Leviticus 20:14 is not the Word of God

[headheart]

Total: 3 <= Is that all you've got?

[headheart]

The issue is not who does the burning, it is the fact that the burning was done.

If someone introduced a bill to bring back burning witches at the stake, I'd oppose it. If they said to me "You won't personally be required to burn any witches", I'd oppose it all the same.

Zack,

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Peace,
Eric

[ZackMartin]

Is it not also at least possible that the whole of the Bible is inspired?

In the same way that it's also at least possible that the whole of the Quran is inspired.

It's also important to think about what the possible meanings of the Hebrew translated 'burned in the fire' / 'burnt with fire' are. Some commentators (eg. NET online Bible, footnote 28) mention that 'branded' is a possible meaning here.

I don't think that makes it any better. How barbaric is branding human beings? It's treating humans like we treat cattle.

- maintaining a stable social structure. Life was very harsh for most of Israel most of the time, and a stable family unit was critical to the survival of individuals and society. Anyone who threatened that was endangering the lives of people - so committing adultery (say) wasn't just interfering in a relationship, it could also lead to social breakdown and ultimately the failure of the community to survive. Such behaviour actually could cost lives.

And killing them costs lives - first of all the lives of those killed, of course. But then what about the lives of their dependants? "Your dad was cheating on your mum, so we executed him" - who's going to feed you now?

My mother cheated on my father. I don't agree with what my mother did, I feel sorry for my dad about the whole thing. But should my mother have been executed? The idea is disgusting beyond words.

I think this is the real crux of your position. What is your basis for thinking that?

Ever since I was a child I've known in the depths of my heart it is wrong.

Is it wrong for God to take someone's life?

If so, why? If not, why is it wrong for God to use particular people in particular given circumstances, to take someone's life?

Is it wrong for God to take someone's hand? Why is it wrong fro God to use particular people in particular given circumstances, to take someone's hand? So I guess you'd have no problem with cutting off the hands of thieves like Islamic fundamentalists do? If the logic works for you, it works for them.

I don't think it can be a good reason for rejecting a passage of scripture, unless you can be very sure that your particular moral intuition is correct, and that you fully understand all the circumstances (including possible future outcomes) so that your moral judgment is fully informed.

It comes down to, in which can I have more confidence - the scripture or my conscience. I have no reason to choose the former over the later.

There are many other scriptures beyond the Bible - such as the Quran, the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib, etc. Given the immense variety of possible scriptures, I will use my conscience as a tool to help judge them all.

What you are doing is in effect saying that your moral judgment of the situation is as good as that of God, thus, if you find it morally wrong, God would too, and therefore He would never command that.

That argument can be used to justify a scripture commanding everything. Suppose I am a member of the cult of Jeff. Up to now, I have been a faithful follower of the prophet Jeff, believe God speaks through him, and have accepted every scripture he has promulgated. The Prophet Jeff then announces the revelation of a new scripture, which reads "Every first born child must be offered as a sacrifice to God, and burnt alive upon the altar". I say "God would never command such a thing!" Jeff responds "What you are doing is in effect saying that your moral judgment of the situation is as good as that of God, thus, if you find it morally wrong, God would too, and therefore He would never command that."

While this is not impossible, we know that (a) we are morally flawed creatures - we don't make 100% correct moral judgments, always;

Sure are moral judgements aren't always right. But what can I trust more - my own conscience, or an ancient text a group of people claim is the Word of God?

(b) we don't know every relevant fact and possible consequence - but God does. So I think that we must proceed with a lot of caution before making a definite judgment call.

Why can't the Prophet Jeff use that argument for his introduction of child sacrifice? Why can't the Islamic fundamentalist use that argument for cutting off the hands of thieves? A Christian apologist complains "God supposedly told his Prophet Muhammad that it was OK to sleep with a nine year old girl - God would never do such a thing"; an Islamic apologist might respond "we are morally flawed creatures - we don't make 100% correct moral judgments, always; we don't know every relevant fact and possible consequence - but God does. So I think that we must proceed with a lot of caution before making a definite judgment call."

(a) This approach leads to a slippery slope - you will need to buy a perforated Bible, because there are many moral commands in there that 'people today' would not agree with. Who made 'people today' the measuring standard of moral rectitude, anyway?

