Critical Thinking and the Bible #3 Mosaic Justice

[ailm96094]

tits to you good Sir

[EnglishTMTB]

Started watching the series a few minutes ago - enjoying it so far, though the volume of the intro is much louder than your voice (and the music may be irritating for some viewers, as it is for myself) so it ends up either being skipped or having the volume turned down, only to have to put it back up because you can barely be heard :P

[chessfidemaster]

did not have enough space to finsih my comment ,, poeple often have no more reason than chance and the peer pressure associated with their environment ..i.e brainwashing.... the concept that your faith excludes my reason goes against every fiber of critical thought

[nathanaelstacy1]

@chessfidemaster One of the things that led me to reject belief in the Bible was the thought that if God actually gave humans a religion, it should stand above the rest in the area of logic. One should be able to compare all religions in an unbiased way, and say, "Obviously, this is the correct one!" But in order to believe in the Bible when reading it, one must already accept the preconceived notion of divine authorship, then ignore or rationalize everything that suggests otherwise.

[chessfidemaster]

.. i recently designed a dice , each side of the dice has one of the many religions of the world ,, any one seeking religion is welcome to roll it and claim thier new found religion , many people born into brainwashed environments ( i would like to see a vid on how the contradictions of various religions and what reasonable evidence is there to choose one from the other when they all clearly contradict themselves

[nothingmemorable]

And how many experts on Jewish law (i.e. Rabbis) agree with your exegesis on these two matters? One demand of critical thinking is that you consult with the experts on such matters-but you obviously haven't. FYI, the rapist would be subject to the death penalty. As for the Sabbath law, Moses never defined "work", but the context makes it clear it was about commerce &food gathering. In any event, the violator could always obtain immediate absolution through the penitential system of Leviticus.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@nothingmemorable Dont worry, youre not the only person to completely incorrectly argue this. The man would receive capital punishment ONLY if the victim is married or engaged. If shes not (as the young teenager in the example) then she is forced to marry her rapist. Deut 22:28,29. On the second point, anyone doing ANY work was to be stoned to death, Exodus 31:14, including a man who was found to be gathering sticks, Numbers 15:32-35. This does not apply only to commerce or food gathering.

[nothingmemorable]

@nathan - Youre definitely not acquainted with the nature of Biblical law. The word law is probably not be the best translation for torah, especially if one thinks it implies something like what we think of as a civil law code. Its not a civil code, nor does each law spell out the details of a particular case. When we read DT22:28-29, we must compare it with other passages to get the whole picture, otherwise ones interpretation can only be superficial and misconstrued.

[nothingmemorable]

DT22:28-29 recapitulates EX22:16: the act in both is not rape as understood now but consensual sex, seduction, statutory & date rape as committed by the horny teenager who just wont take no for an answer. The Hebrew phrase translated as rape in the NIV is different than that used in v.25: in 25 the key word chazaq means "seize forcibly/brutally"; in 28 the words thaphas meaning manipulate and also abscond with/misappropriate/use without the father's authorization.

[nothingmemorable]

Though not stated in this verse, the Rabbis always understood it in combination with EX 22:16 (which is explicitly a case of seduction) that the father (and implicitly the daughter since Israelite women couldnt be forced to marry against their will) had the right to forbid the marriage, but still the family was entitled to compensation of the Bride Price for virgins.

[nothingmemorable]

. If marriage was acceptable to the woman and her father, the man HAD to marry her, provide for her his whole life, while de facto control of the family is put in her hands. She did not have to submit to him after they were married. Even if she disobeyed him, refused to take care of the house, nagged and berated him in public, or even refused to live with him, he had no right of divorce. Thus, he had to win her affection and submission, or suffer her lordship.

[nothingmemorable]

What we normally think of as rape (sociopath lurking in shadows waiting to jump, savage, and degrade a young female) was punished under the laws for assault, battery, kidnapping, and attempted 1st degree murder. The last 2 were capital crimes: if adjudged to be a case of assault & battery, the aggravated circumstances and atrocities typical of serial rapists allowed the victim and her family to appeal to the priests, who - by all accounts - sentenced the rapist to death.

