Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?
*sigh*
And I thought this conversation was going somewhere.
May I be so bold as to offer an explanation? You may correct me if any of my assumptions about your own opinions are incorrect.
You understand crimes of man against man, and can understand why some feel capital punishment is necessary for certain crimes.
You do not understand crimes of man against God, since you do not believe in one, and therefore any punishment for those crimes are excessive, disproportional, inhumane, barbaric and so on.
Others like myself however understand crimes against God, and therefore see nothing wrong with these punishments or deterrents. This conversation would be "going somewhere" if you and I were on the same page about views of existence.
Let me provide you a parable:
A great architect acquired his own continent and designed a magnificent country. For six years he labored building a magnificent city in the heart of it. Once complete, the entire seventh year he threw a party to celebrate it. From then on, the architect now king of his own country would celebrate every seventh year.
Later on, a group of people living in a different country were persecuted, tortured, and killed in horrific ways. The aforementioned king stepped in and rescued them. He offered them the option of moving to the great city he built. But in order to live there they would have to agree to his laws. His laws might seem strange, but it was the condition given.
Among laws between man and his fellow man, the king included a list of crimes against the crown. One of the crimes against the crown was marring the celebrations that took place every seven years in honor of the city's completion. The punishment for this crime if warned immediately before violation was death. As this crime was nothing other than ingratitude for all the king did, and insubordination to the crown.
Now an outsider who was not rescued by the king, who did not accept any laws of the king is unable to appreciate those laws. He doesn't understand why would anyone choose to live in the king's city, the death penalty for some crimes is excessive! He didn't believe that anyone was rescued by the king or really lived in a city he built. Not that anyone could blame him, he did not see any of it with his own eyes. Those however who have chosen to follow the king's law's and appreciate all the king has done for them are enthusiastic about enforcing them.
One philosopher who does not understand the basis is now trying to determine whether those people would enforce punishment for those crimes against the crown if they were not part of the city's laws. Another philosopher who understands the people who have chosen to follow those laws, answers that those who do follow those laws enforce any crime within the law, and any crime not mentioned in the law is simply not a crime, regardless how one many feel about the seriousness of any of the crimes involved.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You do not understand crimes of man against God, since you do not believe in one
Nowhere have I said I'm an atheist. It's just that since you quite clearly seem to believe the entirety of the Bible to be the moral standard by which humanity should live, you should know the (quite justifiable) objections to that notion, as some of the laws given there are in drastic contradiction with the most basic notions of human rights and proportionate punishment for crimes. In order for you to claim that the punishment is morally right, you have to change your own views of what is right and wrong, what is proportionate and disproportionate punishment. (You said that you honestly think deep inside that capital punishment for breaking the sabbath is ok, but I hope you don't get offended if I don't believe you. I think that deep inside you do not think like that, but you are deliberately and actively shutting up that doubt.)
Arguing that "the punishment is ok because God says so" does not make the punishment any less inhumane, disproportionate and barbaric.
This conversation would be "going somewhere" if you and I were on the same page about views of existence.
In an honest conversation both parties try to understand what the other is saying and tries their hardest to not to misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or make a mockery of the other person's position. Your "I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?" was a clear indication to me that you are not willing to have this kind of rational, understanding discussion, but instead want to resort to argumentative fallacies and distortions. That's why I wrote that.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nowhere have I said I'm an atheist.
I apologize for misunderstanding where you're coming from then. It seemed that previously you suggested that you were against the notion that the world was created by a higher power.
Warp wrote:
It's just that since you quite clearly seem to believe the entirety of the Bible to be the moral standard by which humanity should live
I did not say that, nor is it what I believe.
You asked me hypothetically if I had a friend who believed the law applies to them, do I think it should be applied:
Warp wrote:
If a close friend or family member of yours clearly and unambiguously breaks the Sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? Would you say it's morally acceptable?
