a practicing Jew? Orthodox?

If so, I have a question:
Have you ever considered that the reason that the Torah allows slave ownership, but forbids homosexuality, is that it was written by men who were products of their time, not some inscrutable God?

If you are not of the opinion that the Torah is the word of God (you're decision to spell out the name 'God' gives me some doubt), but are rather simply explaining the Jewish position on it, please ignore and carry on.

[cmkeller]

Slaves in Judiac Law were not equivelent to slaves in the antebellum South. Unlike the latter, who could be and were abused at will, Judaic law required slaveowners to treat their slaves well. Just one example of this is that if, between the master and his slave, there's only one pillow to sleep with, the master must let the slave have it. And if a slave were to be abused to the degree that he loses a tooth, he is given his freedom.

[Gaudere]

What about the bit that if you beat the slave nigh to death, yet he surivives for a day or two, the master is not to be punished? Exod 21:21. It doesn't seem quite so idyllic. (What's the pillow rule from, BTW? I've never run across any reference to that)

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Yes, I heard about that one too. It happened in the days leading up to the Civil War. I wouldn't be surprised if his personal opinion didn't color his interpretation.

In any event, I doubt you'll find many rabbis who share the same interpretation that you presented above.

Zev Steinhardt [/B]

Well, and you found a lot of rabbis who didn't share his opinion at the time. There were a bunch of actively abolitionist synagogues in America prior to the Civil War. As you can imagine, most American religious bodies were divided about the issue at the time.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Opus1
zev:

Are you a practicing Jew? Orthodox?

If so, I have a question:
Have you ever considered that the reason that the Torah allows slave ownership, but forbids homosexuality, is that it was written by men who were products of their time, not some inscrutable God?

If you are not of the opinion that the Torah is the word of God (you're decision to spell out the name 'God' gives me some doubt), but are rather simply explaining the Jewish position on it, please ignore and carry on.

Sorry, Opus1, I am (to use an old Marvel Comics term) a True Believer.

As a TB (no, not the disease!), I do believe that the Pentatuch was dictated by God.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Originally posted by andros

Color me a bit confused still.

slavery isn't considered moral

Certainly it's not considered an activelt moral way of life (as in "the righteous man owns slaves"). But it would be possible, under Talmudic law, to live a moral life as a slaveowner, right?

I guess I still don't understand. Cap, Zev, are y'all saying that unless the Torah and the Talmud explicitly forbid something, they can be trumped by "societal morals?"

Not at all.

Just because something is permitted, that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. Smoking, for example, is permitted, but I don't think you'll find anyone who says that Judaism encourages people to smoke.

Zev Steinhardt

I'm sorry andros, I misunderstood your question. Please allow me to re-answer.

If something is not explicitly forbidden, then we, as a society (or as individuals) can forbid it to ourselves, if we so wish.

For example, I can take an oath not to eat tomatoes. Tomatoes are not forbidden under Jewish law. However, after I take this oath, it is forbidden for me to eat them.

Similarly, as a group, we (or our leaders) can choose to forbid certain activities. One such example is polygamy, which can no longer be performed.

It's not so much as being trumped, as it is deciding that never every thing that we are allowed to do must be done.

Zev Steinhardt

[sqweels]

How about spelling right out? Anyone who believes that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the will of God is WRONG! If it was, it would condemn slavery (it would also warn against harming the environment). Slavery is extremely immoral, always has, always will be. Immorality is defined as actions which cause unacceptable levels of harm, not what is in some people's opinions the will of God.
People are entitled to their opinions, of course (and these are my opinions, it's just that mine make sense), but these opinions/beliefs are supposed to be based on faith, and faith is a personal choice. You can't treat these beliefs as laws and impose them on others, or make direct claims and be credible. You have to have good reasons. Obviously slavery was well-established in ancient cultures and the Bible is a reflection of one of them. Judaism may have permitted slavery, but that doesn't mean God does.

Therefore claims that God prohibits homosexuality are baseless.

[cmkeller]

Gaudere:

What about the bit that if you beat the slave nigh to death, yet he surivives for a day or two, the master is not to be punished? Exod 21:21. It doesn't seem quite so idyllic.

This rule is based on the assumption that if the slave managed to survive the beating, then the master obviously didn't intend to murder him.

(What's the pillow rule from, BTW? I've never run across any reference to that)

I'll have to look that up. I know it's Talmudically derived rather than explicit in the Torah, but even so, that points to how Judaic slaves of old were treated.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Czarcasm]

So if I attempt to murder someone, but the intended victim survives, it's not an intended murder?

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

Secondly, as I pointed out above, there is a *big* difference between forbidding the permitted and permitting the forbidden. Forbidding slaves is possible (as was forbidding polygamy). Permitting homosexual behavior, OTOH, is not possible.

Zev Steinhardt


Zev,

I appreciate your patience while answering what you apparently feel is the same question time and again. However, I think your answer, quoted above, is a bit too rehearsed and pat. You really haven't addressed my question. Let me rephrase, and please correct any misconceptions:

1. The Torah, and the Bible for Christians, is the final, ultimate authority on morality.
2. We now, rightfully, consider slavery to be morally wrong.
3. The Torah explicitly allows, and thereby condones, slavery.
4. If #2 is correct, then the Torah and the Bible are, at least, flawed for not prohibiting a moral wrong.
5. If #4 is true, as I contend, then the scriptures are not infallible.
6. If the scriptures are fallible, then we are required to evaluate the commandments to differentiate what is truly immoral from what is canonized superstition, bias and bigotry.

There is a major flaw in your oft-stated, legal hair-splitting explanation of the differences between permitted and prohibited actions. The problem is a logical disconnect. Under these rules, slavery is allowed, but eating pork is immoral and prohibited. In other words, a crime against humanity is allowed, but a culinary practice becomes the concern of a deity.

People have freewill and intelligence. I think God requires us to use these attributes. Part of thinking is evaluating the dogma we've been given and recognizing when there is a grievous error and then correcting that error. Otherwise you've become guilty of violating the first commandment and established the scripture as your idol.

I'm not suggesting that you, personally, would support the biblical commandment that homosexual men be put to death. However, I believe that people of conscience must speak out against wrong, especially when that wrong comes wrapped in the robes of religion and God. To do less is immoral.

[cmkeller]

Czarcasm:

So if I attempt to murder someone, but the intended victim survives, it's not an intended murder?

Well, sure it's an intended murder...but what society gives the same punishment for attemted murder as for murder?

And that's not the issue in that Biblical scenario anyway. In that case, the point is to determine intent. The fact that the slave was able to survive the beating leads to the conclusion that there was not intent to murder in the first place, making the master's crime more akin to what we nowadays call manslaughter.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Homebrew

Zev,

I appreciate your patience while answering what you apparently feel is the same question time and again. However, I think your answer, quoted above, is a bit too rehearsed and pat. You really haven't addressed my question. Let me rephrase, and please correct any misconceptions:

1. The Torah, and the Bible for Christians, is the final, ultimate authority on morality.


Well, I can't speak for Christians, but go on...