[nothingmemorable]

As for the Sabbath - I'd hope'd my examples would have been understood as illustrative and not exhaustive: "gathering firewood" is like gathering food: a routine activity of basic sustenance - a regular chore that was part of making a living. Pulling your mule out of a ditch it fell into on the Sabbath didn't constitute "work" - neither did cleaning up your infant's vomit or spilled milk, nor changing its diapers.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I think a video response would have been in order. Make one, and I'll respond.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Figuring that if you ever posted a video response, it would probably be slow in coming, I went ahead and made a video response to your text comments. However, next time you have six full posts of comments to make on anybody's video, I suggest you make a response video, instead of posting them this way. Thanks.

[egbertfree]

I'm an ex-WT as well. Love critical thinking.

your samples need more nuance.

You state that the rapist was to marry the girl he raped; which is not true.

Deutoronomy 22:23 states that the girl should try to resist (shouting) the rapist.

However, a very scared woman, might not shout. So this might have given injustice.

2) you state that the Law was directly given by God. Jesus and Paul at several occations say it was given by angels. :)

Still, the Law was far from perfect.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Hey egbert.

1) Read verses 28 & 29 of Deut 22. My statement was accurate.

2) The OT repeatedly says Yahweh told Moses what to put in the law. Moses told the Israelites that it was from God. My statement on that subject was accurate also.

Glad you like critical thinking. Might try some research, too ;-)

[egbertfree]

True!

This is for Leviticus, but not for deut

Read Deut 1:1

These [be] the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness

Also Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce, however, this was not Gods intention.

I'm just saying, that I redefined the word 'inspiration' as the bible itself often says that some words (even Paul) are their own words but then contributed to God (more or less)

[nathanaelstacy1]

It does say that, but then read verses 3, 5 and 6 of that chapter. Moses said it was the words of YHWH he was speaking. Either he was telling the truth, he was delusional, or he was lying. Pointing out that Jesus and others later said the law is from Moses only furthers the point of view that the Bible contradicts itself, and therefore can't be true.

[21crosscheck21]

I have a question about your second situation:

Can you provide me any scripture that demonstrates that picking up food that fell on the floor actually violates the Sabbath?

Or are you referring to the Rabbinical Law.

Preparing food would violate the Sabbath according to scripture.... but serving and eating it would not, nor would clearing the table, picking up uneaten pieces from the table or floor or wherever and putting them back where they belong.

[21crosscheck21]

The Rabbis may disagree, as they did with the mat sittuation or the picking of the grain, however scripture says that they had gone beyond what was written.

So the question is do the scripture's actually teach what you have presented.

(they may....  however as of right now I cannot think of any place that says that)

[nathanaelstacy1]

Hey 21cc21, as you pointed out, eating was permitted, so if the woman in the scenario had just picked up solid food from the floor with her hands, that would probably not be a violation. However, if you'll recall, she didn't just salvage food from the floor; she obtained a broom and cleaned up a mess. That would reasonably count as housework.

As the latter half of verse 15 of Ex 31 says, "whosoever doeth *any* work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

[21crosscheck21]

I guess my response would be that Jesus appeared to argue that "intent" and the "spirit" of the law, which as we know in hindsight was merely a shadow, plays a critical role as to whether or not the law was violated.

As an example.... as I stated... picking grain could be considered work, but it was not considered that by Jesus.

[nathanaelstacy1]

So if that's true, then that would mean that God declared that anyone doing ANY work on the sabbath day, even by accident (Num 15:29), should be put to death, yet he used the word we would translate "work" in an enigmatic way, so that no one really knows what should be counted as work or not. We only know that preparing food or picking up some sticks (Num 15: 32-35) was a death penalty offense. But we don't know if floor sweeping would be or not?

[21crosscheck21]

To understand the the word within it's semantic range of meaning is not enigmatic in my book. It is something we all do normally and unknowingly through the course of the day,

"All" does not always mean "all"....  "bad"means good, "any" does not always mean "any." Language is very simple yet very complex at the same time.

[nathanaelstacy1]

But isn't that exactly how rabbinical law came about? If you don't have some concise definition of the word "work," but you're supposed to kill people who do it on the sabbath, what do you do? If gathering wood is work, is sweeping work? If cooking is work, why is processing grain in the palms of one's hands not work?