(Some Christians resort to the cop-out that the law in question was only given to the Hebrews and it does not apply to gentiles. That doesn't really change anything. Just assume that your friend is Jewish. Would you advocate capital punishment?)
Warp wrote:
You said that you honestly think deep inside that capital punishment for breaking the sabbath is ok, but I hope you don't get offended if I don't believe you. I think that deep inside you do not think like that, but you are deliberately and actively shutting up that doubt.
For the case provided where someone wants to believe that capital punishment applies to them, deep down, I do believe it without any doubt.
For someone who does not think the law applies to them, I think it would be extremely wrong to kill them for violating the Sabbath.
Warp wrote:
This conversation would be "going somewhere" if you and I were on the same page about views of existence.
In an honest conversation both parties try to understand what the other is saying and tries their hardest to not to misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or make a mockery of the other person's position. Your "I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?" was a clear indication to me that you are not willing to have this kind of rational, understanding discussion, but instead want to resort to argumentative fallacies and distortions. That's why I wrote that.
Under the conditions provided, only laws of the Bible have any meaning. Therefore any crime not within is not a crime. If you wanted to argue about the US legal code on the other hand, I'd be happy to discuss that too.
I can't give an opinion though as to how laws of the Bible should be upheld outside of a Bible centric framework which your question suggested, the idea is illogical to me.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You asked me hypothetically if I had a friend who believed the law applies to them, do I think it should be applied:
That's not what I asked. I asked that if a friend or family member of yours (or anybody, really) clearly and unambiguously breaks the sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? What that person thinks or believes is inconsequential. (Obviously nobody in their right mind would advocate capital punishment for themselves, unless they are suicidal or highly delusional.)
I can't give an opinion though as to how laws of the Bible should be upheld outside of a Bible centric framework which your question suggested, the idea is illogical to me.
Now I'm extremely confused. You accentuated that you never said that the Bible should be held as the moral standard by which we should live, and then you are saying something like the laws and standards given in the Bible should apply only for people who believe in them and live according to them, but not to anybody else, and you would not advocate the punishments given in the Bible for people who do not believe in them. So is the Bible the ultimate moral standard or not? Are some of the punishments disproportionate or not?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
You asked me hypothetically if I had a friend who believed the law applies to them, do I think it should be applied:
That's not what I asked. I asked that if a friend or family member of yours (or anybody, really) clearly and unambiguously breaks the sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? What that person thinks or believes is inconsequential. (Obviously nobody in their right mind would advocate capital punishment for themselves, unless they are suicidal or highly delusional.)
I disagree with your statement that "What that person thinks or believes is inconsequential".
I would not advocate stoning someone who does not believe themselves to be held to the laws of the Bible.
Warp wrote:
I can't give an opinion though as to how laws of the Bible should be upheld outside of a Bible centric framework which your question suggested, the idea is illogical to me.
Now I'm extremely confused. You accentuated that you never said that the Bible should be held as the moral standard by which we should live, and then you are saying something like the laws and standards given in the Bible should apply only for people who believe in them and live according to them, but not to anybody else, and you would not advocate the punishments given in the Bible for people who do not believe in them. So is the Bible the ultimate moral standard or not? Are some of the punishments disproportionate or not?
Does the Bible even contain a moral standard for all people? Or does it contain a moral standard for people who live their live according to the framework therein?
Is anything about the Sabbath moral? The Bible itself says in Deut chapter 5: "And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."
Why should it apply to those who were not in Egypt?
There are punishments given to those who don't properly uphold the laws of Passover. Is Passover for everyone or just the Israelites from Egypt?
In terms of how to deal with man to man on an interpersonal level, I find the Bible to set a standard to an extent. But many laws in the Bible are of a nature specific to a specific group of people, I see no reason why they should apply to everyone. Nor should it be a standard for others to stick to in those areas.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
I like how you guys turned the discussion into a faith battle.
