10 Commandments statue must be removed from OK State Capitol

[Elheru Aran]

The old Hebrews and Israelites however did think that their capital-G god dwelled in some form within the Tabernacle and the Temple. "House of God" was not meant metaphorically until the Romans smashed said house to pieces. I always found it weird even as a kid.

That fits with the parts of Genesis where God is physically walking in Eden and both Adam and Eve successfully hide from him. He was not portrayed as an omnipotent omnipresent spirit originally.

There's a little bit of an ongoing debate about whether the Christian God of the New Testament is quite the same as the Old Testament Jewish God. Historical evidence does seem to indicate that the Jewish OT God was a composite of various regional patriarchal Canaanite deities meshed together by Jewish religious leaders during their first diaspora after conquest by the Babylonians and Persians in order to bring a more unified identity to the tribally diverse Israelites. Other deities were certainly present during the OT era-- Astoreth, Asherah, Baal, and so forth. Even 'household gods' are mentioned on occasion, and Yahweh may even have had a female consort who was since suppressed by the priests when they decided monotheism was the only way to go. The OT Scriptures are generally viewed upon a sliding scale of 'literal historical truth' (fundie slant) towards 'utterly subjective ahistorical propagandistic crap that should be almost ignored in favor of the NT' (highly liberal non-denominational slant).

[Borgholio]

Historical evidence does seem to indicate that the Jewish OT God was a composite of various regional patriarchal Canaanite deities meshed together by Jewish religious leaders during their first diaspora after conquest by the Babylonians and Persians in order to bring a more unified identity to the tribally diverse Israelites.

Ancient Christianity does appear to be a conglomerate of many different pre-existing religions and stories, so I wouldn't be surprised that the original idea of God was the same. I mean Noah was a retelling of Gilgamesh, and who knows what else was put in there too.

[Metahive]

An early group of Christians, the gnostics, did indeed believe that their god and the jewish god were not identical and that the latter was, in fact, some sort of malevolent figure (the "demiurge"). That the Nicene Creed which conflated Jesus and the OT god eventually won out required Christianity to adopt pretty much the most ridiculous of premises and the one requiring the highest amount of mental gymnastics. That's what you get when such questions are decided by force of arms rather than force of argument.

[biostem]

The commandments that *are* actual laws, existed as laws long before Judaism/Christianity existed - to think that no one thought to make murder or theft illegal before then, is just ignorance. Similarly, there is no commandment against rape, (thought I suppose it could be argued that you must covet someone before you can rape them). Slavery is also suspiciously absent from the prohibitions, (indeed, the bible seems to endorse slavery).

[General Zod]

You're just not supposed to covet stuff that belongs to your neighbor. Some random girl in another village? Fair game.

[Ralin]

You're just not supposed to covet stuff that belongs to your neighbor. Some random girl in another village? Fair game.

'Neighbor' can be pretty broadly interpreted. And the random girl still belongs to her father or husband, or if not her brothers.

[Metahive]

The Bible totally does have laws concerning rape. If someone's raping a married woman and she isn't screaming for help they have to be put to death both.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24

And if he is found guilty of rape of an unmarried woman, he has to pay the woman's father for it and marry her.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Clearly only the Bible knows how to deal with these issues best.

[The Vortex Empire]

How much is fifty pieces of silver in USD?

[loomer]

The expectation was that the woman, in both cases, would make complaint during or after - as in the story of Tamar. It is less harsh than it sounds, and it has been badly interpreted in recent centuries but was recognized on by the Rabbis that the crying out may not be literal, but figurative of any and all forms of resistance (per the Rambam.)

The 50 shekels was the normal bride price for virgin women, and it must be noted also that the man was not permitted to divorce the woman under any circumstances. She had the benefit of a customary right to divorce later on, which remained forbidden to him. It also became custom to apply the precedent in Exodus 22:15, permitting the father to refuse the marriage while still claiming the money, with the rapist having no recourse. This was also the custom at the time for other cultures in the region, and must be viewed in that light.

It is difficult to give an exact value for the fifty shekels as silver has been significantly devalued since, but at the time a shekel was about eight to ten grams and 50 shekels would come out at about 500 USD today, but was significantly more valuable then. It was also the price to be paid in some neighbouring laws for 'destroying' a limb with a club, biting off a nose or gouging out an eye (though other laws of the area list it instead as a penalty of 40 shekels), with miscarriages of the children of free women coming in at around 10 - 30 shekels if caused in a fight. It's one of the more serious fines levied, though Deuteronomy does deviate from neighbouring custom by not charging more than the usual bride price.