2. We now, rightfully, consider slavery to be morally wrong.


Go on, I'm listening...


3. The Torah explicitly allows, and thereby condones, slavery.


You still have to consider that while the commandments in the Torah are binding (on Jews anyway) eternally, it is still a product of it's time. It's possible for socitey to move away from certain concepts and no longer practice them. Slavery is one. Polygamy, for example, is another.

At the time the Torah was given, slavery was considered a norm. As a document for dealing with society as it then existed, it had to include laws for dealing with slavery, polygamy and the like. Just because a certain right exists, that doesn't mean that we must choose to exercise it.

There are certain things that the Torah permits because they are viewed as a necessary evil. Divorce, for example, is one. No one will argue that the Torah tells people to divorce their spouses. However, the Torah recognized it as a necessary evil and permits it.

The same could be said of slavery. At the time the Torah was given, slavery (like polygamy) was a necessary evil. However, we, as a society, have moved beyond that. As such, we can voluntarily ban such practices.


4. If #2 is correct, then the Torah and the Bible are, at least, flawed for not prohibiting a moral wrong.


As has been demonstrated, societal morals can change. A thousand years ago, I don't think you would have found anyone saying slavery was immoral. Who's to say that a thousand years from now slavery will be considered moral again (God forbid!). The question then becomes, what is a moral wrong?

You consider it a moral wrong to kill someone (I presume). The Nazis wouldn't have considered it morally wrong to kill someone. The anicent Greeks considered it moral to leave a crippled child out to die of exposure. Folks at PETA consider wearing fur to be immoral. Some folks consider circumcision to be immoral (mutilating a poor helpless infant). Just because you and I consider slavery a moral wrong doesn't mean that everyone else believes so. The point is, there are no absolute morals other than those God-given. Of course, if you don't believe that the Torah is from God, then we're back to square one.


5. If #4 is true, as I contend, then the scriptures are not infallible.
6. If the scriptures are fallible, then we are required to evaluate the commandments to differentiate what is truly immoral from what is canonized superstition, bias and bigotry.


See above.


There is a major flaw in your oft-stated, legal hair-splitting explanation of the differences between permitted and prohibited actions. The problem is a logical disconnect. Under these rules, slavery is allowed, but eating pork is immoral and prohibited. In other words, a crime against humanity is allowed, but a culinary practice becomes the concern of a deity.


See above concerning whether slavery is a crime against humanity. We (modern-day Americans) hold it to be so, but there are alot of people in the world who would disagree with you.


People have freewill and intelligence. I think God requires us to use these attributes. Part of thinking is evaluating the dogma we've been given and recognizing when there is a grievous error and then correcting that error. Otherwise you've become guilty of violating the first commandment and established the scripture as your idol.


That's not true. Jews believe that the Pentatuch was written by God. One does not "correct the error of the Diety." I'm sorry if that sounds closed-minded to you, but if God, for whatever reason, allowed provisions for slavery, then they exist. We don't have to avail ourselves of them (and can voluntarily forbid ourselves from doing so), but they exist nonetheless and cannot be changed.

Zev Steinhardt

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

Jews believe that the Pentatuch was written by God. One does not "correct the error of the Diety." I'm sorry if that sounds closed-minded to you, ... , but they exist nonetheless and cannot be changed.

Zev Steinhardt [/B]

I mean no disrespect, but that is precisely the issue I have with relying on the scriptures for moral grounding. I respect that you allow that society can add prohibitions for things permitted but now deemed immoral. But where I take issue is with the refusal to acknowledge that some of the prohibitions have more to do with the time they were written than with true morality; and as such amendable. However, I understand that by asserting that the scriptures are fallible I am rejecting your premise that the Pentateuch was written by God.

I guess the best we can get on this issue is that we agree to disagree on this theological point. This does, however, point to an essential reason why societal laws must be kept separate from scriptural laws.

I also appreciate that fact that you and, from my experience, other Jews don't try to convert us non-believers to your faith.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Homebrew

I mean no disrespect, but that is precisely the issue I have with relying on the scriptures for moral grounding. I respect that you allow that society can add prohibitions for things permitted but now deemed immoral. But where I take issue is with the refusal to acknowledge that some of the prohibitions have more to do with the time they were written than with true morality; and as such amendable. However, I understand that by asserting that the scriptures are fallible I am rejecting your premise that the Pentateuch was written by God.


That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.


I guess the best we can get on this issue is that we agree to disagree on this theological point. This does, however, point to an essential reason why societal laws must be kept separate from scriptural laws.


I don't have a problem with that insofar as we shouldn't have a theocratic state. However, just because a law appears in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented here. What I'm saying is that you can't just take a stand and say "Well, that's in the Bible, so because of SOCAS we can't have that here."

Zev Steinhardt

[sqweels]

See above concerning whether slavery is a crime against humanity. We (modern-day Americans) hold it to be so, but there are alot of people in the world who would disagree with you.

And on what grounds, pray tell, would they base their disagreement?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by sqweels
See above concerning whether slavery is a crime against humanity. We (modern-day Americans) hold it to be so, but there are alot of people in the world who would disagree with you.

And on what grounds, pray tell, would they base their disagreement?


That's a very good question sqweels. I don't know. Ask some Sudanese people. I'm sure they can explain their reasons.

Zev Steinhardt

[Esprix]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

You still have to consider that while the commandments in the Torah are binding (on Jews anyway) eternally, it is still a product of it's time.

It seems to me they knew less about human sexuality then than they do now.

As has been demonstrated, societal morals can change. A thousand years ago, I don't think you would have found anyone saying slavery was immoral.

And a thousand years from now, I'm really hoping people will look at today's attitudes towards sexual orientation and see it as equally unjustified.

The point is, there are no absolute morals other than those God-given.

It continues to boggle me that we can argue that human enslavement can or cannot be moral, but how two people live their lives, hurting no one, is a sin.

Esprix

[sqweels]

Religious conservatives often decry "moral relativism" and claim to embrace "absolute truth", but Zev seems to be saying that whether or not slavery is immoral is relative to which culture you belong to.

I believe that the absolute truth is out there, and if two groups disagree, then at least one of them is wrong. And although an absolutely perfect grasp of the moral truth is elusive, when it comes to slavery, it's pretty well settled: Slavery is always wrong. And if the Bible doesn't agree, then that says something about the Bible.

[Hilander10]

I have read all of the former posts and thought I might be able to humbly add a few things. Let's start with slavery and the Bible/Thora. Yes slavery is permitted under the OT however you are required to release them after a certain term of servitude. I believe it is seven years and is regardless of how they became slaves. The law both in the Thora and Talmud is fairly clear as to how they are to be treated. The harsh cruelty that was inflicted on the slaves kept by owners in the Americas prior to the civil war are forbidden by Jewish law. Slavery in the OT has much more in common with indentured servitude than the the form it took in the U.S. pre civil war.
As for homosexuality, well sorry it is forbidden by OT law. As far as NT law you got me, but the reason it was prohibited goes back to God's commandment to be fruitfull and multiply. We hebrews have allways been a minority and the law was put in place by God to ensure our continued survival. The Thora tells us that it is not our place to judge others, but to lead by example. The OT is filled with instances where Jews were required to live in places where God's laws were not in force. What did the Jews do? Well we moved, or tried to set an example other could and would follow. We let God take care of the bigger issues as it should be.
I personally have no problems with homosexuals because it's not for me to decide whether it is wrong or right. God only gave us ten laws and I can't find one that says homosexuals can't get into heaven. All other sins are forgiveable. As for the people of the OT and for that matter the NT not being as sexually aware as we are today I beg to differ. You should watch the serries Sex and the Bible on A&E I think it was very informitave on this subject.