People today aren't right about everything, but do you think it is okay to execute adulterers? Who thinks that outside of Islamic fundamentalism. Most people today would say that was wrong - while most people today are likely wrong about many things, do we have any good reason to suppose there is something wrong about that?

(b) worse than (a) you seem to be assuming that the possible consequences of the act are the same today and back then. Yet we know that their life was very different from ours - most people lived as marginal farmers and croppers, and needed a large, stable family / community to provide the labour for their food production and to provide protection from hostile outsiders, raiders and the like.

This seems to be very consequentalist logic; which is funny given that most Christians don't like consequentialist ethics being applied in other areas (e.g. infant euthanasia).

Further, the Levitical code is part of a Covenant - a 'treaty agreement' that the Israelites voluntarily entered into with God. They agreed that these punishments would be given for these crimes as part of that agreement - in return they got a raft of promises (Lev 26:4-13) of God's ongoing care and protection.

Who agreed? So if you were born in ancient Israel, let's say in the time of King David; let's say you are an adolescent female, your father died when you were young, but your mother remarries. Your stepfather pushes you into a sexual relationship with him. You try to resist, but it ends up happening. Then it is discovered. You and him are to be burnt to death. Or branded, which is better than being burnt to death, but still very painful and disfiguring. Now, at what point did you make a covenant with God agreeing to this? Maybe your distant ancestors did, but you never did.

That seems like a most uncharitable reading of the passage. When you say "The verse never says that.." one could equally argue that 'The verse never says that Israel must execute both even if only one is aware (etc)'.

Is it an unreasonable reading of the passage? The passage is far from charitable to begin with.

I don't see how this follows. 'God would never command any very unpleasant punishment'...? Where do you get that from?

Let's say there is a bill proposed in Congress/Parliament/whatever, to introduce capital punishment by acid bath. The proponents say "These murderers, they don't deserve an easy death. Lethal injection is too painless. They deserve as painful a death as possible - let's dunk them alive in acid!" Would you support or oppose this bill? How do you think God would want people to vote on this bill - in favour or against?

[shunyadragon]

What's worse? "Picking cherries" based on your own conscience.... or ignoring your conscience in the name of "if the scripture says it, it must be right, my conscience be damned"

Since I think following our consciences is a good thing - they aren't perfect, but they are right more often than not - and some text which someone has claimed to be of divine origin has no guarantee of performing any better - I'll pick my own conscience over a claimed scripture every day.

Maybe good, maybe bad, following one's conscience is a very humanist thing, and highly veriable, with many churches and some believe and some do not based on one's conscience.

It brings to mind the old Simon and Garfunkel song, I am a Rock. I am an Island.

[headheart]

There are many other scriptures beyond the Bible - such as the Quran, the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib, etc. Given the immense variety of possible scriptures, I will use my conscience as a tool to help judge them all.

This is a good approach when using one's original conscience. If you have not already enjoyed these you might enjoy Laotse and Chuangste and poets as Rumi, as well as the Suragama Sutra. Peace, Eric.

[ZackMartin]

It says "If a man marries..." Sex isn't even mentioned in Leviticus 20:14, and obviously two women have to consent to marriage.

Married at once (polygamously) or married successively?

So suppose a man pushes his adolescent stepdaughter into a sexual relationship. He then asks her to marry him, and she says yes. So, should she be burnt to death? Or stoned and cremated? Or just branded?

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

Commentaries generally list two different understandings of this. One of them is that, in accordance with Joshua 7:25, the people are burned AFTER being executed via stoning. So they wouldn't technically be killed via burning. The other understanding is that the passage doesn't even refer to death--it could very well mean that the people are branded (which would require a fire to warm an iron or something), and thus are given a mark of shame.

Most people consider stoning a gruesome and barbaric method of execution. Branding is a form of painful disfigurement.

Suppose there was a bill in parliament/Congress/whatever to introduce stoning as a method of capital punishment for serious crimes. Would you support or oppose this bill? What do you think God would want you to do?

Suppose there was a bill in parliament/Congress/whatever to introduce branding as a method of corporal punishment for serious crimes. Would you support or oppose this bill? What do you think God would want you to do?

