Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sweetpea7 · 01-06-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Well, the Talmudists made the definition of a rebellious son very specific, making it almost impossible to apply to anyone. See The Stubborn and Rebellious Son (Sanhedrin 68b-71a) and Finishing on the Stubborn and Rebellious Son. It is claimed that there never was a rebellious son and there never will be (according to their criteria), but the law was given for the Jews to study it and be rewarded for its study. Well, makes as much sense as most other religious logic.

I'm curious--when was this interpretation of OT law written?

Anat · 01-06-2009, 04:22 PM

semiopen, obviously by the time this law was discussed by the rabbis it was no longer applied or in effect. However it is quite possible that centuries previously it was. The morals of all societies evolve with time. Perhaps this discussion shows it is a bad idea to adopt archaic sets of laws without questioning them.

sweetpea7 · 01-06-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

How much weaker then are nasty posts with out of context quotes

How much context do you need to feel that the quotes were not taken out of context?

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

it is with the character and mental defects of people who interpret it poorly

What is necessary to read the Hebrew bible and keep from interpreting it poorly? If the bible is god's word to man why does it need so much thorough explaining outside of the text itself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Why not attack the real problem intelligently instead?

What do you see as being the real problem?

Anat · 01-06-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

I'm curious--when was this interpretation of OT law written?

Part of it appears in the Mishna, compiled around 200 CE, the rest appears in the Talmud, compiled no later than 499 CE. Both are works of generations, so it is impossible to pinpoint the exact time the commentaries were made. If Deuteronomy was the book allegedly discovered in the temple in Josiah's days (7th century BCE) there could have been quite a while during which the law was applied, yet truly forgotten by the time of the Tanaim.

sweetpea7 · 01-06-2009, 04:35 PM

Thanks, Anat.

Bokoura · 01-06-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

This is an excellent explanation.

The rebellious son is a difficult passage that confuses even learned Rabbis. Parents are not allowed as witnesses against their sons (and vice versa) and someone cannot be condemned to death without being warned by "two or three witnesses." Obviously this can not be carried out as Anat's links explain.

I am an admirer of the recent books on atheism by Hitchens, Dawkins, David Ramsay Steele, etc. One area where these books are weak however is in their treatment of the Hebrew bible.

How much weaker then are nasty posts with out of context quotes and facile condemnations. If there is a problem with the Hebrew bible, it is with the character and mental defects of people who interpret it poorly, and those who impose those conclusions on others. Why not attack the real problem intelligently instead?

Obviously you overreacted to our comments on it, my friend. Perhaps it is just me, but when I see an ancient book that reads 'stone rebellious sons', quite clearly, I believe that is what it means. How could you possibly interpret that in another way, not knowing the specific context?

Toto · 01-06-2009, 06:04 PM

The Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient laws are full of draconian punishments that were evidently rarely carried out - threats to get your attention that in practice would not be acted on.

The problem is that later literalists take these seriously. We have no record of the Jews stoning people for adultery, but later and some recent Muslims have in fact done that. And some American Dominionists have advocated a return to stoning as a solution to all of our problems. See "Invitation to a stoning"

Quote:

"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do 'his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.

sugarhitman · 01-06-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokoura

This just in:

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge all evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.' -Deuteronomy 21:18-21

(Emphasis mine.)

Comments?

That command is against adults not children (note the word drunkard) . Even grown children are forbidden from disobeying their parents.

After Israel rebelled against God in the desert while he was among them he knew that Israel was rebellious and stiff-necked. A nation such as this is easily corrupted especially being surrounded by Paganism. So God in a attempt to preserve Israel had to make them afraid of rebelling against him not because he wanted to but because he had too. You cannot rule over a rebellious people meekly.

Joan of Bark · 01-07-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

After Israel rebelled against God in the desert while he was among them he knew that Israel was rebellious and stiff-necked. A nation such as this is easily corrupted especially being surrounded by Paganism. So God in a attempt to preserve Israel had to make them afraid of rebelling against him not because he wanted to but because he had too. You cannot rule over a rebellious people meekly.

Clearly YHWH didn't impress the Hebrews, or they wouldn't have needed such threats. If they were so easily corrupted, their God obviously didn't appear to them to be very powerful. And if YHWH wanted such passive, worshipful subjects, He must have been very insecure. Of course, He was a "jealous God", which just proves a point made many times before: YHWH was a tribal God only, not the 'only' God he was later to become.

semiopen · 01-07-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

After Israel rebelled against God in the desert while he was among them he knew that Israel was rebellious and stiff-necked. A nation such as this is easily corrupted especially being surrounded by Paganism. So God in a attempt to preserve Israel had to make them afraid of rebelling against him not because he wanted to but because he had too. You cannot rule over a rebellious people meekly.

Clearly YHWH didn't impress the Hebrews, or they wouldn't have needed such threats. If they were so easily corrupted, their God obviously didn't appear to them to be very powerful. And if YHWH wanted such passive, worshipful subjects, He must have been very insecure. Of course, He was a "jealous God", which just proves a point made many times before: YHWH was a tribal God only, not the 'only' God he was later to become.

I agree with the sentiments here. Traditional methods of interpretation are inadequate and even harmful.

The bible can be understood most clearly if it is read critically keeping in mind the history of the time it was written. The Israelites were polytheistic probably until about 500 BCE. Historical and politcal elements are critical to consider when analyzing the text.

Quote:

Anat... Part of it appears in the Mishna, compiled around 200 CE, the rest appears in the Talmud, compiled no later than 499 CE. Both are works of generations, so it is impossible to pinpoint the exact time the commentaries were made. If Deuteronomy was the book allegedly discovered in the temple in Josiah's days (7th century BCE) there could have been quite a while during which the law was applied, yet truly forgotten by the time of the Tanaim.

Your point makes sense Anat although I doubt that this was actually ever carried out, it is possible. We know that there were some pretty nasty activities going on in ancient Canaan/Israel like human sacrifice. A problem with standard interpretations is that they are idealized, after all does Mom and Dad want to take their kids to church and learn R rated stuff with ambiguous morality.

Sorry if I offended anyone with my previous comments about the quality of the posts. But I find moralizing annoying whether it comes from a religious or secular perspective, maybe I just like nasty stories.

Quote:

From Sweetpea... How much context do you need to feel that the quotes were not taken out of context?

If you give your seed to Molech, ya get stoned. (Lev 20:2)

This is one that bothered me Sweetpea. It is saying if you sacrifice your children you can be put to death. Personally I don't believe in capital punishment but this seems reasonable. Sorry again for my negative comments.

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

01-06-2009, 04:22 PM	#12
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	semiopen, obviously by the time this law was discussed by the rabbis it was no longer applied or in effect. However it is quite possible that centuries previously it was. The morals of all societies evolve with time. Perhaps this discussion shows it is a bad idea to adopt archaic sets of laws without questioning them.

01-06-2009, 04:35 PM	#15
sweetpea7 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 1,407	Thanks, Anat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.