[Homebrew]

The first post is all screwed up. Please disregard. If only I had moderator powers and could delete it.

Originally posted by Hilander10
Yes slavery is permitted under the OT however you are required to release them after a certain term of servitude. I believe it is seven years and is regardless of how they became slaves.
This requirement only applied to Jewish slaves, not slaves of other ethnic groups.


The law both in the Thora and Talmud is fairly clear as to how they are to be treated. The harsh cruelty that was inflicted on the slaves kept by owners in the Americas prior to the civil war are forbidden by Jewish law. Slavery in the OT has much more in common with indentured servitude than the the form it took in the U.S. pre civil war.


And that's why Hagar sought to escape twice? Slavery is slavery. Degrees of harsh treatment are irrelevant and apologetic. In contrast to your statment, refer to the previous post concerning the acceptability of beating slaves as long as you don't kill them.


... but the reason it was prohibited goes back to God's commandment to be fruitfull and multiply.

So sex after menopause is a sin? Sex between people who have physical conditions that prevent conception is wrong? Sex during the time of the month when a woman is not fertile is wrong?


The Thora tells us that it is not our place to judge others, but to lead by example. ... We let God take care of the bigger issues as it should be. ...I personally have no problems with homosexuals because it's not for me to decide whether it is wrong or right. (emphasis added)

If only FCs would follow that rule.


God only gave us ten laws and I can't find one that says homosexuals can't get into heaven.

I'll agree for the most part. Those 10 commandments (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) are fairly good guidelines for how to live peacefully within society.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Esprix
It continues to boggle me that we can argue that human enslavement can or cannot be moral, but how two people live their lives, hurting no one, is a sin.

Esprix

Why does it boggle you?

Many people who otherwise approve of homosexual behavior would disapprove of adult consensual incest, even though they are living "their lives, hurting no one."

Many people who otherwise approve of homosexual behavior would disapprove of polygamy, even though they are living "their lives, hurting no one."

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Homebrew

This requirement only applied to Jewish slaves, not slaves of other ethnic groups.


Yes, that's true. However, even non-Jewish slaves could not be mistreated.


And that's why Hagar sought to escape twice?


Correction. Hagar ran away once. She left after Sarah mistreated her. And in no way is Sarah's treatment of Hagar condoned. The second time she was sent away (freed).


Slavery is slavery. Degrees of harsh treatment are irrelevant and apologetic. In contrast to your statment, refer to the previous post concerning the acceptability of beating slaves as long as you don't kill them.


That may be the case today, but it wasn't thousands of years ago. Hey, I'm all for the banning of slavery in today's world.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by sqweels
Religious conservatives often decry "moral relativism" and claim to embrace "absolute truth", but Zev seems to be saying that whether or not slavery is immoral is relative to which culture you belong to.


Not quite. I do believe in absolute truth. However, I don't expect you to accept what I say is the absolute truth on my say-so.


I believe that the absolute truth is out there, and if two groups disagree, then at least one of them is wrong. And although an absolutely perfect grasp of the moral truth is elusive, when it comes to slavery, it's pretty well settled: Slavery is always wrong. And if the Bible doesn't agree, then that says something about the Bible.

Again, sqweels, I agree with you that slavery is wrong. However, I have to qualify that by saying that that statement is true only in our day and age. If you lived in ancient Egypt, I highly doubt you'd find anyone (even slaves) who thought that slavery was a moral wrong.

Who knows? Maybe we ourselves are leading immoral lives? Who's to say that a thousand years from now, people will look back at the 20th/21st centuries and say "Why, those people were immoral... they ate meat!!" And it might seem obvious to them (at that point) that eating meat is an immoral act and is "pretty well settled." The point is this: you can say slavery is immoral. But you have to place that statement of yours within the context of the time and place where you live.

Zev Steinhardt

[Hilander10]

Posted By Homebrew
>And that's why Hagar sought to escape twice? Slavery is slavery. Degrees of harsh treatment are irrelevant and apologetic. In contrast to your statment, refer to the previous post concerning the acceptability of beating slaves as long as you don't kill them.<

Hagar had many reasons for trying to escape as I remember correctly but I would have to check to make sure. Not having a copy of the Thora handy at the moment sure doesn't help matters much. My point however was that indentured servitude does inded still exist in our society. Go and take a tiptoe through the BMR (Basic Militay Requirments) manual some time. Once you join you can't get out till your time is up. As for the treatment of our military service personell it is not to much better or worse that that allowed in the OT. There was a reg I was shown once that states they don't have to give you more than two hours sleep a day. That is harsh and cruel if you ask me, but acceptible. I would also point out at one time drill instructors were allowed to "beat" trainees. Maby not to within an inch of their life but I have little doubt that it happened from time to time. As for the release of slaves only applying to thoes of hebrew origin I think you are incorrect there as that is not how it was explained to me. If you could be so kind as to say where so I could find it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Posted By Homebrew
>So sex after menopause is a sin? Sex between people who have physical conditions that prevent conception is wrong? Sex during the time of the month when a woman is not fertile is wrong?<

No it is not. I am unaware of any instance in the OT that says you can't have sex to have sex. I was simply stating where and why the edict was handed down. It becomes much more likely for a culture to survive if it produces offspring. According to the Thora yes, as the only time a woman is guarnteed not to be "fertile" is during menstruation. You of cource can make a good guess now days as to when the egg will drop but that's it. Fertility clinics have to harvest eggs for a reason. As for conditions that prevent conception? Hmmm well I guess that's why adoption and surrogate mothers were allowed by the OT.

As an aside thank you all for puting up with my horrible spelling as I am a severe dyslexic and "huked on fonics workd 4 me" hehehe....

[Freyr]

Esprix wrote:

It continues to boggle me that we can argue that human enslavement can or cannot be moral, but how two people live their lives, hurting no one, is a sin.

Zev replied:

Why does it boggle you?

Zev, is it really that hard to comprehend? The attitude toward something as evil as slavery has changed, yet when suggesting that the attitudes toward something as innocuous as homosexual acts change, your reply is (paraphrased): Nope, sorry... homosexual acts will always be wrong. God said so.

Meaning no disrespect toward you or the other Jewish posters (and by extension, the Christian posters) but I'm very happy I'm not a follower of this God, He makes no sense.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr

Zev, is it really that hard to comprehend? The attitude toward something as evil as slavery has changed, yet when suggesting that the attitudes toward something as innocuous as homosexual acts change, your reply is (paraphrased): Nope, sorry... homosexual acts will always be wrong. God said so.