[ZackMartin]

Zack,

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Peace,
Eric

I'm not sure if I can give precise criteria. I'd suggest at a minimum, for something to be accepted as the Word of God:

1] It has to either agree with our existing conscience, or contain a convincing argument that our existing conscience is wrong and must change

2] It has to agree with our reason

Other people point to miracles, or predicting prophecies, or so on, as criteria. However, unless you personally witnessed them, you need historical judgements to evaluate them. And historical judgements on matters like these are areas where people reach widely different conclusions. As a historical matter, I'm not convinced that any past miracle or prophecy claimed by any scripture has been historically demonstrated. And even if a miracle was historically demonstrated, I wouldn't take it as necessary proof that a scripture came from God.

Back to my "Prophet Jeff" example. Prophet Jeff says to me, I am God's prophet, and my writings are scripture. I don't believe him. So then he performs some amazing miracles before me, makes some very accurate prophecies that clearly come true, let's say he claims to have the power to raise any corpse from the dead, no matter how long dead, and conclusively demonstrates this power to me, etc. Let's say I believe in him and the scriptures he promulgates based on these miracles and prophecies. Then he announces, "God wants everyone to burn alive their first born child upon the altar as a sacrifice to him, for the anguished screams of infants dying in pain are sweet tunes to his ears", and adds this supposed revelation to his scriptures. On the basis of criteria [1] above, it's offensiveness to my conscience, I decide that he is not a true prophet after all, and his scriptures are not of God. (The criteria allows for the possibility that my conscience is wrong; but I can only deviate from my conscience if someone provides a convincing argument that it is wrong, and nothing that Jeff can muster succeeds in doing so - mere miracles is not a sufficient argument to change my conscience about this.) Jeff says: "But did you not see those miracles and fulfilled prophecies with your own eyes?"

I would have to say - yes, I did, but miracles and prophecies no matter how impressive do not prove a claimed prophet or scripture is from God. I can only conclude that they were due to some known or unknown natural cause, however unlikely - maybe he drugged me; maybe I am mentally ill; maybe he has some kind of mind control ray - or else, if not a natural cause, then some ungodly supernatural cause - maybe Jeff worked his miracles or prophecies by the power of black magick, or by the power of Satan and his demons.

The offensiveness of Jeff's purported child sacrifice revelations to my conscience, is sufficient reason to reject the claim that they are from God, no matter how many or how grand miracles he performs. Even if he made the stars dance, turned the moon into green cheese, and turned the ocean into orange cordial, it would still not be enough for me to believe that this is from God.

[MaxVel]

In the same way that it's also at least possible that the whole of the Quran is inspired.

I don't think that makes it any better. How barbaric is branding human beings? It's treating humans like we treat cattle.

And killing them costs lives - first of all the lives of those killed, of course. But then what about the lives of their dependants? "Your dad was cheating on your mum, so we executed him" - who's going to feed you now?

My mother cheated on my father. I don't agree with what my mother did, I feel sorry for my dad about the whole thing. But should my mother have been executed? The idea is disgusting beyond words.

Ever since I was a child I've known in the depths of my heart it is wrong.

Wow. Reading your other posts (a lot of which I really think highly of) I was expecting something more than that. Wow.

Is it wrong for God to take someone's hand? Why is it wrong fro God to use particular people in particular given circumstances, to take someone's hand? So I guess you'd have no problem with cutting off the hands of thieves like Islamic fundamentalists do? If the logic works for you, it works for them.

Is it wrong for God to take life?

Is it wrong for God to take life using public authorities as a means?

Is it wrong for God to specify in particular circumstances just how a life is to be taken?

It comes down to, in which can I have more confidence - the scripture or my conscience. I have no reason to choose the former over the later.

There are many other scriptures beyond the Bible - such as the Quran, the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib, etc. Given the immense variety of possible scriptures, I will use my conscience as a tool to help judge them all.

That argument can be used to justify a scripture commanding everything. Suppose I am a member of the cult of Jeff. Up to now, I have been a faithful follower of the prophet Jeff, believe God speaks through him, and have accepted every scripture he has promulgated. The Prophet Jeff then announces the revelation of a new scripture, which reads "Every first born child must be offered as a sacrifice to God, and burnt alive upon the altar". I say "God would never command such a thing!" Jeff responds "What you are doing is in effect saying that your moral judgment of the situation is as good as that of God, thus, if you find it morally wrong, God would too, and therefore He would never command that."

Sure are moral judgements aren't always right. But what can I trust more - my own conscience, or an ancient text a group of people claim is the Word of God?

