Stoning does not mean stoning (Translation fallacy?)

[Darth Wong]

If it's a fallacy at all, it'd be begging the question.

Or slothful induction, if you consider the fact that she's undoubtedly doing this to every other example of God-sanctioned violence in the Old Testament as well.

[Mark S]

"Uh...it says stone him with stones. I don't think you can get mixed up with the word stone. I'm sure the ancient Hebrews had a word for stone. And Stoning him with stones as redundant as that sounds --"

Stravo, this line in particular made me laugh. And since I had my baby boy on my lap at the time, he laughed too. You made a baby laugh. Good on you. I think an Angel got it's wing or something.

As for the situation, I've heard the Reed Sea thing, and that 'Thou shalt not kill' is really supposed to be 'Thou shalt not murder', but never that one. I guess it gets sticky basing your life values around a book written in the women and children are chattle, kill anyone who gets in your way, era. Does anyone know if children were actually not considered people in that culture? As in, it would be ok to stone them until they were thirteen because they didn't count yet?

Edit: The boy laughed hard enough to crap himself! Gotta go!

[Spoonist]

"Uh...it says stone him with stones. I don't think you can get mixed up with the word stone. I'm sure the ancient Hebrews had a word for stone. And Stoning him with stones as redundant as that sounds --"

Stravo, this line in particular made me laugh. And since I had my baby boy on my lap at the time, he laughed too. You made a baby laugh. Good on you. I think an Angel got it's wing or something.

Edit: The boy laughed hard enough to crap himself! Gotta go!

So if an angel got its wings from the laugh then what happens when he... hmm maybe I don't wana go there.

[Elric]

[quote=Mark S]Does anyone know if children were actually not considered people in that culture? As in, it would be ok to stone them until they were thirteen because they didn't count yet?[/quote]

I'm gonna have to go with "no." Y'see, children were vital in maintaining the family and the group, since if you don't have kids (and your kids don't reach adulthood) your people have a tendency to die out (especially when so many people died due to various diseases and the like). Killing your children would be stupid, and would generally be seen as such.

[Flagg]

Does anyone know if children were actually not considered people in that culture? As in, it would be ok to stone them until they were thirteen because they didn't count yet?

I'm gonna have to go with "no." Y'see, children were vital in maintaining the family and the group, since if you don't have kids (and your kids don't reach adulthood) your people have a tendency to die out (especially when so many people died due to various diseases and the like). Killing your children would be stupid, and would generally be seen as such.

No, male children under a certain age were considered property, while female children were property until married (sold) off.

[Big Orange]

Children were not seen as real people because they were merely more meat for the meat grinder. Life was generally cheap, brutal and short, so not much net value was put on kids if half of them didn't live to see their fifteenth birthday anyway.

[Stark]

What? Male heirs were in many cultures the most valuable thing in a freeman's life. Children might be mistreated or raised according to barbaric standards, but casually killing children is a heinous crime in all the European cultures I can think of. It is precisely because of the poor yield on children (failed pregnancy, death in childbirth, incurable disease, childhood accidents, etc) that more well-off families would attempt to have as many children as possible until they had a male heir old enough to be considered 'safe'.

[Big Orange]

They must've saw mature children or teens that made it past the dangers of early childhood as valuable, but the babies and toddlers were sheer canon fodder. Breed about twenty babies and hope seven of them get past the age of 12.

[Stark]

Except every pregnancy might kill your wife, and you'd have to buy another one. Can you cite a source for this 'who cares about infants' thing?

[Big Orange]

They must care about infants to certain extent, but the parents must've realised many of their newborn children would not make it and so they emotionally hardened themselves to the inevitable loss of their infant children. And childbirth is very, very dangerous for the mothers which is why the women were much more heavily sheltered by the men.

[Flagg]

What? Male heirs were in many cultures the most valuable thing in a freeman's life. Children might be mistreated or raised according to barbaric standards, but casually killing children is a heinous crime in all the European cultures I can think of. It is precisely because of the poor yield on children (failed pregnancy, death in childbirth, incurable disease, childhood accidents, etc) that more well-off families would attempt to have as many children as possible until they had a male heir old enough to be considered 'safe'.

Of course, male children were valued much more than female children for all the reasons you stated. But they would still be considered property.

[Stark]

Oh that's for sure, but again that simply allows all the property law to prevent the loss of the child 'investment'. Even the Roman Twelve Tables (pretty nasty stuff) has all kinds of permutations on 'someone killed the kids' with brutal penalties.

[Jaded Masses]

My favorite part of this story is that if we change biblical stoning into chastisement renders one of Jesus's finest moments meaningless. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" changes to "let he who is without sin be the first to verbally chastise this woman or inflict light corporal punishment such as a spanking".

I think this is a marked improvement; 'any one who hasn't sinned, come up and do so now.'

[Spetulhu]

Even the Roman Twelve Tables (pretty nasty stuff) has all kinds of permutations on 'someone killed the kids' with brutal penalties.

Killing other people's children is a crime against them, but killing your own disobedient child seems to have been a lawful thing in many societies. Better wipe out the shame of a disappointing heir by killing him than allow him to stain the family name. Some tribal banjo players practice "honor killings" to this day, executing daughters that shame the family. Can't have them adopting foreign ways or refusing to marry whatever tribal arsehole daddy has found for them.

"Honor killing", indeed. I'd consider any family honor forfeit for killing your own children.

[Hillary]

Some tribal banjo players practice "honor killings" to this day, executing daughters that shame the family. Can't have them adopting foreign ways or refusing to marry whatever tribal arsehole daddy has found for them.

Certainly happens over here - a couple of people were just put away for doing exactly that. Asian girl had the nerve to want to marry a white man rather than a Pakistani she had never met and was murdered by her family.

It's a problem faced by many second generation children.

[Magnetic]

Some tribal banjo players practice "honor killings" to this day, executing daughters that shame the family. Can't have them adopting foreign ways or refusing to marry whatever tribal arsehole daddy has found for them.

Certainly happens over here - a couple of people were just put away for doing exactly that. Asian girl had the nerve to want to marry a white man rather than a Pakistani she had never met and was murdered by her family.

It's a problem faced by many second generation children.

That is utterly disgusting!