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
The Bible actually has a reference to just that, Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." This is followed by the great flood which destroys all the old life.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
The Bible actually has a reference to just that, Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." This is followed by the great flood which destroys all the old life.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
IMO God killed the dinosaurs because they started to show homosexual tendencies.
The Bible actually has a reference to just that, Genesis 6:12 "And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth." This is followed by the great flood which destroys all the old life.
Now I'm starting to suspect you are a poe.
What is a "poe"?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Someone who pretends to represent an extreme position, thus triggering Poe's Law.
Guys, keep ad hominems out of these boards.
As attracting it might be to cop out by calling the opponent a troll, please assume good faith (in this context I mean the communication principle, not religious faith) and keep discussing in a civilized way. (And yes I know it's not always easy.)
Nach wrote:
For someone who does not think the law applies to them, I think it would be extremely wrong to kill them for violating [the law].
What a wonderful ideal for psychopaths and anarchists.
The word I substituted with "the law" was "the Sabbath".
Now, the Biblical principle for pathological violation of the law involved two punishments. Death, or eviction from the nation (num. 15:30–31). If you are part of the commonwealth of Israel, you are subject to YHWH's laws, whether you want or approve of it or not. If you don't abide by those laws, you are not going to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel, in a way or another, and you are not going to enjoy the protection of Him, who keeps Israel (psalm 121:4, luke 13:27).
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
For someone who does not think the law applies to them, I think it would be extremely wrong to kill them for violating [the law].
What a wonderful ideal for psychopaths and anarchists.
The word I substituted with "the law" was "the Sabbath".
Now, the Biblical principle for pathological violation of the law involved two punishments. Death, or eviction from the nation (num. 15:30–31). If you are part of the commonwealth of Israel, you are subject to YHWH's laws, whether you want or approve of it or not. If you don't abide by those laws, you are not going to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel, in a way or another, and you are not going to enjoy the protection of Him, who keeps Israel (psalm 121:4, luke 13:27).
You are correct, I misspoke. In this case I did mean the interpretation of the laws of Sabbath.
My larger intention was that joining a religion is optional. Joining the law of a country is also optional. If you don't like your country's laws, you're free to move elsewhere (usually).
I'm also against forced conversion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
What neither of you have really answered is the question of why anyone should accept the idea that such a disproportionate punishment for such a seemingly minor infraction would be the moral standard and ideal that we should all uphold.
To put things in perspective, let's compare two laws:
1) You can own people as your property(*) and you can beat them. If you beat such a person and he/she dies in a couple of days from his wounds, you get no punishment.
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
The sense of proportional punishment is completely backwards. Why exactly should anybody accept this kind of moral laws?
(*) Yes, I know all the arguments about why slavery in the Old Testament was "not that bad". I have used all the arguments myself. The argument goes something like:
"The so-called 'slavery' in the Old Testament has nothing to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the United States before the abolition, or the slavery in the neighboring countries of the time. Slaves in Israel were more like servants. They were treated well, they lived in the same house as their masters, they could buy their freedom, and each seventh year all slaves were freed by law, if they wanted to leave."
This argument, however, ignores many of the other details of slavery in the OT. For instance, most slaves were captured from neighboring countries with which Israel was at war, against their will. (Again, apologists will argue that it was for their own good because their husbands and fathers had been killed. Yet, they again ignore that they were captured by force, not offered the "job" as a gesture of charity. They were always spoils of war.) Slaves are explicitly called "property" in the Bible, and they were not free to go whenever they liked (which is what literally makes them slaves). Clearly slaves could be roughened up and mistreated with impunity, as the law does not explicitly forbid this, and on the contrary explicitly mentions the thing about a slave dying of their wounds after having been beaten. (In other words, the beating itself was not punishable, only if the slave died immediately after.)