[Metahive]

The expectation was that the woman, in both cases, would make complaint during or after - as in the story of Tamar. It is less harsh than it sounds, and it has been badly interpreted in recent centuries but was recognized on by the Rabbis that the crying out may not be literal, but figurative of any and all forms of resistance (per the Rambam.)

See, every time I read or hear stuff like this I think what's really meant is, "a buncha' clerics and theologians got together rationalizing hard old timey-wimey stuff to make it chafe less with contemporary sensibilities". If the Bible were really the timeless source of truth and wisdom than this should not be happening.

The 50 shekels was the normal bride price for virgin women, and it must be noted also that the man was not permitted to divorce the woman under any circumstances. She had the benefit of a customary right to divorce later on, which remained forbidden to him. It also became custom to apply the precedent in Exodus 22:15, permitting the father to refuse the marriage while still claiming the money, with the rapist having no recourse. This was also the custom at the time for other cultures in the region, and must be viewed in that light.

Just one thing, raped women in overly patriarchal socieites like that are considered damaged goods even today and treated accordingly, so this is rather theoretical.

[madd0ct0r]

The expectation was that the woman, in both cases, would make complaint during or after - as in the story of Tamar. It is less harsh than it sounds, and it has been badly interpreted in recent centuries but was recognized on by the Rabbis that the crying out may not be literal, but figurative of any and all forms of resistance (per the Rambam.)

See, every time I read or hear stuff like this I think what's really meant is, "a buncha' clerics and theologians got together rationalizing hard old timey-wimey stuff to make it chafe less with contemporary sensibilities". If the Bible were really the timeless source of truth and wisdom than this should not be happening.

That's a view that is not shared by the Rabbi's. They don't claim it as a timeless source of truth and wisdom, and understanding and intpreting it for modern situations has always been the historic norm - it was what marked Jesus on his visit to the temple as a kid, that he understood it so well.

[Metahive]

That's a view that is not shared by the Rabbi's. They don't claim it as a timeless source of truth and wisdom, and understanding and intpreting it for modern situations has always been the historic norm - it was what marked Jesus on his visit to the temple as a kid, that he understood it so well.

"Always been the historic" norm? Rabbinical Judaism is pretty much the sort of religion that does emphasize the ultimate importance of scripture and the NT does contain Jesus and the Pharisees (the embryonical Rabbis) clashing over letter and spirit of the word constantly. What are you talking about?

[loomer]

The expectation was that the woman, in both cases, would make complaint during or after - as in the story of Tamar. It is less harsh than it sounds, and it has been badly interpreted in recent centuries but was recognized on by the Rabbis that the crying out may not be literal, but figurative of any and all forms of resistance (per the Rambam.)

See, every time I read or hear stuff like this I think what's really meant is, "a buncha' clerics and theologians got together rationalizing hard old timey-wimey stuff to make it chafe less with contemporary sensibilities". If the Bible were really the timeless source of truth and wisdom than this should not be happening.

Yes, that is rather much the spirit of Judaism. They have always had a long tradition of looking at the writings and using them as guidelines for how to handle situations. It was established by Moses on Mount Sinai, as they say.

The 50 shekels was the normal bride price for virgin women, and it must be noted also that the man was not permitted to divorce the woman under any circumstances. She had the benefit of a customary right to divorce later on, which remained forbidden to him. It also became custom to apply the precedent in Exodus 22:15, permitting the father to refuse the marriage while still claiming the money, with the rapist having no recourse. This was also the custom at the time for other cultures in the region, and must be viewed in that light.

Just one thing, raped women in overly patriarchal socieites like that are considered damaged goods even today and treated accordingly, so this is rather theoretical.

And you're willing to provide some kind of citation about these customary rights being theoretical rather than actual at the time, I assume?

That's a view that is not shared by the Rabbi's. They don't claim it as a timeless source of truth and wisdom, and understanding and intpreting it for modern situations has always been the historic norm - it was what marked Jesus on his visit to the temple as a kid, that he understood it so well.

"Always been the historic" norm? Rabbinical Judaism is pretty much the sort of religion that does emphasize the ultimate importance of scripture and the NT does contain Jesus and the Pharisees (the embryonical Rabbis) clashing over letter and spirit of the word constantly. What are you talking about?

