First, I have to say that the unfairness aspect is undeniable. The main problem with trying to deny that it is that this passage is not exceptional. It is accompanied by several similar themes in the Hebrew scriptures.
As observation no one has said so far is that the passage nowhere says what to do to the woman if she refuses to say the required statement.
THIS!
It’s not trolling. This board, as I understand it, is devoted to sense against nonsense. No sacred cows exempted. Not even yours.
And if you can argue against the ugliness of this passage, please do so.
Various statements in the so-called “New Testament” do indeed declare the “old law” null. Or do they only negate the dietary laws? I’m asking. In earnest.
As I surmised. There is no natural process that could explain it working, were it to work.
I’d be interested in seeing the Talmud passages. But frankly, in parallel to what you said about first-hand evidence, there would be no proof that such ever worked, either.
My point is you have a very black-and-white perspective of what Christians (and Jews) believe, and at any attempt by a religious person to provide nuance or context you come out with “Aha! You’re trying to justify this savagery!” You’re not really interested in studying the text, you’re interested in what you think will embarrass religious contributors.
It’s already been pointed out to you (by atheists no less) that this test for infidelity was actually pretty progressive for the time and place - more fair to the woman than even some modern societies are today. As far as the “magical” nature of the test - pretty typical for bronze age societies. I haven’t heard anyone, Jewish or Christian, argue that we ought to be using the same methods today. Yet somehow you think you’re scoring points against believers here.
You’re completely ignorant about how to have a scholarly discussion about the text, and instead of trying to understand those you disagree with, you cover your ears and wallow in your ignorance.
Again, you are free to renounce any of said savagery. If, instead, you attempt to justify such savagery I think it’s worth noting.
Personally, I think it’s only embarrassing if you refuse to abjure it. “Abjure” that’s my word of the day.
Well, I brought up this particular verse because it was a magical curse, not because I thought it was most barbaric. If I wanted purer barbarism from the Bible I would have brought up how it says you should kill your wife if she is not a virgin or those verses about how you should kill homosexuals, or countless other examples.
You can’t accuse other posters of trolling in this forum.
That said, Kable, in my opinion as a moderator you are indeed getting close to trolling. You’re not engaging in discussion and you’re not attempting anything beyond cheap point-scoring for your own amusement. So this isn’t much of a discussion and I’m not interested in watching you do this once a week or every time you decide you need a new way to provoke people. I’ve merged your “Bible study” threads, and the next time you want to “study” a verse, post it to this thread instead of opening a new one. My earlier mod note still applies:
That’s crap as I have engaged in the discussion. And what’s “cheap point-scoring” mean? Is it my fault if one doesn’t have to work very hard to point out the barbarism and superstition that a good number of members of this forum consider to be of divine origin?
Are you going to put the same set of restrictions on everyone else who starts a Bible study?
I’m willing to put those kinds of restrictions on people who start threads under these kinds of pretenses and acts this way, sure. You’re not the first.
I already explained that, and I’m not interested in getting into an argument in the middle of your thread. (Moderation disputes go in ATMB.) You can be entirely set in your opinion and still engage in an actual discussion of the topic, and I’m not seeing that here.
Honest question: The OP asks if there is any good way to spin the passage.
How would one take the *no *position without disputing the passage’s supernatural pedigree? I do appreciate that I used inflammatory language, and I’ll certainly stop that.
As an atheist who long ago outgrew the need to try and cite funny-sounding Bible verses in an attempt to pull a “Gotcha ya!” on Christians, I for one have found this thread to be fascinating.
The majority of people in this thread don’t believe that the passages literally happened.
I don’t believe in Zeus, yet I can read the Illiad without thinking to myself what retards the ancient greeks were. I can read the Odyssey, where Odysseus after killing the suitors he drags the serving maids who collaborated out into the yard and kills them too.
The passage where Odysseus kills the serving maids says a lot about the culture of Ancient Greece, both when the story was codified by “Homer”, when the oral tradition that the Odyssey was based on was generated, and when it was supposedly set. The story is set hundreds of years ago from Homer’s point of view, Homer didn’t originate the story but rather compiled and codified the definitive version of the story from various oral traditions.
And this is exactly the same way the Bible was created. It wasn’t the case of a priest sitting down and deciding to make up a story. It was more often the case of a priest sitting down and writing down an oral tradition that already existed. Now, why did the priest decide to write down this particular story in this particular way? Good question. I don’t think it was because God tapped him on the shoulder and ordered him to begin dictation.
So how did this particular story about Elisha get written down? The thing is, your idea that either the writer sat down and made up a story and lied that it was true, or the story was dictated letter for letter by God is kind of silly.
Neither is true. Yeah, there really are people even in 2013 who believe that the entire Torah was literally dictated character by character by God. So? There are people today who believe in Thor, or at least claim to.
Hey I read both those books too. Let me ask you this, do you think it would be foolish to believe the gods described therein exist?
That’s good, but a lot of Christians do think God tapped guys on the shoulder to start dictation. That’s foolish don’t you think?
I don’t think you can say if the guy who made it up wrote it down or not but somewhere someone presented the story as true and either that guy was right, that guy was mistaken, or that guy was a liar.
Whether Gentile Christians are bound by the Law was one of the most contentious issues in the early church. Paul in his letters said no, railing especially against a requirement of circumcision. Nobody really knows by what process the issue was resolved, but the official report of the resolution appears in Acts (written several decades later), especially chapter 15. This purports to describe a council in which the question was mooted. It was proposed and decided that only a small number of restrictions were binding. To wit, taking the NIV translation, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Importantly, as you can see from reading chapter 15 in its entirety, this was expressly a repudiation of any obligation to circumcise or follow the other laws of Moses.
As mentioned previously, I’m an atheist. Consider this a GQ answer in GD.