No, it's not hard to comprehend. And the paraphrased answer you gave is correct, only insofar as I believe it to be. I'm not expecting anyone else to believe it based on my say-so. You won't see me opening a Bible and pointing to Leviticus to you and telling you "Hey, you guys, you're doing evil and going to Hell."


Meaning no disrespect toward you or the other Jewish posters (and by extension, the Christian posters) but I'm very happy I'm not a follower of this God, He makes no sense.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Zev Steinhardt

[jab1]

You can point out that besides being inconsistent with the real world, it's not even consistent internally.

The founding of the city of Dan (named after Dan, from whom the tribe of Danites got its name) is detailed in Judges 18. Fine, except for one small detail: Genesis 14:14 said that Abram and 318 people went "unto" Dan to rescue Lot.

Abram died before Dan was even born. (Must'a had a time machine...)

And as for Lot... Genesis 14:14 & 16 both say Lot was Abram's brother. But Genesis 11:27 and 14:12 say Lot is his nephew. (Maybe there were two Lots, father and son? But the text never says this.)

Genesis 14:7 says the Horites killed all the Amalekites. But Amalek was not born until Genesis 36:12! (He's grandson to Esau.)

Just these few examples show one thing: God or Moses needed an editor.

[tracer]

zev_steinhardt wrote:

Who's to say that a thousand years from now, people will look back at the 20th/21st centuries and say "Why, those people were immoral... they ate meat!!"
I have several packages of bef jerky sitting by my desk. Every time I look at one of them, I can't help but wonder, "How long before this right is attacked and legislated out of existence too? How long before meat -- red meat, in particular -- becomes the next second-hand smoke or marijuana or handgun?"

[Homebrew]

Correction. Hagar ran away once. She left after Sarah mistreated her. And in no way is Sarah's treatment of Hagar condoned. The second time she was sent away (freed).

I stand corrected. However, stating that she was freed is a bit of a stretch.
Genesis 21:14
So Abraham rose early in the morining, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba
Sounds more like abandonded than freed. A single woman with a child and one water bottle alone in the wilderness doesn't have much chance of survival. And they would have died had not God saved her.

(Of course this is true only if the scriptures are historial record rather than folklore, but that's another debate)

[Freyr]

Zev wrote:

You won't see me opening a Bible and pointing to Leviticus to you and telling you "Hey, you guys, you're doing evil and going to Hell."

No, thankfully you don't. Unfortunately, many others do. Which is the entire point of this thread, how to do refute those who quote Scripture. Your answer seems to be: there's nothing that can be done; it's the will of God.

I don't have a problem with that insofar as we shouldn't have a theocratic state. However, just because a law appears in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented here. What I'm saying is that you can't just take a stand and say "Well, that's in the Bible, so because of SOCAS we can't have that here."

Then we ask the questions; which laws and why? And who gets to decide? And does it have to be only the laws of the Bible? How about the Rig Veda or the Poetic Edda or the Carmina Gadelica?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by jab1
You can point out that besides being inconsistent with the real world, it's not even consistent internally.

The founding of the city of Dan (named after Dan, from whom the tribe of Danites got its name) is detailed in Judges 18. Fine, except for one small detail: Genesis 14:14 said that Abram and 318 people went "unto" Dan to rescue Lot.

Abram died before Dan was even born. (Must'a had a time machine...)


Oh please. Maybe it's a city named Dan that had nothing to do with the later tribe. Dan is a fairly simple name; it was probably quite common at the time.


And as for Lot... Genesis 14:14 & 16 both say Lot was Abram's brother. But Genesis 11:27 and 14:12 say Lot is his nephew. (Maybe there were two Lots, father and son? But the text never says this.)


Very often the term "brother" is used for kinsmen in general.


Genesis 14:7 says the Horites killed all the Amalekites. But Amalek was not born until Genesis 36:12! (He's grandson to Esau.)


No, that's not what 14:7 says. It says that they slew "the fields of the Amalakites." ([/i] s'dei Ha'Amakeiki[/i] in Hebrew. It could very well be referring to the fields that were *now* occupied by Amalek at the time of Moses.

Another example of this occures in Genesis 2:13-14 where both the lands of Asshur (Assyria) and Cush are mentioned even though those people were obviously not born yet.


Just these few examples show one thing: God or Moses needed an editor.

No, just that you need better examples. :)

Zev Steinhardt

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Freyr

The attitude toward something as evil as slavery has changed, yet when suggesting that the attitudes toward something as innocuous as homosexual acts change, your reply is (paraphrased): Nope, sorry... homosexual acts will always be wrong. God said so.

Thanks, Freyr.

So, Zev, if somewhere down the road society deems homosexuality no longer immoral, does this mean Christianity and Judaism will follow suit, like they did with slavery (i.e., what once was expressly permitted is no longer to be practiced)? Or because there are admonitions against homosexuality specifically, will they not change their stance?

Esprix

[cmkeller]

Esprix, without fully injecting myself into this debate, I don't understand why you have a hard time with what Zev is saying. Let me try to put what he's been saying in the simplest possible terms:

If G-d says it must not be done (e.g., homosexual sex), no changes in society's morals can make it permissible to do.

If G-d says it must be done (e.g., circumcision), no changes in society's morals can make it permissible to do away with.

If G-d says it may be done (e.g., slavery), whether one does it or not can vary depending on the moral code of the surrounding society.

[zev_steinhardt]

Esprix,

Chaim hit it right on the head and explained it far better than I ever could.

Zev

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Homebrew

Correction. Hagar ran away once. She left after Sarah mistreated her. And in no way is Sarah's treatment of Hagar condoned. The second time she was sent away (freed).

I stand corrected. However, stating that she was freed is a bit of a stretch.
Genesis 21:14
So Abraham rose early in the morining, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba
Sounds more like abandonded than freed. A single woman with a child and one water bottle alone in the wilderness doesn't have much chance of survival. And they would have died had not God saved her.



True, but it was also God who told Abraham to listen to Sarah and send her away. Had God not done so, Abraham might not have sent her away to begin with.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr

Then we ask the questions; which laws and why? And who gets to decide? And does it have to be only the laws of the Bible? How about the Rig Veda or the Poetic Edda or the Carmina Gadelica?

Which laws and why? And who decides?: The ones decided upon by our elected government officials, according to our Constitution (I'm assuimng you're in the U.S.).

We have a bunch of laws that have a basis in the Bible already on the books; everything ranging from murder and theft, down to blue laws in certain localities. All I'm saying is don't automatically reject a proposed law out of hand simply because it comes from the Bible. If you find some other valid reason to reject it, then fine.

As to the other works you pointed out (of which I'm not familiar with a single one), if they contain laws that might benefit society as a whole, I'm willing to entertain the idea.

Zev Steinhardt

[jab1]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Genesis 14:14 & 16 both say Lot was Abram's brother. But Genesis 11:27 and 14:12 say Lot is his nephew. (Maybe there were two Lots, father and son? But the text never says this.)Very often the term "brother" is used for kinsmen in general.You may be interested to know:

1) The NAS version uses the more generic relative in 14:14 & 16.