It has been, since the rise of Rabbinical Judaism - which you will note rather post-dates the claimed time-frame Jesus and the Pharisees. Even at that time, however, there was a strong tradition of debate and of arguing over the meaning of the commands of the holy word, and said clashes are one of the examples.

[Metahive]

Yes, that is rather much the spirit of Judaism. They have always had a long tradition of looking at the writings and using them as guidelines for how to handle situations. It was established by Moses on Mount Sinai, as they say.

Yes, and it puts to shame any pretense that these laws were divinely inspired and that they're actually of any relevance since you have to carefully reshuffle them every hundred years because human society keeps progressing and evolving. Might as well go completely secular and drop the charade.

And you're willing to provide some kind of citation about these customary rights being theoretical rather than actual at the time, I assume?

"Theoretical" in the sense that even if a raped woman decided to divorce from her rapist, she could only look forward to a life of poverty and squalor as women like that were not considered marriagable. The same reason why anti-rape laws in Saudi Arabia are "theoretical" since they require the woman to produce a number of male witness or face execution for adultery and so most women don't bother.
If you think Israel was somehow different in this attitude than any other patriarchal society, then you feel free to show me the citations.

It has been, since the rise of Rabbinical Judaism - which you will note rather post-dates the claimed time-frame Jesus and the Pharisees. Even at that time, however, there was a strong tradition of debate and of arguing over the meaning of the commands of the holy word, and said clashes are one of the examples.

How's this supposed to disprove my point? That they're so busy dissecting words to keep scripture being "relevant" with modern times shows what utmost importance they put on the latter of the law.

[Borgholio]

How much is fifty pieces of silver in USD?

A .999 silver US Morgan Dollar minted today is worth about $25 or so in the metal. So 50 pieces of silver would be worth about $1,250. That's the value of a woman right there, ladies and gentlemen. :-/

[Channel72]

Yes, and it puts to shame any pretense that these laws were divinely inspired and that they're actually of any relevance since you have to carefully reshuffle them every hundred years because human society keeps progressing and evolving. Might as well go completely secular and drop the charade.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that these laws are divinely inspired. You're attacking a phantom argument.

The point is just that the Rabbi's themselves are constantly interpreting and re-interpreting the Mosaic laws. A brief skim thorugh the Babylonian Talmud, for example, shows that most of it is just Rabbinical debates and dialogue. Jews love to argue, who knew?

Seriously though, Rabbinical Judaism is all about interpreting and re-interpreting - it doesn't have the same sense of orthodox adherence to the literal written word that you see with Protestant Sola Scriptura Evangelicals.

With that said, I agree with you - ultimately the whole thing is stupid, because the Mosaic laws themselves are basically just lifted from older Near Eastern law codes, and trying to apply them millenia later is just silly. But you know, religion.

[Ziggy Stardust]

See, every time I read or hear stuff like this I think what's really meant is, "a buncha' clerics and theologians got together rationalizing hard old timey-wimey stuff to make it chafe less with contemporary sensibilities". If the Bible were really the timeless source of truth and wisdom than this should not be happening.

You do realize this is literally the entire purpose of theology? We are talking about a document that has been constantly rewritten and retranslated into multiple languages over the course of a couple thousand years. Why are you so surprised that there is some debate over how it was translated? This isn't exclusive to rabbinical teaching, either, this is a major part of Catholic theology as well. It doesn't even invalidate the precept that the Bible is in and of itself a source of truth, because all of the argument is over how it has been translated and edited SINCE the original writing, which is a function of human error.

[Channel72]

^ Theology is not just a linguistic "science". It is not just a debate over the meaning of koine Greek, Aramiac, or Hebrew words and syntax. That's part of it yeah - but there's a difference between scholars of the Old/New Testament and Rabbis/priests/theologians, even if these fields overlap. A lot of theology is basically just exegesis, which is essentially interpretive nonsense - especially such bullshit as Jewish "Midrash", which is basically the Rabbinical equivalent of Lord of the Rings fans arguing about what Tolkien really meant in this or that passage, even if Rabbis like to pretend that what they're doing is somehow more disciplined.

[Ziggy Stardust]

A lot of theology is basically just exegesis, which is essentially interpretive nonsense - especially such bullshit as Jewish "Midrash", which is basically the Rabbinical equivalent of Lord of the Rings fans arguing about what Tolkien really meant in this or that passage, even if Rabbis like to pretend that what they're doing is somehow more disciplined.

So ... you agree with what I said? I don't see how this doesn't fall under my description.