Why can't the Prophet Jeff use that argument for his introduction of child sacrifice? Why can't the Islamic fundamentalist use that argument for cutting off the hands of thieves? A Christian apologist complains "God supposedly told his Prophet Muhammad that it was OK to sleep with a nine year old girl - God would never do such a thing"; an Islamic apologist might respond "we are morally flawed creatures - we don't make 100% correct moral judgments, always; we don't know every relevant fact and possible consequence - but God does. So I think that we must proceed with a lot of caution before making a definite judgment call."

People today aren't right about everything, but do you think it is okay to execute adulterers? Who thinks that outside of Islamic fundamentalism. Most people today would say that was wrong - while most people today are likely wrong about many things, do we have any good reason to suppose there is something wrong about that?

This seems to be very consequentalist logic; which is funny given that most Christians don't like consequentialist ethics being applied in other areas (e.g. infant euthanasia).

Who agreed? So if you were born in ancient Israel, let's say in the time of King David; let's say you are an adolescent female, your father died when you were young, but your mother remarries. Your stepfather pushes you into a sexual relationship with him. You try to resist, but it ends up happening. Then it is discovered. You and him are to be burnt to death. Or branded, which is better than being burnt to death, but still very painful and disfiguring. Now, at what point did you make a covenant with God agreeing to this? Maybe your distant ancestors did, but you never did.

Gill's commentary on the verse has this:

they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; the man, the mother and her daughter both being married together to him, or both consenting to his lying with them; otherwise, if one of them was first his wife, it was not reasonable that she should be put to death; and therefore some interpret "they", one of them, as Jarchi observes, one or other of them; and so Aben Ezra explains it, this or that; if the mother was his wife, the daughter was to be burnt; and so on the contrary, if the daughter was his wife, the mother was to be burnt;

{emphasis mine}

Note that there are interpretations of the passage that deal with the objection you have raised. Certainly I agree that punishing innocent parties is unjust, and I believe that the consistent message of the OT overall is that God is just. So it seems to me that this verse doesn't necessarily allow for executing someone who was coerced into sex. Of course, that is a possible interpretation, but you need to make the case that that is the best interpretation.

Is it an unreasonable reading of the passage? The passage is far from charitable to begin with.

Yes, because you're reading it uncharitably.

Let's say there is a bill proposed in Congress/Parliament/whatever, to introduce capital punishment by acid bath. The proponents say "These murderers, they don't deserve an easy death. Lethal injection is too painless. They deserve as painful a death as possible - let's dunk them alive in acid!" Would you support or oppose this bill? How do you think God would want people to vote on this bill - in favour or against?

So you think that God could never possibly support any unpleasant punishment?

Second question: What options did the ANE Israelites have for capital punishment? Grant for argument's sake that captoal punishment is warranted - what is the most humane way they could have done it?

[robrecht]

What about picking up sticks on the Sabbath; at least we can all agree about that, right?

[ZackMartin]

Wow. Reading your other posts (a lot of which I really think highly of) I was expecting something more than that. Wow.

I can give reasons, but my point here is to talk about my conscience. My conscience told me it was wrong long before I thought of any reasons. I have not seen any reason to change my conscience. Besides, it was an example of something that shocked my conscience - if it doesn't shock your conscience, there will be something else that will, so getting stuck down in whether capital punishment is right or wrong is to some extent (but not entirely) besides the point.

Nevertheless, several reasons why capital punishment is wrong:

1) The risk of mistakes and the execution of the innocent cannot be eliminated. People try to argue that there is a risk of mistake in imprisonment to - but execution has a finality that imprisonment lacks. With imprisonment, you are always leaving open the option of trying to make amends if it turns out to be a mistake - you can't make amends to someone who you have executed. (If the person dies in prison, the option is then closed - but you are never deciding for yourself to close the option, since you can never predict with any certainty when someone will die naturally, or at the hands of another inmate, and as long as they live, the possibility there was a mistake remains open; so execution represents a deliberate and certain closure of the possibility of amending your mistakes which imprisonment does not.)

Of course, you can talk about people like Breivik where there is absolutely no doubt of his guilt; but which society in history, having the death penalty, has restricted its use to cases meeting that standard? Only societies that meet that criteria would be those who have hardly ever used it - e.g. Israel, who only used it once since its founding, and I don't believe there is any serious doubt about Eichmann's guilt (his defence wasn't "I didn't do it", his defence was "I was just following orders and doing my job"). But certainly that is not true of any society which has used the death penalty with regularity.