The most basic moral objection to all this is the very idea of being able to own other people as property. It doesn't matter how well protected and well treated this "property" (explicitly named as such in the Bible) might be, the fact that it's property, often captured against their own will and unable to leave whenever they like, and forced to work, is the objection. (This is completely different from servants and paid workers. They take the job on their own free will, they are not property, they can leave whenever they want, and if they are beaten by their employers, punishments are harsh and strict.)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
What neither of you have really answered is the question of why anyone should accept the idea that such a disproportionate punishment for such a seemingly minor infraction would be the moral standard and ideal that we should all uphold.
I'd like to register yet again that this is not a moral standard or an ideal for all.
Warp wrote:
1) You can own people as your property(*) and you can beat them. If you beat such a person and he/she dies in a couple of days from his wounds, you get no punishment.
Let's see what the text actually says:
Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man hits his slave, or his maidservant, with the rod, and he dies, under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding if he stands a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."
So let's be clear, if he hits him and he dies immediately, the master is killed. We can also infer that if he uses something other than the rod - the object used for discipline, we'll also kill him. If he hits him multiple times, we'll kill him.
The only time we don't kill him is if he hit him with the rod once, and the slave continued walking around and then died a few days later, and then we suspect he died from that hit a few days earlier.
The text tells us since he is his property he has a right to discipline, but he has no right to overdo it.
Warp wrote:
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
You intentionally break the Sabbath after being told not to, and are insubordinate to your king and ungrateful to your savior.
If a king did a favor for someone and then that person goes and spits in the king's face, do you expect anything other than the king having him killed on the spot?
Warp wrote:
The sense of proportional punishment is completely backwards. Why exactly should anybody accept this kind of moral laws?
I answered this already.
Nach wrote:
Now an outsider who was not rescued by the king, who did not accept any laws of the king is unable to appreciate those laws. He doesn't understand why would anyone choose to live in the king's city, the death penalty for some crimes is excessive! He didn't believe that anyone was rescued by the king or really lived in a city he built. Not that anyone could blame him, he did not see any of it with his own eyes. Those however who have chosen to follow the king's law's and appreciate all the king has done for them are enthusiastic about enforcing them.
Warp wrote:
(*) Yes, I know all the arguments about why slavery in the Old Testament was "not that bad". I have used all the arguments myself. The argument goes something like:
"The so-called 'slavery' in the Old Testament has nothing to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the United States before the abolition, or the slavery in the neighboring countries of the time. Slaves in Israel were more like servants. They were treated well, they lived in the same house as their masters, they could buy their freedom, and each seventh year all slaves were freed by law, if they wanted to leave."
This argument, however, ignores many of the other details of slavery in the OT. For instance, most slaves were captured from neighboring countries with which Israel was at war, against their will.
...
You seem to be confusing many different accounts in the OT. There are four different kinds of servants/slaves enumerated in the Bible. The Bible prescribes different rules for governing each.
1) The man who needs rehabilitation.
2) The female charge/ward.
3) The actual slave.
4) The seducer of war.
Only the first two kinds were treated well, neither of them are considered property, they can buy their freedom and so on. Not so with the latter two.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The only time we don't kill him is if he hit him with the rod once, and the slave continued walking around and then died a few days later, and then we suspect he died from that hit a few days earlier.
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage. And inferring that it has to be a rod or else he is punished is stretching it quite a lot, given that nowhere it says that. But anyways, that's not really the main point. It's this:
The text tells us since he is his property he has a right to discipline, but he has no right to overdo it.
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
Warp wrote:
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
You intentionally break the Sabbath after being told not to, and are insubordinate to your king and ungrateful to your savior.
By that logic all transgressions should carry the death penalty. They don't.
For example, eating pork is forbidden. The punishment? Nothing, except that you are unclean until the evening (and you have to wash yourself etc). That sounds more like a proportionate punishment (if we assume that eating pork would somehow be a theologically rational transgression), but it contrasts greatly with other transgressions where the punishment is way out of proportion.
Warp,
as much as I think you're right, I feel you are wasting your time. With indoctrination, people will believe any illogical and immoral law makes sense and is just. Even that adulterers and homosexuals should be killed, that slavery is okay, or whatever. Reason and logic does not matter.