2) The NLT says Lot is his nephew in 14:12 & 16; in 14:14, it does not tell how Lot is related to Abram.

3) The RSV uses nephew in 14:12 and kinsman in 14 & 16.

4) The NCV uses nephew only once (in 14:12).

I'm not sure when all those other translations were made, but it seems clear to me that the translators changed or omitted brother wherever it was confusing.

Which is another strike against the doctrine that the KJV is an inerrant, God-inspired translation of His Word, IMHO, something I was always taught.

Genesis 14:7 says the Horites killed all the Amalekites. But Amalek was not born until Genesis 36:12! (He's grandson to Esau.)

No, that's not what 14:7 says. It says that they slew "the fields of the Amalakites." ([/i] s'dei Ha'Amakeiki[/i] in Hebrew. It could very well be referring to the fields that were *now* occupied by Amalek at the time of Moses. [/b]So it's like saying the Spaniards killed many native Floridians when they first arrived, even though the peninsula wasn't actually called "Florida" at the time (not by the natives, anyway; florida is a Spanish word).

Thanks, I'm learning a lot.

[tracer]

jab1 wrote:

1) The NAS version uses the more generic relative in [Genesis] 14:14 & 16.

2) The NLT says Lot is his nephew in 14:12 & 16; in 14:14, it does not tell how Lot is related to Abram.

3) The RSV uses nephew in 14:12 and kinsman in 14 & 16.

4) The NCV uses nephew only once (in 14:12).

I'm not sure when all those other translations were made, but it seems clear to me that the translators changed or omitted brother wherever it was confusing.

The word translated as "brother" in Genesis 14:14 and 14:16 in the KJV, and as "relative" or "nephew" in every other translation of the bible into English (including the NKJV!), is the Hebrew "'ach". "'ach" can have any one of the followin 5 meanings:
brother of same parents
half-brother (same father)
relative, kinship, same tribe
each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
(fig.) of resemblance


Look up "Genesis 14" on http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/ if you don't believe me.

Incidentally, the phrase in Genesis 14:12 is "'ach Ben". ("Ben" is Hebrew for "son".)

[Navigator]

jab brought this up over at the Parlor...

The RSV and other versions translate 'ach Ben as 'brother's son' which in english would be 'nephew'.

The later verse uses the more generic term 'ach and some translators directly translated it to 'brother'...

*sigh* KJV-onlyists.... whatcha gonna do...

[zev_steinhardt]

Actually, the phrase in questions is ben achi Avraham, which means "the son of the brother of Abraham."

Of course jab1, you have to realize that I don't put much stock in the KJV (or any of the other versions you mentioned either).

Also, keep in mind that there are many other times the Torah uses the word achicha (your brother) but it is clear from the context that it is not speaking strictly about a brother, but any Jew at all.

Lev 19:17. The commandment is not that you shouldn't hate your brother achicha (but to hate everyone else is OK).

Several times in Lev. 25 the term achicha is used. It's clear from the verses that it doesn't refer to a brother only.

Gen 29:12 Jacob is called "the brother of the father" of Rachel. In fact, he is the nephew of her father. Again, brother is used as a general term for kinsman.

There are probably many others, but these are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Zev Steinhardt

[jab1]

Originally posted by tracer
Look up "Genesis 14" on http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/ if you don't believe me.That's the website that I used. I don't have all those different translations lying around.

[Czarcasm]

I have seen so many versions on this thread, and they all end up the same. It all boils down to:

When two verses seem to directly contradict, one verse should be taken literally, and the other verse is
A. a parable
B. a mistranslation that really means...
C. a M*Y*S*T*E*R*Y of God
D. also the truth, and why are you questioning me, anyway?

[Raptormeister]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
I have seen so many versions on this thread, and they all end up the same. It all boils down to:

When two verses seem to directly contradict, one verse should be taken literally, and the other verse is
A. a parable
B. a mistranslation that really means...
C. a M*Y*S*T*E*R*Y of God
D. also the truth, and why are you questioning me, anyway?




Oh, opposed to the position that assumes the writer was a complete and utter vegetable and contradicted himself in the space of two sentences, AND that nobody ever noticed.

Makes sense to me.

[sqweels]

cm:
If G-d says it must not be done...

I agree with you, Chaim. IF God says something, then that's that. But how do you know what God says? There's no way "scripture" is a reliable and credible indicater of what God's are.

Scripture smipture.

As Zev acknowledged earlier, anything which purports to be "God's laws" are just somebody's opinions. So how can we tell what God's real laws are?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by cmkeller

If G-d says it must not be done (e.g., homosexual sex), no changes in society's morals can make it permissible to do.

If G-d says it must be done (e.g., circumcision), no changes in society's morals can make it permissible to do away with.

If G-d says it may be done (e.g., slavery), whether one does it or not can vary depending on the moral code of the surrounding society.

Leave it to you to sum it up so succinctly. :) Thanks.

I find it interesting that your god is ambivalent about human enslavement but seems to care a great deal about who loves who. And here I thought love was the most important law - who knew?

Esprix

[betenoir]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

We have a bunch of laws that have a basis in the Bible already on the books; everything ranging from murder and theft, down to blue laws in certain localities. All I'm saying is don't automatically reject a proposed law out of hand simply because it comes from the Bible. If you find some other valid reason to reject it, then fine.



Could we get over the idea that laws against theft and murder come from the Bibile? Every society in the world has laws against theft and murder. Although every society defines and punishes them differently. Like we define and punish them differently then the ancient Hebrews.

I don't think anybody's proposing rejecting a law just because it's also in the Bible, are they? But of course the standard is a law must have a secular purpose to be consitutional.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by sqweels
cm:
If G-d says it must not be done...

I agree with you, Chaim. IF God says something, then that's that. But how do you know what God says? There's no way "scripture" is a reliable and credible indicater of what God's are.

Scripture smipture.

As Zev acknowledged earlier, anything which purports to be "God's laws" are just somebody's opinions. So how can we tell what God's real laws are?



Hey, I never said that!

I said that I (and other Orthodox Jews) believe the Torah to contain God-given commandments. I also said that I didn't expect anyone to observe those same commandments on my say so. But, I never said that God's laws were just someone's opinions

[cmkeller]

sqweels:

I agree with you, Chaim. IF God says something, then that's that. But how do you know what God says? There's no way "scripture" is a reliable and credible indicater of what God's are.

I believe there is another thread currently running that addresses the question of why religious believers like myself and Zev believe our holy scriptures to be the word of G-d.

However, if you're willing to admit that you have no idea what G-d says, then it's quite prejudicial of you to say "There's no way that it can be scripture..."

Esprix:

I find it interesting that your god is ambivalent about human enslavement but seems to care a great deal about who loves who.

Correction: who has sex with whom. I think this distinction has been beaten to death in other threads.

And (another issue beaten to death in other threads) you might as well ask why he seems to care a great deal about who eats what, who works when, who wears what, who grows what agricultural products, who breeds what animals...I know you're gay, Esprix, and that that issue is therefore one of importance to you specifically, but you've got to realize that G-d's laws cover many aspects of what we consider our private lives.

