The doctor told me that the EEG’s can only register to a certain point, that is why they do a survival procedure on them. They can still have some life in them. That is why they don’t say a person is dead until they try all things on them, The early stages of the brain can still have life. If I remember correctly it is near the brain stem.
This is only another humans’ writing and /word for it.
Was the author of The Illiad (Homer) a liar? The author of Gilgamesh or Beowulf? These are stories passed down through generations before being written down, with the purpose of teaching something about God (or the gods). You might as well accuse Aesop of lying.
[QUOTE=Kable]
The authors of 2 Kings were trying to deceive their audience into thinking Elisha had legitimacy and supernatural powers, when in fact he did not. That’s how I understand it too.
[/QUOTE]
In the context of the myth, he did (apparently) have supernatural powers, unless the bear attack was a co-incidence, which doesn’t appear to be the intent. You cannot say “in fact he did not” when that clearly contradicts the text we are studying, just like you cannot say “Paris didn’t really kidnap Helen of Troy.”
Whether this is a historical event is not relevant. The purpose of Bible Study is not to point and laugh at the beliefs of ancient people nor to use those to score points with those who are trying to put the story into cultural, historical and religious context. Or to claim those who do so are “justifying” mass slaughter.
However, every post you’ve made in this thread starting with the OP has been disingenuous, and you’ve only repeated your ignorant objections over and over without considering other perspectives, so I don’t expect you to have a meaningful response to this post either. I’m bowing out of this thread - go ahead and have your fun pretending you’ve proven some kind of point while the rest of us roll our eyes at you.
Is there any good way to spin the above?
Seems downright liberal compared to what happens to women suspected of adultery in some parts of the middle east today. Much better than “if a husband is jealous or suspects his wife, but there is no proof, stone her anyway just to be sure”.
Anyway, any of the OT tests/laws are easily countered by Jesus statement that he is a new covenant that replaces the old. This test no longer applies to Christians.
What are you looking for here? What is your specific problem or question about this passage?
Did God really tell Moses that the curse would work? Does it work now? Did it ever work? Why didn’t God give Moses a test for an unfaithful husband?
A non-scientific culture has a ritual that keeps a family unit from falling apart, without harming the woman. Wikipedia notes that trials by ordeal were common throughout the Near East in antiquity: Ordeal by Bitter Water. “Nahmanides points out that of all the 613 commandments, it is only the sotah law that requires God’s specific co-operation to make it work. The bitter waters can only be effective miraculously.”
Probably so :). However, this sentence reminds me that I think one of the mistakes we make is treating laws handed down 3500 years ago and applying today’s morality. Laws that seem harsh were very forward and modern in that era. For example, “an eye for an eye” was intended to stop the circle of violence - just take an eye for an eye and don’t Hatfield & McCoy it for ages (which was what invariably would happen).
And will next week’s Bible study, like last week’s and this, also consist of a verse or passage about which the OP wishes the readership to conclude “This is utter bullshit”, and by extension, conclude the same to be true about the entire document and Christianity itself? :dubious:
Srsly? Because male infidelity is not a threat to heteropatriarchy.
I am the furthest thing from a Biblical scholar, but I actually like this one. It’s buying time. It lets the women know she’s under suspicion, and should be more discreet (if that’s her choice) without actually harming her. Now, if she has gotten herself pregnant, indeed, her “abdomen will swell” in time, and perhaps this “bitter water” is an abortifacient of some sort which will cause her to miscarry (most abortifacient herbs are indeed bitter). And assuming her husband’s suspicions revolve around his not having had sex with her, miscarrying a fetus is indeed a good sign that she’s been adulterous.
Problem is, I don’t know of any herbal abortifacients that won’t harm a non-pregnant woman. They’ll at least make you sick as a dog. So nice in theory, but unless there was an herb once used that isn’t known anymore, I doubt it’s literally true. (Of course, if there was once such an herb, I could see it being over harvested to extinction.)
I had to look that one up.
I wonder what the Old Testament penalty was for poisoning wells.
Regards,
Shodan
Just for the record, Judaism interprets “eye for an eye” to mean that the punishment must be in proportion to the crime, not as license to poke people’s eyes out.
I don’t know, though I can imagine it working via the power of suggestion (or placebo effect). See also WhyNot’s speculation.
If you’re looking for sexual parity, you’re going to have a hard time finding it in any pre-modern society.
The test also seems to be an invitation for the priests to decide what to give the accused woman. If he wants to punish her, he gives her a plant that makes her sick and confirms the husband’s suspicions. If he wants to exonerate her, he gives her an innocuous plant.
Or maybe this is a way to officially clear women of adultery. The husband who is publicly shamed by rumors of his wife’s infidelity takes her to the priest, the priest gives her the magic water, nothing happens, and the woman is officially declared to be innocent and now everyone is expected to shut up about it, regardless of what actually happened. And this is a way to bring people who are on the verge of losing their place in the community back into the community, and telling everyone that God has officially found the woman innocent, so any more loose talk about this will annoy God.
As for why men aren’t subject to things like this, duh. Because patriarchy doesn’t work that way. Adultery is having sex with a married woman and is an offense against her husband. A married man having sex is not adultery, unless he does it with another man’s wife.
That is a bit concerning.
Even more surprising to me (and maybe a pro-life Christian can comment on this) is the implication that a miscarriage is an acceptable punishment for adultery. These seems like the kind of thing a pro-life God wouldn’t take part in.
Agreed. Considering the times this is actually a pretty good system, it seems to me.
Yahweh kills humans all the time- the prohibition is on us murdering each other. (Self defense and some other situations are not murder.)
But it seems to me that God is commanding the priest to administer an abortion, practically speaking. If the woman has committed adultery then the water will cause a miscarriage. I’m not sure how you can say that’s God killing the unborn child rather than the priest doing it, especially since the priest has literally been told by God what will happen if the woman drinks the water having committed adultery.