2) "Two wrongs don't make a right". That's what my mother told me as a small child, and I still believe it is right. Capital punishment is the opposite of that principle.

3) Capital punishment appeals to the baser instincts of human nature - the desire for revenge - rather than to the higher instincts - compassion to all, even for those who have wronged us severely. Google "families of victims against the death penalty" - you will find a bunch of people who are far more noble than all the supporters of capital punishment in the world put together.

Is it wrong for God to take life?

Is it wrong for God to take life using public authorities as a means?

Is it wrong for God to specify in particular circumstances just how a life is to be taken?

I believe that God has two wills, a will of ends and a will of means. God opposes capital punishment with his will of ends. But he causes absolutely everything to happen, with his will of means, including capital punishment but only when it actually occurs. I can't say that anything that God does with his will of means is wrong. But it is wrong for us when we do it. The act which we do, and which God wills us to do with his will of means, but wills us not to do with his will of ends, is wrong for us to do, wrong for God to do with his will of ends (but he does it not that with that will), but right for God to do with his will of means (the will with which he does it). God wants us to emulate his will of ends, not his will of means; we lack the knowledge to properly emulate the later.

And I don't think it is always wrong to take life. For example, it is permissible to take life to prevent a clear and immediate danger of death or serious injury to one's own self or to another. But I do believe that capital punishment is wrong - the person being executed poses no clear and immediate danger to those performing the execution, or to anyone else for that matter.

So you think that God could never possibly support any unpleasant punishment?

Yes. You haven't answered my question - would you support or oppose the bill to introduce acid bath as a method of execution? And do you think God would want you to support or oppose it?

God (with his will of ends) would oppose gruesome and barbaric punishments like branding, amputation, stoning, burning to death, the Brazen bull, boiling in oil, deep frying alive, boiling in water, roasting to death on a metal hotplate, death by acid bath, death by lime bath, need I go on?

Second question: What options did the ANE Israelites have for capital punishment? Grant for argument's sake that captoal punishment is warranted - what is the most humane way they could have done it?

Certainly not stoning, or burning to death, if that is what this passage refers to. (The Talmud interprets "burning to death" as "pouring molten lead down the person's throat" - Sanhedrin 52a). If you had to kill someone as painlessly as possible using the technology available at the time, using a sword would be far quicker and more humane than stoning or burning. Ideally decapitate them - people disagree on how long for which the decapitated remain conscious, but it is a few seconds at the most, if not immediate. If that isn't feasible, other options include stabbing them in the heart, or slitting the throat. Loss of consciousness comes very quickly from a slit throat if the right arteries are cut, although it is a lot slower if done improperly, and if done improperly can even be survivable (albeit with medical attention, so it probably would not have been back then). Likewise stabbing someone in the heart can cause very quick loss of consciousness, if done correctly: it is important to remove the implement, not leave it in, and it is important to get the heart itself, and not somewhere else near it, and which part of the heart you stab can make a difference too, although I'm not sure how feasible it would be to stab someone with such accuracy.

But the most humane by far method of execution is "don't do it!"

[headheart]

I'm not sure if I can give precise criteria. I'd suggest at a minimum, for something to be accepted as the Word of God:

1] It has to either agree with our existing conscience, or contain a convincing argument that our existing conscience is wrong and must change

2] It has to agree with our reason

<snipped to make space>

In some ways this idea works but I can only see it failing to actually allow one to arrive at what makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d.

Two thoughts come to mind. The first is a healer-prophet-teacher and the second one is a group of people who believed that sacrificing a young child would chase away a demon spirit in the machine at their work which was swallowing chickens and even managed to have a go at the mechanics hand.

William Marion Brahnam was the healer-prophet-teacher and the group of people are mentioned in Colin Wilson's book 'Supernatural' (not to be confused with Lyall Watson's book 'Supernature')

So as not to bloat your thread, I've sent my jibber-jabber to your private mail.

Peace,
Eric.

[shunyadragon]

What about picking up sticks on the Sabbath; at least we can all agree about that, right?

I prefer playing 'pick up sticks' on Saturday.

[headheart]

I prefer playing 'pick up sticks' on Saturday.

A pastor's son built a house of matchsticks. What did the pastor say to his son?

[shunyadragon]

A pastor's son built a house of matchsticks. What did the pastor say to his son?

Don't play with matches.

[headheart]

Don't play with matches.

"Is that all they taught you in prison?"