[21crosscheck21]

The Rabbinic law came about when people decided that they needed men to make these decisions for them. The people turned to the reasoning of men, the men then went beyond the "intent' of the law to the "letter" of the law.

[nathanaelstacy1]

So if you were a Hebrew judge under the law (before Jesus and everything) and the case before you is the one I presented about the young mother, you would apply the Law, right? You would read in the law where God said kill anyone who does any kind of work, right? And you would read where God said that the man who picked up sticks was to die? And you would know that cooking wasn't allowed? What would you think of this woman's case? Wouldn't it seem pretty clear?

[21crosscheck21]

I am willing to admit that hindsight clouds my judgment as to what I would have done with the knowledge that they had.

However.... Jesus did not advocate the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, and he was not accused by the hostile contemporarys of ignoring a law.

The same with the grain..... they could have taken him on with scripture, but they chose not to. It's an interesting response. They lived for that stuff.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Interesting point you make... However, there's little to no evidence that the Israelites did much stoning after the loss of independence, and the advent of the Synagogal system... And if we assume that the Gospel accounts are true, then it seems prostitutes had free access to the homes of the wealthy and powerful, so it's no wonder they didn't stone adulterers. It also says the religious leaders were swallowing camels and removing gnats. Who knows what they might have been doing.

[21crosscheck21]

Partially true..... the leaders were corrupt but obsessed with the "appearance" of following the law to the letter.... as a matter of fact Rabbinical laws may have reached their peak during this time.

The point being was that they desired to make an issue of it, they just couldn't. They had previously taken Jesus on scripturally and they knew what would happen. Likely a pride played a role.

[nathanaelstacy1]

So you're saying that they couldn't have pointed to the scriptures that say stone adulterers, and overcome the argument "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? I believe the Law would clearly have been on their side.

Of course, all of this really detracts from the original point of the video. There would be no basis under Moses for stoning the rapist, but there would have been a basis for stoning the sweeper. And it takes quite a finagle, using NT scriptures, to try to change that.

[21crosscheck21]

So is the point of the video that God is unjust for declaring these punishments?

(I didn't respond to what you wrote because it seems as though you don't want me to)

[nathanaelstacy1]

It would be fine if you responded to what I wrote.

And your question about the point of the video: It seems you're viewing it as if I believe in the Bible. The point isn't to ask what we can learn about God from these scriptures, but rather, whether it's even reasonable to believe that God had anything to do with them at all. Remember, I'm not talking from a believer's standpoint. I'm looking as a neutral inquisitor, asking, "Should this be believed?"

[21crosscheck21]

That was my point.... are you saying that the God of the bible could not be the true God because he is unjust?

[nathanaelstacy1]

Well, there are several points to be made. First, it would seem that the "justice" provided in the Mosaic Law was at odds with what modern people, including Christians, would consider justice. Yet, Mosaic justice would seem to fit rather easily into a bronze age, Middle-Eastern sort of justice.

And, it is true that in my view, Mosaic justice seems at odds with the idea of a loving God.

[summersun2828]

I'm following this series of Critical Thinking and find that we are thinking along the same lines. Good to know that I'm not the only one thinking this way. Wish more people would stop and actually weigh these things up rather than just accept everything as being so.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Thanks summer, glad you're enjoying them. I think we might all be surprised by how many people -- even believers -- have at some time had some of these questions (and in the case of believers, have stifled them when they pop up).

[summersun2828]

I'm following this series of Critical thinking and find that we are thinking along the same lines.

[nathanaelstacy1]

So you don't view God as omniscient?

[beardfreak1969]

... and then Jesus came and they were thrown out.

No wonder some folk see two different gods in the Bible.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Very true. That's actually one of the first things that really began to get to me about the Bible -- the fact that the OT God and the NT God seem completely different. In fact, they seem so drastically different that if the two met, I don't think they would like each other!

[beardfreak1969]

Hard to reconcile isn't it.

Oh well.

If Jesus returned & is as the NT/Greek suggests, he seems like an OK kinda guy, but Yahweh's laws & temple arrangement would have me running to the hills - just plain scary. But then I'm a big sissy & would find it difficult to slaughter livestock on an altar, even :-)

[nathanaelstacy1]

Ditto