As for enslavement, I would like to once again repeat that slavery in ancient Judea was a condition quite different than slavery in the antebellum U.S. South. Do not conflate the dehunamizing condition of slaves of the latter sort with the far different condition of slaves of the first sort.

And here I thought love was the most important law - who knew?

Refresh my memory. Love of G-d? Love of one's neighbor like one's self? Or sex between two loving patners? Which of these is the "most important law?", and in what religion?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Esprix]

Originally posted by cmkeller

Correction: who has sex with whom. I think this distinction has been beaten to death in other threads.

Ah, yes - you can be gay, you just can't do those gay things. Pardon me while I :rolleyes: .

And (another issue beaten to death in other threads) you might as well ask why he seems to care a great deal about who eats what, who works when, who wears what, who grows what agricultural products, who breeds what animals...I know you're gay, Esprix, and that that issue is therefore one of importance to you specifically, but you've got to realize that G-d's laws cover many aspects of what we consider our private lives.

All very true, and all on the list of why I'm getting decidedly more and more Atheist as the years go on.

As for enslavement, I would like to once again repeat that slavery in ancient Judea was a condition quite different than slavery in the antebellum U.S. South. Do not conflate the dehunamizing condition of slaves of the latter sort with the far different condition of slaves of the first sort.

Slavery is slavery, IMHO, regardless of when it was practiced. That your god would allow it in any form yet care specifically about what weave of fabrics you're wearing tells volumes about Judaism and Christianity.

Refresh my memory. Love of G-d? Love of one's neighbor like one's self? Or sex between two loving patners? Which of these is the "most important law?", and in what religion?

My understanding was that Jesus taught love as his highest commandment - no specifications given, just "love." I suppose I'm a bit less clear about what God gave the Jews as his highest command - care to enlighten? I can't imagine it's anything less than love.

Getting back to the OP (anyone remember that?), it seems clear to me that anyone can suitably rebuke any argument using the Bible as a weapon. Really - what would G'Kar think if someone did that with the Book of G'Kwan?

Esprix

[jab1]

Originally posted by Esprix
Really - what would G'Kar think if someone did that with the Book of G'Kwan?All right, a fellow Babylonian! :secret handshake:

[Freyr]

Zev wrote:

We have a bunch of laws that have a basis in the Bible already on the books; everything ranging from murder and theft, down to blue laws in certain localities. All I'm saying is don't automatically reject a proposed law out of hand simply because it comes from the Bible. If you find some other valid reason to reject it, then fine.

I disagree. As betenoir pointed out, many laws about secular matters (murder, lying, thievery) have their own history that's not religiously mandated. As you and Chaim have pointed out so well; there's no real defense against this. God said it and there's no arguing the point.

It's when the Dr. Lauras of the world try to pass into secular law the moral codes of the Torah or NT that the real problems occur. Those moral codes were meant for their respective people, not as general laws of our country. To make them secular law is a major violation of SoCaS, I think.

One other point. I can't speak for Esprix but I think he'll agree with me. What I find astounding is the blind obedience that the Judeo-Christian God demands of His followers. You can question, but only to a certain point, after that you simply follow the law, no matter how irrelevant it is to your situation. I cannot, in good conscience, follow such a religous/moral system.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr

It's when the Dr. Lauras of the world try to pass into secular law the moral codes of the Torah or NT that the real problems occur. Those moral codes were meant for their respective people, not as general laws of our country. To make them secular law is a major violation of SoCaS, I think.


Yes, but, with all due respect, it's not the Dr. Laura's of the world who are out there trying to change laws. It's the active gay and lesbian communities who are out there seeking to change long-standing legislation, not the other way around. I don't think there's been a single bill sent to Congress in quite a while stating something along the lines of "homosexual behavior is illegal and will land you in prison."


One other point. I can't speak for Esprix but I think he'll agree with me. What I find astounding is the blind obedience that the Judeo-Christian God demands of His followers. You can question, but only to a certain point, after that you simply follow the law, no matter how irrelevant it is to your situation. I cannot, in good conscience, follow such a religous/moral system.

And that's fine. I'm not asking you to believe in my God. However, it's not completely illogical. Just as I want my children to obey me (even if I don't tell them WHY they should), so to sometimes we should listen to God without asking the "W question."

Zev Steinhardt

[cmkeller]

Esprix:

Slavery is slavery, IMHO, regardless of when it was practiced. That your god would allow it in any form yet care specifically about what weave of fabrics you're wearing tells volumes about Judaism and Christianity.

It does, but not in the rather cynical way you think it does. Until and unless you're willing to look at religious beliefs in their own context rather than through the external context of 20th-century Western morality, though, trying to explain will do little good.

My understanding was that Jesus taught love as his highest commandment - no specifications given, just "love."

Well, trying to use him as a reference to talking to me about religion won't get you very far... ;)

I suppose I'm a bit less clear about what God gave the Jews as his highest command - care to enlighten? I can't imagine it's anything less than love.

That's kind of hard to say. The Rabbis have pointed out, "Be as careful with a 'lighter' commandment as with a 'stronger' commandment, because you don't know which one is more important in G-d's eyes."

I suppose there are some ways to measure the relative level of importance attached to commandments, but discussion of those would probably be seriously off-topic. Let's just suffice it to say that (in the Orthodox Jewish view) G-d gave all the commandments to be kept, and while love is important, specific expressions of love are not supposed to take a form that are contrary to G-d's commandments.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Icerigger]

Zev, we want our children to obey us because at that age they don't understand. I think most parents hope that one day our children will grow up and be able to cope in the world on their own. I guess my question is, why does God want his people to always be child like never to question or grow beyond unquestioning obedience?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by cmkeller

Until and unless you're willing to look at religious beliefs in their own context rather than through the external context of 20th-century Western morality, though, trying to explain will do little good.

I do understand what you're saying, but the juxtaposition of "gay sex will always be bad" vs. "slavery is relatively ok under certain circumstances" still strikes me as incomprehensible, then and now. You can accept it, but I could never align myself with a god whose morality on something as abhorrent as human enslavement is open to changing with the times, but carnal relations between two loving individuals is forever a sin. It just don't make sense to me (and this is, of course, just one among many things I find disturbing about the Judeo-Christian version of god).

Let's just suffice it to say that (in the Orthodox Jewish view) G-d gave all the commandments to be kept, and while love is important, specific expressions of love are not supposed to take a form that are contrary to G-d's commandments.

OK. A wholly unacceptable doctrine to me, but thank you for the explanation.

Esprix

[Czarcasm]

Addendum to rules for understanding scripture:

Understanding of biblical scripture requires the interpretation of each verse(if not each word) by biblical scholars that understand several ancient languages.

Perhaps if someone could post a list of those words and/or verses that don't mean what we think they mean, and a list of the approved scholars to do the interpreting, we could put this baby to rest and get on to more important matters. ;)

[cmkeller]

Esprix:

I do understand what you're saying, but the juxtaposition of "gay sex will always be bad" vs. "slavery is relatively ok under certain circumstances" still strikes me as incomprehensible, then and now.