I also don't see why you think it is so inherently ridiculous. Once you've accepted the belief that these texts are somehow divinely inspired and/or transmit deep philosophical wisdom, it's only rational to examine those texts in greater detail and attempt to contextualize them. There's no way to dismiss exegesis and theology in general without dismissing the entire premise of any literary or artistic criticism; if nothing else, there's great historical importance in understanding how these texts relate to each other and other texts from the same time period. I'm pretty firmly atheist, I don't put any stock into any supernatural beliefs whatsoever, but I don't see what's so ridiculous about people that do attach importance to these beliefs undertaking to understand them in greater detail.

And, to be honest, I think it is an ironic stance to take, because by dismissing exegesis as "interpretive nonsense" you are implicitly accepting the literalist readings of religious fundamentalists.

[Batman]

I think the point is if those writings truly 'were' divinely inspired they wouldn't 'need' interpreting.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the point is if those writings truly 'were' divinely inspired they wouldn't 'need' interpreting.

IIRC, most denominators still believe that the writings were written by people. And people are fallible. There's no contradiction, there. Many theologists may well believe that the message behind the writings is divinely inspired, and it is by the sort of linguistic and historical research that underlies exegesis that they hope to better understand this message by understanding the context in which they were written.

[madd0ct0r]

I think the point is if those writings truly 'were' divinely inspired they wouldn't 'need' interpreting.

why? even if the writing is perfect the reader is not. A laser may be perfectly straight and accurate, but weilded by a man with myopia, it's not going to perfectly hit the target.

[loomer]

Yes, that is rather much the spirit of Judaism. They have always had a long tradition of looking at the writings and using them as guidelines for how to handle situations. It was established by Moses on Mount Sinai, as they say.

Yes, and it puts to shame any pretense that these laws were divinely inspired and that they're actually of any relevance since you have to carefully reshuffle them every hundred years because human society keeps progressing and evolving. Might as well go completely secular and drop the charade.

Sure, and that's exactly what modern society has done. Some of the laws recorded in the OT are also, as a point of fact, actually secular in origin as well. Not everything in there can rightly be considered the work of God even for someone who believes in God as its ultimate author, and this is not exactly a radical concept.

And you're willing to provide some kind of citation about these customary rights being theoretical rather than actual at the time, I assume?

"Theoretical" in the sense that even if a raped woman decided to divorce from her rapist, she could only look forward to a life of poverty and squalor as women like that were not considered marriagable. The same reason why anti-rape laws in Saudi Arabia are "theoretical" since they require the woman to produce a number of male witness or face execution for adultery and so most women don't bother.
If you think Israel was somehow different in this attitude than any other patriarchal society, then you feel free to show me the citations.

Okay. We can start with the only recorded prohibitions regarding 'unmarriageable' divorcees being a later addition (Greengus, 35) without parallel in the neighbouring laws at the time, and then move on to their creation of documents regarding divorce which were also nearly unparalleled (Greengus, 40) and which strongly suggest that divorce was not a theoretical matter alone but rather a sufficiently common matter as to require the invention of proof because of laws on adultery, etc, which differ markedly for married versus unmarried women. No one is going to point to the laws as egalitarian or particularly fair - but to pretend the customary rights of divorce were totally theoretical is a falsitude.

It has been, since the rise of Rabbinical Judaism - which you will note rather post-dates the claimed time-frame Jesus and the Pharisees. Even at that time, however, there was a strong tradition of debate and of arguing over the meaning of the commands of the holy word, and said clashes are one of the examples.

How's this supposed to disprove my point? That they're so busy dissecting words to keep scripture being "relevant" with modern times shows what utmost importance they put on the latter of the law.

Do you not understand how law and exegesis works?

(Greengus here is Samuel Greengus's fine work, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections)

How much is fifty pieces of silver in USD?

A .999 silver US Morgan Dollar minted today is worth about $25 or so in the metal. So 50 pieces of silver would be worth about $1,250. That's the value of a woman right there, ladies and gentlemen. :-/

As I said, that's only the case if we assume silver held the same comparative value at that time. This is not an accurate or helpful view.

I think the point is if those writings truly 'were' divinely inspired they wouldn't 'need' interpreting.

IIRC, most denominators still believe that the writings were written by people. And people are fallible. There's no contradiction, there. Many theologists may well believe that the message behind the writings is divinely inspired, and it is by the sort of linguistic and historical research that underlies exegesis that they hope to better understand this message by understanding the context in which they were written.

