The ignorance of the OT writers. (America, worship, Abraham, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, most rabbis will tell you that it's pointless to try to rationalize God's law. Humans live in our own narrow world of logical rules and consistencies, but that world is too small for God -- and there are reasons for certain rules that we simply have no capacity to understand. That said, however, some would offer the rationale -- which is really the same rationale for the rule that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons -- that a person is least likely to sin if he believes this will harm his or her child; that in fact, most people care less about consequences to themselves than to their children. Therefore, punishing one's children -- as opposed to the sinners themselves -- acts as a stronger deterrent.
See above -- most rabbis will say that just because a human does not understand the rationale does not mean that one does not exist. And again, to the extent that this can be explained, Judaism values sanctified sex as something essential to a person's psychological well-being. Damaged "tools" are outward signs of sexual dysfunction and the belief is (totally anecdotal, of course) that a sexually dysfunctional person tends to be unsatisfied, frustrated and unusually cruel -- and thus unfit to be a judge, particularly in cases stemming from sexual offenses.
Understood. From a human standpoint I can see where they could have come up with all these seemingly mindless restrictions and ritutals. Similar to Jews of the New Testament period believing kids with seizures were demon possessed. To say a god detailed these things to them is another story, but hey, I was not the one claiming to hear voices so what do I know?
No, adultery in Judaism refers to intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse. I believe that's also the basic understanding of what adultery is in the Western culture. See, e.g., here. Fornication -- i.e. sex between two people who are not married to each other, but also not married to others -- is not adultery, and a child of such a relationship is not a mamzer. Only a child born to a married woman and a man not her husband is considered a mamzer under Jewish law. Whether or not this makes sense to you really doesn't change the fact that this is the law in Judaism, and always has been.
Well look...I was always taught in church that fornication covers ALL sexual sin. And for there to be a distiction between a child born from a relationship between two unmarried people or from a person who is married but got knocked up by someone other than the husband is ridiculous. The child is still illegitimate. And they had no dna tests back then so how would they even know if a kid was a husband's or not? My opinion is the same....OT is insanly silly!
I have long thought that the OT was full of silliness that written by primitive men who just THOUGHT that god was telling them what to write. I mean the ignorance is unbelievable! And as for some of the attrocities, well they must have really needed a scapegoat...and god was it! They were horrible people who did terrible things and justified their actions by saying "god told us to!" Here are a few examples of the silliness.
Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. (okay the silly part is that he DIRTY until evening. huh? So at nightfall he's magically all clean again?!)
Leviticus 15:19-20 And if a woman have an issue in her flesh and her issue be be blood, she shall be put apart seven days and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything that she lieth upon in her separtation shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. (this is insane. to actually believe that women were just NOT CLEAN because of a menstral cycle is very silly. not to mention anything she touches is dirty also!)
I can already hear it....I'm probably going to be ripped to shreds for this one....but that's okay....I don't mind.
Do you have any idea what "unclean" means in the context?
Do you have any idea what "unclean" means in the context?
It's not in reference to dirt.
Forget the "unclean" part. Where is she being "put apart" to and as Dani asked, what was up with the evening? Something magical happened around that time?
Do you have any idea what "unclean" means in the context?
It's not in reference to dirt.
In or out of context....no one is unclean because they just ejaculated or are having their cycle. Just because the OT writers thought it to be true doesn't mean it was. If it were so important to got then wouldn't it still stand today?
Obviously peeping toms were allowed in the bible as I still fail to see how anyone could report someone had a wet dream " *walks out out of tent - hey look all...* or a lady in her time of the month would be lifting her skirt to advertise or did she have to ring a bell and chant "unclean, unclean"
Either the folk were very unhygienic or were pretty much like animals. Maybe these laws were more in line with personal hygiene but I actually wonder why a mother would not pass this info onto her daughter and likewise the father explain to the son the woody he wakes up in the morning.
Unless of course there is a perfectly irrational reason to explain this.