Well, then, since this is a message board dedicated to comprehension, I will attempt to explain here the underlying principles that can reconcile this juxtaposition. However, if you have further questions about specific aspects of Biblical-based religion, they should probably spawn a separate thread.

Principle # 1: G-d is the owner of everything in the world. Human "ownership" is a convenience he allows, but ultimately, no one other than he has genuine possession of something.

Principle # 2: The human soul is a holy piece of G-d himself, and any vessel that can contain it is holy as well. Willful destruction of such is, therefore, sinful.

Principle # 3: G-d created male and female as complementary parts of the same entity, and one is only half-a-soul without the other. (I realize that this a sticky point for you, but I'm not trying to convince you here that it's true, merely trying to illustrate the underlying principles of the Jewish faith that explain what you see as inconsistent, so you understand it in context.)

Hence, what is referred to as slave ownership in the Bible is not the principle that we found repugnant regarding Southern slave ownership in America. The idea that one human being can actually be considered to be owned by another is foreign to the Biblical social system. All humans belong to G-d. However, by acquiring a slave, one enters into a contract that binds all products that the slave produces to the owner, in exchange for indefinite support: food, lodging, etc.

However, unlike slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum U.S. South, the master was required to not abuse his slave. If the owner so much as knocked out the slave's tooth, the slave became a free man. And if the slave ran away from his master to seek shelter from abuse, the shelterer is not allowed to return him to the master, and on top of that, the society is required to habilitate him to a degree of comfort, not just allow him into the poorhouse.

That degree of protection extends (no Monty Python jokes, please) human sperm. It is an ingredient in the creation of a human life-sustaining vessel...and the only one which can willfully be wasted. To do so is sinful.

The only way in which non-procreative sex (e.g., for infertile couples, during pregnancy, after menopause) is not forbidden is if it, too, serves the purpose of enhancing a vessel for the human soul...i.e., strengthening the bond of marriage, which joins two halves of the soul together to make that soul complete.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Icerigger
Zev, we want our children to obey us because at that age they don't understand. I think most parents hope that one day our children will grow up and be able to cope in the world on their own. I guess my question is, why does God want his people to always be child like never to question or grow beyond unquestioning obedience?

Of course I want my children to grow up and be able to cope with the world on their own. However, God (for whatever His reasons) chose not to tell us the reasons for His commandments. We can question, but, ultimately, it all boils down to "because He said so." I know that it may not please everyone (hell, it doesn't always please me), but that's the way it is.

Zev Steinhardt

[Esprix]

cmkeller, thanks for clarifying, but nothing you said is news.

Esprix

[Czarcasm]

"Because I said so!"?!?
Would you raise your children that way?
Which reminds me-Are we God's children, or God's property? If we are his children, the fact that he seems to be unable to answer the simplist questions without resorting to the above stock blow-off answer shows us what kind of parent he is.
If, on the other hand, we are his "property", as intelligent creatures I feel it is our duty to overthrow this "master". We would expect no less an effort from any slave.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
"Because I said so!"?!?
Would you raise your children that way?


If it involved matters that they could not understand on their own, yes.

If I were raising a child who (God forbid) couldn't understand the concept of not playing in traffic because they might get hurt, then, yes, I would want them to listen to me "because I said so!"


Which reminds me-Are we God's children, or God's property? If we are his children, the fact that he seems to be unable to answer the simplist questions without resorting to the above stock blow-off answer shows us what kind of parent he is.
If, on the other hand, we are his "property", as intelligent creatures I feel it is our duty to overthrow this "master". We would expect no less an effort from any slave.


It's an interesting question you raise Czarcasm.

On Rosh HaShannah (which in Judaism is the day of judgement) there is a short little prayer that is said each time after the Shofar blows. This little prayer asks for God's mercy in judgement on BOTH counts (whether we are considered as God's children or as God's servants).

Zev Steinhardt

[Captain Amazing]

Yesterday, I was talking to a friend's father (complaining, actually, about an argument I was having with someone else), and he told me:

"You're not going to win the argument. The two of you are debating values, not facts, and values are shaped by all the experiences you have in life, and so they can't be changed by a good argument."

Wise man, my friend's father...

[Czarcasm]

zev, the first answer a parent gives to a child should never be "Because I said so!". First, you try your best to give a correct answer, in a way that the child can understand. If your god is all-knowing, this shouldn't be a problem for him.
Of course, if we are mere property of your god, I can see why he might not want to extend any effort to helping us understand his reasons for doing things. We might get uppity and try to make some decisions for ourselves.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Of course, if we are mere property of your god, I can see why he might not want to extend any effort to helping us understand his reasons for doing things. We might get uppity and try to make some decisions for ourselves. We might even rebel.

If God owns the Earth, we are either tenants, slaves or trespassers.

[tracer]

cmkeller wrote:

That degree of protection extends (no Monty Python jokes, please) human sperm. It is an ingredient in the creation of a human life-sustaining vessel...and the only one which can willfully be wasted. To do so is sinful.
I know you said "no Monty Python jokes, please", but this is just screaming out to me for a rousing chorus of:

Ev-e-ry sperm is sacred,
Ev-e-ry sperm is good,
Ev-e-ry sperm is needed
In your neighborhood,

Ev-e-ry sperm is holy,
Ev-e-ry sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Czarcasm
zev, the first answer a parent gives to a child should never be "Because I said so!". First, you try your best to give a correct answer, in a way that the child can understand.


Only if they are capable of understanding the reasons. If my 9 month old grabs a knife, I take it away from him. I don't say "Son, you know you might get hurt if you play with this knife..." I simply say "No!" (which is the same as "Because I said so!" If they are older and can understand, then I explain.



If your god is all-knowing, this shouldn't be a problem for him.


Maybe it wouldn't be a problem for Him to explain, but it may be a problem for us to understand. God chose (for whatever reason) to endow us with a limited intellect. We are told things to the level that we are capable of understanding.



Of course, if we are mere property of your god, I can see why he might not want to extend any effort to helping us understand his reasons for doing things. We might get uppity and try to make some decisions for ourselves.

... and you are entitled to your opinion. :)

Zev Steinhardt

[jab1]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
God chose (for whatever reason) to endow us with a limited intellect.I think even God had no choice in this matter. An unlimited intellect would require a brain of unlimited size. Only so many neurons can be fit inside the average (and even the above-average) human skull, and there can be only so many connections between those neurons.

Then, of course, there's that verse in Genesis where God is actually worried that since A & E ate the forbidden fruit, they now know the difference between Good and Evil and are now like gods. He was also worried that they'd eat of the tree of life and live forever.

Looks like YHWH was afraid of competition. Or He was behaving like a parent who doesn't want to see his children grow up and leave the nest.

[jab1]

Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 all state that each of the various tribes and/or nations begun by the descendents of Noah had its own tongue or language.

So why does Genesis 11:1 say that everyone spoke one language?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by jab1
Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 all state that each of the various tribes and/or nations begun by the descendents of Noah had its own tongue or language.