I usually think about it like this...
In the past, people invented gods to explain everything. There were thunder gods, sun gods, fertility gods, etc, because we didn't understand how those things worked. But we figured out how lightning, suns and fertility worked, and noone believes in Thor, Ra or Coatlicue any more. They buy lightning rods and visit fertilization clinics instead. The only god left is the beginning of the world-god. (I hear he also creates rainbows.)
Don't worry, believers. We'll figure out the beginning of the world too. It might take some time, but we'll figure it out.
And then there will be nowhere left to hide for gods.
But we figured out how lightning, suns and fertility worked, and noone believes in Thor, Ra or Coatlicue any more. They buy lightning rods and visit fertilization clinics instead. The only god left is the beginning of the world-god. (I hear he also creates rainbows.)
That reminds me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVusPTM0P9o
People used to believe god lived in heaven (sky), it was disproven when people invented airplanes and found no gods there. So nowadays they say "heaven" is in another spiritual dimension. When we have gone into other dimensions, god will have no place to hide, so he can only escape to the center where it came from, the humans who invented him realize they are the only "god" here.
Truncated wrote:
But we figured out how lightning, suns and fertility worked, and noone believes in Thor, Ra or Coatlicue any more. They buy lightning rods and visit fertilization clinics instead. The only god left is the beginning of the world-god. (I hear he also creates rainbows.)
Alternative answer: God can still hide in quantum gaps. We think we have figured out how lightning and everything works, but we actually don't know how anything works, because we don't know why natural laws are the way they are. We can never figure out how anything works, because there's is always another question and another cause for everything we discover, so God can always be the cause.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage.
In the original verse, the word is singular.
Warp wrote:
And inferring that it has to be a rod or else he is punished is stretching it quite a lot, given that nowhere it says that.
The verse says rod. The various commentaries require it to be a rod.
Warp wrote:
The text tells us since he is his property he has a right to discipline, but he has no right to overdo it.
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
People do it with their children throughout the world. There are of course movements to stop physical reprimands as well as child labor laws. The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
Warp wrote:
Warp wrote:
2) You break the Sabbath, you get the death penalty by stoning.
You intentionally break the Sabbath after being told not to, and are insubordinate to your king and ungrateful to your savior.
By that logic all transgressions should carry the death penalty. They don't.
All transgressions in regards to the Sabbath do indeed carry the death penalty, as do all the transgressions against God where there is no personal benefits involved.
Cursing God carries a death penalty, as does worshiping false deities, sorcery, and so on.
Warp wrote:
For example, eating pork is forbidden. The punishment? Nothing, except that you are unclean until the evening (and you have to wash yourself etc).
I'm not sure of your source for the impurity bit. And as the first few chapters of Leviticus elaborates on, you would need to bring a sacrifice.
But in any event, I don't see how it's an affront to the king, and eating is directly personal benefit.
Wearing mixed garments is forbidden, it does not seem like an affront to the king, and surely there is personal benefit. So no death penalty.
Eating leaven on Passover for example is an affront to the king's help, but that is something which is directly tied to personal benefit. But on the other hand, it does carry a punishment of being cut off, probably because it's an affront to the king.
You need to categorize the various transgressions on why they're wrong, and what the punishments are, a pattern becomes apparent.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
People do it with their children throughout the world. There are of course movements to stop physical reprimands as well as child labor laws. The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
There are so many things wrong with that statement that I'm beginning to hope you don't reproduce.
Slaves are owned for the benefit of the owner. Slaves are punished to work harder for the benefit of the owner. The slave does not benefit from being owned; if he received fair payment for his labour he'd be able to make a better life on his own.
Children are placed under the care and protection of their parents for the benefit of the child, because they can't survive alone. They're not dominated, they're taught. If they're punished, then it's meant for the benefit of the child, to learn from it.