Well look...I was always taught in church that fornication covers ALL sexual sin. And for there to be a distiction between a child born from a relationship between two unmarried people or from a person who is married but got knocked up by someone other than the husband is ridiculous. The child is still illegitimate.
Well, what you were taught in church is not the same thing that's taught in a synagogue. Your church does not own exclusive rights to the OT, and I think that, for obvious reasons, the Jews get a priority for determining what the OT means. According to Jewish law, adultery is distinguished from fornication. A child born from the former is illegitimate, a child born of the latter is not. It you think that's a silly distinction, that must be simply what your church told you. Considering marriage wasn't even a sacrament until the 12th century (and thus all children born in Christian Europe before that time were deemed "illegitimate"), this attitude is not surprising. Suffice it to say, I find the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible a tad less extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaniMae1
And they had no dna tests back then so how would they even know if a kid was a husband's or not? My opinion is the same....OT is insanly silly!
I think now it's you who is being silly. They had no DNA tests 20 years ago, you think people in the 1980's wouldn't be able to tell whether a kid was the husband's or not, regardless of the circumstances? Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? How's this for starters: The husband is a soldier and goes off to war -- or a merchant who goes on an extended trip to sell his wares -- or a sailor who goes on a protracted expedition around the Mediterranean -- and 6 months after he leaves, his wife gets pregnant. Do you really need a DNA test to determine with certainty that the baby is not his? Come on now -- I realize you think people who lived thousands of years ago in the place that's known as the Cradle of Western civilization were, like, total idiots, but they could still count.
Forget the "unclean" part. Where is she being "put apart" to and as Dani asked, what was up with the evening? Something magical happened around that time?
She would be "put apart" from the rest of the household. Actually, that would mean she would have a rest from cooking and other household chores. As to where she would be put apart to, that would depend on the particular family's economic circumstances. A queen or a rich merchant's wife would probably have a comfortable set of quarters reserved for just this purpose. A poor woman would probably just sleep in a separate bed and keep away from the hearth.
As to what happens in the evening -- in the Jewish tradition, the day ends and a new one begins at sunset. That's why the Sabbath is ushered in on Friday night. I anticipate Dani will say this is also silly, but his isn't anymore silly than having 24 hours in a day (why not 10? or 100? or 25?). Something that becomes unclean through contact with a menstruating woman is unclean -- again, ritually unclean -- until the end of that day, the end of the day being in the evening.
N.P.'s just want to be undecided if they make friends of each other as pieces of flesh. And then they can shut each other's doors whenever they can't believe that they have a sure thing for pro-creating future generations.
The personal way is even better. The decision is made by the bank for them.
Obviously peeping toms were allowed in the bible as I still fail to see how anyone could report someone had a wet dream " *walks out out of tent - hey look all...* or a lady in her time of the month would be lifting her skirt to advertise or did she have to ring a bell and chant "unclean, unclean"
Why would this need to be "reported"? If a person knew he was unclean, that was something for him to take care of. Being ritually unclean is not something that would require a pillorying. Nidah laws are still in effect in Judaism, but observant Jewish women simply go about their business when they are menstruating; neither do they lift their skirts nor do they ring bells or chant. You are now clearly reading into the text something that's simply not there, nor supported by the oral tradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
Either the folk were very unhygienic or were pretty much like animals. Maybe these laws were more in line with personal hygiene but I actually wonder why a mother would not pass this info onto her daughter and likewise the father explain to the son the woody he wakes up in the morning.
I don't see anything in the OT suggesting that parents did not teach their children hygiene. There are books on hygiene, particularly for young people, being published even now. Imagine how obtuse it would be for a historian a couple of thousand years hence to find one of these books and conclude that we lived like animals. Never mind the abundance of bath products and the fact that every home has at least one bath (or in the case of ancient Mesopotamia and Near East, evidence of regular bathing in the form of numerous mikvaot, baths, oil vials, and even occasional indoor plumming) -- the existence of a book that talks about bathing means we were "unhygienic" and parents did not teach their kids about cleaning themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
