Comments on: Softening the Scriptural Blow (Num 5)

By: Daisy

Daisy — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:26:45 +0000

Michael — yes, that makes sense. You’re right about the potential for interpretation making hateful passages even worse, but I don’t think it’s possible to read, to study, without interpreting. I have a lot of thoughts, so I think I’ll spare your comment thread and write a proper post at my place.

: )

By: michael

michael — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:40:03 +0000

Keddaw — I think adultery is a much bigger problem in society than it needs to be (ie. causes more damage than needed) because we’ve backed ourselves into an unrealistic corner with a monogamy ideal whose strictness is ludicrous. It’s still an overhang from earlier concepts of relationships as more relating to ownership, legitimacy of children etc. When you talk of marriage as being a legal contract, I think that’s part of the problem we’ve inherited, the attempt to make emotions legally binding.

Of course the death penalty is something I won’t even consider as worthy of making an argument against — and neither will a lot of others including religious people! Which shows that they also use tactics similar to the rabbis in softening the blow.

By: michael

michael — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:33:14 +0000

Daisy — I haven’t but from what I’ve heard of Karen Armstrong (I think she did a TED talk) she seems a bit too conciliatory for me. For example, this very passage in Numbers makes a very strong case against interpretation: it is only by interpreting it that people have turned it from its repressive original meaning into a meaning that makes it appear it’s looking out for women, but that meaning is false.

I imagine you don’t interpret the passage that way yourself, but I think that’s the problem. The Bible has good parts and bad parts — but because it has bad parts it makes it a lot easier for people with a mindset different to yours to use their interpretation to make them even worse.

Does that make sense?

By: michael

michael — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:30:04 +0000

Alan — on the contrary I think most legal procedures from the Torah are theocratic and come from a time where religion was very much a legal and formal social control. The sotah procedure is therefore an exception to the usual standards of trial and execution for religious offences that the same book of Numbers describes. It’s just that now Judaism has had its bite taken out of it so everything has become extra-judicial.

By: keddaw

keddaw — Wed, 20 May 2009 09:18:16 +0000

What is your take on adultery?

I have no problem committing it! I have major problems with a partner committing it. Irrational and unjust

I also think that the 3rd party should be innocent of all charges. I think ALL religions get that part wrong.

Marriage is simply a legal and social agreement between two consenting adults (in Western society anyway – outside of royalty) so if there is any breach of that agreement it is a civil matter and can be resolved as a simple breach of contract.

As for it being worthy of the death penalty… that coming from a book that actively promotes slavery? I think not.

By: Daisy

Daisy — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:37:37 +0000

Whoops! HTML fail!

By: Daisy

Daisy — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:37:11 +0000

Have you read The Bible by Karen Armstrong? I just started it, and so far it’s great — she really illuminates how and why we ended up with the holy texts we did. It further solidifies my (already very solid) position against literalism. I think you’d enjoy it.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:00:08 +0000

Not to be too pendantic, but “and thus serve as a means of extra-judicial social control” could apply to religion as a whole. It’s really no surprise to find small and clear details of it in situations like these…

By: The Sotah Passage (Num 5) -- a Nadder!

The Sotah Passage (Num 5) -- a Nadder! — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:13:10 +0000

[...] Softening the Scriptural Blow (Num 5) → [...]