A really solid example of this is in Rabbi Jacob Milgrom's work on Leviticus, where his thorough approach combining linguistics, historical research, and comparative religious study has shed a tremendous amount of light on some genuinely odd and baffling laws that suggests a much more conscientious priesthood than previously considered. His work was literally transformative for exegesis on Leviticus and well worth reading. RaJaM was a rabbi of the finest intellectual tradition, and an ideal example of the sort of theologian we're considering here.

[Channel72]

A lot of theology is basically just exegesis, which is essentially interpretive nonsense - especially such bullshit as Jewish "Midrash", which is basically the Rabbinical equivalent of Lord of the Rings fans arguing about what Tolkien really meant in this or that passage, even if Rabbis like to pretend that what they're doing is somehow more disciplined.

So ... you agree with what I said? I don't see how this doesn't fall under my description.

Your description of theology seemed to imply it was almost entirely an exercise in linguistics and philology. At least, that's how I understood your post. But theology includes way more than that, such as hermeneutics and exegesis. And hermeneutics and exegesis are often totally absurd, because they often involve interpreting the text using a religious framework or set of a priori beliefs which are either (A) totally foreign to the minds of the original authors, or (B) based mostly on bullshit anyway.

For an example of (A), consider all the Catholic or Protestant theologians who pour over the Torah or Tanakh and "find" references to Christian concepts everywhere. The snake in Genesis is Satan now, and every mention of David's future greatness is now implicitly also a reference to Jesus, and the visions of Ezekiel are now references to the Christian idea of a Resurrection, etc. etc. All of this is essentially stupid, because it discerns meaning from the text which would have been totally foreign to the original authors. Of course, the Christian theologians who do this are usually very aware that the original authors wouldn't have understood these concepts, but a theologian would claim that the original authors were guided by a prophetic spirit or "Providence" to write the text in such a way that it would contain references that future readers would understand to refer to Christian concepts.

And for an example of (B), even the original authors were often basing their work on pre-compiled chunks of oral or written tradition, which they often took out of context or changed to fit their own theological or nationalistic needs. So now we have the absurd situation where serious "scholars" and theologians are deeply studying the meaning of Genesis 1, trying to find some kind of insight into the ultimate origins of the Universe and the meaning behind God's plans for Creation, Salvation and Redemption. When in reality, Genesis 1 is just a reformulated version of the Marduk vs. Tiamat creation myth (which itself was just a nationalistic story to glorify Babylon) clumsily reworked to fit into a monotheistic framework. There's just no deeper meaning, and thousands of Rabbis and Christian theologians are simply wasting their time applying hermeneutics and exegesis to these texts - they are not actually producing any new knowledge that is worth anything. Really, the only value we can get from studying these texts is to get insight into the historical origins of Judaism - which is certainly something worth doing, but that's NOT really theology - it's just scholarship.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your description of theology seemed to imply it was almost entirely an exercise in linguistics and philology. At least, that's how I understood your post. But theology includes way more than that, such as hermeneutics and exegesis.

Again, I fail to see how hermeneutics and exegesis fail to fall under the umbrella of my description. Both are devoted to the critical understanding of a text, which is exactly what my post was talking about.

When in reality, Genesis 1 is just a reformulated version of the Marduk vs. Tiamat creation myth (which itself was just a nationalistic story to glorify Babylon) clumsily reworked to fit into a monotheistic framework. There's just no deeper meaning, and thousands of Rabbis and Christian theologians are simply wasting their time applying hermeneutics and exegesis to these texts - they are not actually producing any new knowledge that is worth anything. Really, the only value we can get from studying these texts is to get insight into the historical origins of Judaism - which is certainly something worth doing, but that's NOT really theology - it's just scholarship.

I snipped out the rest of your post and am just responding to this bit, because honestly I don't think you actually have any idea what you are talking about.

Theology IS a form of scholarship, both historical and linguistic in nature. The fact that you think that it fails to produce any new knowledge (while, ironically, citing a discovery that was only made possible by close theological study of religious texts) shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. In fact, that you think that hermeneutics and exegesis is purely the search for some nebulous deeper meaning indicates that you don't even know what those words mean. I suggest you actually do some research into the subject before you start spouting more nonsense. All of your arguments seem to be rooted in a deep ignorance of what modern theology actually entails.

As I mentioned in a previous post, all of your arguments against theology only hold if you also dismiss the entire school of close reading and literary criticism of which theology is simply a special case.