So why does Genesis 11:1 say that everyone spoke one language?

Not all sections of the Torah are written in chronilogical order. In fact, the Talmud very often states ain mukdam u'm'uchar baTorah (The Torah is not written in chronological order).

Very often the Bible will finish up the topic it is talking about and then move on to another topic.

Want examples?

Genesis 11:32 says that Terach died. The next verse says that Abram left his homeland. However, Terach did not die for many years until after Abram left. (In fact, the NT authors tripped up on that one). Rather the Torah was finishing up it's discussion of the generations from Noah to Abram before moving on to Abram's children (which became the focus of the rest of the Bible).

Genesis 25:12-18 discusses Ishamel's death and geneaology. Genesis 25:19 and onward talks about Jacob and Esau's birth. That does not mean that Ishmael's death and all those descendants mentioned were born before Jacob and Esau. The Torah simply finished it's discussion of Ishmael and went on to Isaac's children.

The end of Genesis 36 talks about kings that ruled Edom. Genesis 37 talks about the sale of Joseph. This doesn't mean that all those kings ruled and died before Joseph was sold. The Torah simply finished it's discussion of Esau's descendants and then focused on Jacob's.

Similarly, Genesis 10 talks about the rise of ancient kingdoms and Noah's descendants. It is simply finishing up it's chapter on Noah. The Babel story in chapter 11 is simply an explanation of how these languages and nations came to be.

Zev Steinhardt

[Esprix]

Gee, it's almost as if the whole Bible were nothing more than stories and parables, and not The Truth(tm)!

:rolleyes:

Esprix

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Esprix
Gee, it's almost as if the whole Bible were nothing more than stories and parables, and not The Truth(tm)!

:rolleyes:

Esprix

Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing

Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?

That's another thread entirely. ;)

Esprix

[jab1]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Not all sections of the Torah are written in chronilogical order. In fact, the Talmud very often states ain mukdam u'm'uchar baTorah (The Torah is not written in chronological order).Agreed. But we can deduce the correct chronological order this way:

Ham was a son of Noah. (Genesis 10:1) Cush was a son of Ham. (Genesis 10:6) Nimrod was a son of Cush. (Genesis 10:8) Nimrod founded Babel in the land of Shinar (Genesis 10:10) and was its king. (Genesis 11:1-9 describes this in more detail; it says that the city and the tower were built concurrently.)

But look at what this implies: Nimrod is responsible for the Tower of Babel. And he was a great-grandson of Noah. At the same time, many of the other great-grandsons of Noah were off running their own nation/tribes each with its own tongue.

IOW, they already had their own tongues before the Tower was even built.

Besides, the history of languages contradicts the Tower story. There's another thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=40523) a much older one, about this in GQ. cmkeller says he believed the Tower was built at around 1800 BCE. I pointed out that Egyptian heiroglyphics date back to around 2925 BCE, just a tad earlier ;). Sumerian dates back to 3100 BCE. Semitic-Akkadian dates back to 2000 BCE and guess how the Semites and Akkadians got their names: from Shem, one of the sons of Noah, and Accad, a city allegedly founded by Nimrod.

BTW: were you aware that EVERY culture claims its language was given to them by their respective god(s) (except for atheist culture, naturally)? Why should yours be any different?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by jab1
Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Not all sections of the Torah are written in chronilogical order. In fact, the Talmud very often states ain mukdam u'm'uchar baTorah (The Torah is not written in chronological order).Agreed. But we can deduce the correct chronological order this way:

Ham was a son of Noah. (Genesis 10:1) Cush was a son of Ham. (Genesis 10:6) Nimrod was a son of Cush. (Genesis 10:8) Nimrod founded Babel in the land of Shinar (Genesis 10:10) and was its king. (Genesis 11:1-9 describes this in more detail; it says that the city and the tower were built concurrently.)

But look at what this implies: Nimrod is responsible for the Tower of Babel. And he was a great-grandson of Noah. At the same time, many of the other great-grandsons of Noah were off running their own nation/tribes each with its own tongue.

IOW, they already had their own tongues before the Tower was even built.


Not necessarily.

Most of Noah's great-grandchildren were probably still alive at the time (check out Genesis 10, I believe -- lifespans still in the hundreds of years).

Nimrod builds the tower. Man proposed, God disposes. Each "clan-chief" so to speak, picks up his family and (now speaking their own language) moves off.



Besides, the history of languages contradicts the Tower story. There's another thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=40523) a much older one, about this in GQ. cmkeller says he believed the Tower was built at around 1800 BCE. I pointed out that Egyptian heiroglyphics date back to around 2925 BCE, just a tad earlier ;). Sumerian dates back to 3100 BCE. Semitic-Akkadian dates back to 2000 BCE and guess how the Semites and Akkadians got their names: from Shem, one of the sons of Noah, and Accad, a city allegedly founded by Nimrod.


I'll be honest and admit I can't speak to this issue. I'm not altogether familiar with the ancient cultures in the area.


BTW: were you aware that EVERY culture claims its language was given to them by their respective god(s) (except for atheist culture, naturally)? Why should yours be any different?

I didn't say it should. Almost every ancient culture has a flood story too.

The point is this: I'm not trying to prove to you that the Torah is the literal God-given truth. I don't know that it is provable. You, however, have given me two examples where you stated that it wasn't internally consistent and each time I have answered you.

Zev Steinhardt

[jab1]

I get the impression that I did from your last sentence. It was not my intention.

I'm used to debating the fundamentalist Christians who think their religion is the only true one, that all other religions are false and lies from Satan. The old habits kicked in and I posed a question that I often do, "Why should your religion be any different?"

Anyway, the topic of this thread is "Refuting Scripture" and bringing up the history of language development is the best way to refute the Babel story. Concerning "language from gods" stories, I think it's because no one can remember a time when there was no language, so people believed it was something given to their most ancient ancestors by their god or gods.

As for flood myths, the most common natural disaster is flooding, so it stands to reason that cultures would have myths trying to explain them and to get some sense or order and justice from a seemingly random event.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by jab1
I get the impression that I did from your last sentence. It was not my intention.


No offense taken. I may have been a bit more blunt than I usually am, but no harm done. :)


I'm used to debating the fundamentalist Christians who think their religion is the only true one, that all other religions are false and lies from Satan. The old habits kicked in and I posed a question that I often do, "Why should your religion be any different?"


(now to fall out of your good graces)

I do believe that Christianity is wrong. Otherwise, I'd be a Christian. Same applies to Islam, Hinduism, etc. However, I'm not out to convince everyone of this. It's simply my belief.


Anyway, the topic of this thread is "Refuting Scripture" and bringing up the history of language development is the best way to refute the Babel story. Concerning "language from gods" stories, I think it's because no one can remember a time when there was no language, so people believed it was something given to their most ancient ancestors by their god or gods.


Maybe. That's as good an explaination as any I've heard yet.


As for flood myths, the most common natural disaster is flooding, so it stands to reason that cultures would have myths trying to explain them and to get some sense or order and justice from a seemingly random event.

Or, it could all simply be variations on an actual event...

Zev Steinhardt