Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hylidae · 06-06-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

What's the difference? Both fit the thought crime description.

Well, that's a very Orwellian interpretation of the text. In any event the Dead Sea Scrolls closely match the Septuagint verse in relation to the tenth commadnment.

Quote:

Dt 5.21/ 4QDeutn Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. .
http://www.freeratio.org/archive/ind.../t-125566.html

Coveting is a process of thought and emotion, a desire. It's not an action that could possibly hurt anyone in and of itself. It's a good guideline to check ourselves against as we try to live a decent life. Jealousy and envy can become obsessions or tempt people to do something that will hurt someone. This, along with such instructions as moderation, calmness of mind and temper, etc., seem to me to be sensible, healthy guidelines for living, but not things that should be punishable on their own. If someone becomes obsessed and seduces his neighbor's wife, he can't say he wasn't warned if he was taught this advice.

But one of the ten commandments? I question all of the commandments, especially after reading Richard Carrier's article on the ten commandments but that one truly is a thought crime commandment as Hitchens described it. Maybe ancient Jews didn't fully understand the danger of thought policing in that fashion as some of us now understand.

Just a side note: I have wondered before why covetousness is the only sin that gets its own commandment just for thinking about it (even though I didn't make the thought policing observation that Christopher Hitchens did). Apparently, those early Bible writers understood the power that certain desires can have over reasoning if we're not mindful of them. I think making it such a commandment was misguided but perfectly understandable. I think this commandment would be better placed among other caution-related but not really punishable advice in the Bible.

GakuseiDon · 06-06-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

But one of the ten commandments? I question all of the commandments, especially after reading Richard Carrier's article on the ten commandments but that one truly is a thought crime commandment as Hitchens described it. Maybe ancient Jews didn't fully understand the danger of thought policing in that fashion as some of us now understand.

Philo writes about that commandment here:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book26.html

Quote:

Last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind...

For Tantallus, whenever he seemed about to lay his hands on any of the objects which he desired, was invariably disappointed, and the man who is overcome by desire, being always thirsting for what is not present, is never satisfied, wallowing about among vain appetites, (150) like those diseases which would creep over the whole body, if they were not checked by excision or cautery

It sounds like Philo understood the commandment similarly to the Buddhist concept of desires leading to suffering.

hylidae · 06-06-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

But one of the ten commandments? I question all of the commandments, especially after reading Richard Carrier's article on the ten commandments but that one truly is a thought crime commandment as Hitchens described it. Maybe ancient Jews didn't fully understand the danger of thought policing in that fashion as some of us now understand.

Philo writes about that commandment here:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book26.html

Quote:

Last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind...

For Tantallus, whenever he seemed about to lay his hands on any of the objects which he desired, was invariably disappointed, and the man who is overcome by desire, being always thirsting for what is not present, is never satisfied, wallowing about among vain appetites, (150) like those diseases which would creep over the whole body, if they were not checked by excision or cautery

It doesn't sound much different from the Buddhist concept of desires leading to suffering.

I agree. I just think advice of caution and mindfulness of the danger of such strong desires has to be enough as far as rules or laws go. It can't be enforced unless there really is a God who knows every person's last thought and emotion. I think history shows that we live in a world with either no god or an unreliable one who is indistinguishable from natural laws and random chance. (so God's not a problem for me.)

Joan of Bark · 06-06-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

. . Aparently, you are not allowed even to be angry with people, according to the Sermon on the Mount, on the spurious grounds that if you start being angry with people, you might end up murdering them.

Wrong, the Sermon on the Mount states do not be angry without cause. . .

Quote:

You have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago, ‘You must not murder,’[j] and ‘Whoever murders will be subject to punishment.’[k] 22But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause[l] will be subject to punishment.

I looked into several Bibles, including the NIV and RSV, and only the King James Version(s) include the without a cause clause. Are you admitting that *gasp* Bibles contradict one another?

Toto · 06-07-2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Philo writes about that commandment here:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book26.html

Quote:

Last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind...

For Tantallus, whenever he seemed about to lay his hands on any of the objects which he desired, was invariably disappointed, and the man who is overcome by desire, being always thirsting for what is not present, is never satisfied, wallowing about among vain appetites, (150) like those diseases which would creep over the whole body, if they were not checked by excision or cautery

It sounds like Philo understood the commandment similarly to the Buddhist concept of desires leading to suffering.

This is a very humanistic interpretation of the commandment. But it does not explain why this good advice was turned into a law.

For another perspective, there is Joseph Lewis.

Quote:

This Commandment was never intended to prevent envying another's possessions, but rather to avoid the evil consequences of "coveting" in the magical sense.

Coveting was not mentioned as an undesirable trait to be avoided because it is unethical, immoral or antisocial; it was recorded and made part of the Decalogue because the superstition prevailed in Hebrew tribal society that envious thoughts would bring ill luck and misfortune, through sorcery and witchcraft, to the person against whose property the "coveting" was directed. Covetous desires, they believed, would call into existence the malevolent spirits of the "evil eye," which by devious and diabolical methods would cause the loss of the coveted possessions.