Most important of all, children are released from the authority of their parents once the education for the benefit of the child is completed. They're released to have a life on their own. Slaves aren't.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
And you honestly have no problems with any of that? People owning other people as property, and having the right to beat them with a rod?
People do it with their children throughout the world. There are of course movements to stop physical reprimands as well as child labor laws. The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
There are so many things wrong with that statement that I'm beginning to hope you don't reproduce.
Or conversely I can say I hope you don't acquire slaves, since from your description, it sounds like you'll mistreat the human beings that they are.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Or conversely I can say I hope you don't acquire slaves, since from your description, it sounds like you'll mistreat the human beings that they are.
Most of us don't need a book to tell us not to "own" people, much less how to treat them.
Tell it to EA and other corporations.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage.
In the original verse, the word is singular.
Whenever someone tries the old "well actually, in the original hebrew" trick, you can always check a page such as http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ and compare different translations. In the 30 or so listed there, not one says "once" or anything of the sort.
It is of course possible that you (Nach) knows how to translate the bible better than the several hundreds of scholars involved in all those translations. I somewhat doubt it. I also checked wikipedia's page on old Hebrew grammar, and didn't see anything to support that verbs were inflected for the number of times an action was performed.
Nach wrote:
The two really aren't all that different, except with a slave it goes on throughout their lives.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Truncated wrote:
Nach wrote:
Warp wrote:
Where did you get the "once" from? Not from the quoted passage.
In the original verse, the word is singular.
Whenever someone tries the old "well actually, in the original hebrew" trick, you can always check a page such as http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ and compare different translations. In the 30 or so listed there, not one says "once" or anything of the sort.
Which of your translations shows it to be plural?
The word is an active verb. When so and so will strike so and so.
Truncated wrote:
It is of course possible that you (Nach) knows how to translate the bible better than the several hundreds of scholars involved in all those translations. I somewhat doubt it. I also checked wikipedia's page on old Hebrew grammar, and didn't see anything to support that verbs were inflected for the number of times an action was performed.
Normally true, but tenses and other minor changes are made to indicate amounts.
See the same chapter verse 28 and 31. A singular verb is used to indicate the goring of a man or child. But in verse 29, where it discusses an ox which gored yesterday and the day before (multiple times), the verb changes slightly.
I recommend buying this book on the topic of verbs and amounts.
As the verse only indicates indemnification for a single strike with a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children, there is no reason to suggest indemnification against a more serious attack.
One also has to bear in mind that this book "Exodus" was given to a people who were all slaves. A people who understand how a slave feels and would not want to be mistreated. The way they would treat "slaves" is drastically different how anyone else would treat slaves.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
As the verse only indicates indemnification for a single strike with a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children, there is no reason to suggest indemnification against a more serious attack.
The most common apologetic tactic: Read between the lines and add things that aren't there. Try to soften things up bit by bit, until it appears more innocuous and conforms more to the modern notions of secular morals and human rights, and is more palatable. Now the rod is "a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children". Right. It says it right there, between the lines. (And since the verse doesn't explicitly mention hitting many times, that must mean hitting only one time and, by implication, that hitting many times is punishable. Never mind that no passage says the latter. But it can be read between the lines, of course.)
Anyways, discussing the type of rod and how many times the slave was hit is egregiously missing the point. Probably on purpose, to draw attention away from the actual issue: That owning other people as property and beating them is allowed (completely regardless of how many times and with what).
One also has to bear in mind that this book "Exodus" was given to a people who were all slaves. A people who understand how a slave feels and would not want to be mistreated. The way they would treat "slaves" is drastically different how anyone else would treat slaves.
And the fix to this problem was for God to command the Hebrews to take slaves as spoils of war against their will from neighboring nations? (I already covered that apologetic tactic you are using here, and why it just doesn't work.)
If the Hebrew people were once slaves and suffered greatly as such, and God wants to correct this injustice, more the reason for God to abolish slavery completely and declare it a horrendous and despicable atrocity that must not exist.