. . .

This primitive concept of the word "coveting," as used in this Commandment, is verified by the use of similar words among the Biblical Hebrews. For instance, keshep, the Hebrew word for "coveting," means, according to one authority, "a thing done in a secret manner." It also means "poisoner," or "to cast a spell." This same authority says that "there is no doubt that the real meaning of this 'magic' is exactly witchcraft." Kishif, another Hebrew word meaning "coveter" or "sorcerer," is defined as "witchcraft" in the Talmud. [*2] Another authority tells us that the medieval Hebrew believed that a man and his wife could be so bewitched by envious persons that they would be unable to cohabit. The Hebrew word asar, meaning "to bind," occurs frequently with the meaning "to tie somebody by a knot-charm so that he cannot enjoy relations with his wife." [*3]

. . .

[2] Hastings, Encyclopædia, Vol. 8, p. 301.

[3] Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 127.

Jewish Magic and Superstition, by Joshua Trachtenberg is online at sacred-texts.com.

This explanation makes a lot of sense, although I have not seen a lot of comment about it (or Lewis' work in general.)

arnoldo · 06-07-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong, the Sermon on the Mount states do not be angry without cause. . .

I looked into several Bibles, including the NIV and RSV, and only the King James Version(s) include the without a cause clause. Are you admitting that *gasp* Bibles contradict one another?

How is the translation of greek texts into different english versions a contradiction? :huh: Anyway if you want contradictions the following verse indicates that Jesus was angry;Mark 3:5 & the others states to BE ANGRY; Ephesians 4:26.

arnoldo · 06-07-2009, 10:01 AM

The following is a picture of the DSS 4Q41 containing the ten commandments.

Quote:

2. Deuteronomy: The Ten Commandments
4Q41
Scroll type: Excerpted biblical text
Date: 30–1 BCE
Language: Hebrew
Discovered: Cave 4, 1952
Deuteronomy 8:5-10; 5:1-6:1

http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description_2.html#command

For a larger picture: http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/scroll981_large.html

Steven Carr · 06-07-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

. . Aparently, you are not allowed even to be angry with people, according to the Sermon on the Mount, on the spurious grounds that if you start being angry with people, you might end up murdering them.

Wrong, the Sermon on the Mount states do not be angry without cause. . .

Quote:

You have heard that it was said to those who lived long ago, ‘You must not murder,’[j] and ‘Whoever murders will be subject to punishment.’[k] 22But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause[l] will be subject to punishment.

I have never been angry with somebody without a cause.

arnoldo · 06-07-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

But one of the ten commandments? I question all of the commandments, especially after reading Richard Carrier's article on the ten commandments but that one truly is a thought crime commandment as Hitchens described it. Maybe ancient Jews didn't fully understand the danger of thought policing in that fashion as some of us now understand.

Philo writes about that commandment here:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...lo/book26.html

Quote:

Last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind...

For Tantallus, whenever he seemed about to lay his hands on any of the objects which he desired, was invariably disappointed, and the man who is overcome by desire, being always thirsting for what is not present, is never satisfied, wallowing about among vain appetites, (150) like those diseases which would creep over the whole body, if they were not checked by excision or cautery

It sounds like Philo understood the commandment similarly to the Buddhist concept of desires leading to suffering.

The Greeks also developed a philosophical school of thought regarding the concept of lack of self-mastery (akrasia) leading to suffering. In fact, there are parallels between some of Paul's writings and greek writers in regards to this issue.

Quote:

One of the most famous lines from Ovid (line 20): "Reason calls one way, desire another. I see, approving things that are good, and yet I follow worse ones." Compare this to Euripides' Medea 1078: "I understand the horror of what I am going to do, but anger, the spring of all life's horror, masters my resolve." The apostle Paul says much the same thing about the struggle with sin: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do." (Romans 7:15)

http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/...xeno.ovid5.htm

GakuseiDon · 06-07-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Greeks also developed a philosophical school of thought regarding the concept of lack of self-mastery (akrasia) leading to suffering. In fact, there are parallels between some of Paul's writings and greek writers in regards to this issue.

Quote:

One of the most famous lines from Ovid (line 20): "Reason calls one way, desire another. I see, approving things that are good, and yet I follow worse ones." Compare this to Euripides' Medea 1078: "I understand the horror of what I am going to do, but anger, the spring of all life's horror, masters my resolve." The apostle Paul says much the same thing about the struggle with sin: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do." (Romans 7:15)

http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/...xeno.ovid5.htm

Thanks for the link, arnoldo. I think that Paul's use of "flesh" and "spirit" in around those passages in Romans is consistent with how Philo explained the consequences of not obeying the 10th commandment. As Paul writes in Rom 8:

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.