|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 128 of 293:
| 
Dec 11 16:36 UTC 2003 |
Klg, I'll concede the point that what is permitted is not always what
is practiced -- since that isn't a point I made.
In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).
So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:
More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!!
Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.
Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
and a Christian woman.
Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
between a man and a woman of the same "race".
In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call
this the evolution of an idea and institution?)
The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
past 100-150 years.
Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
"effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
be so.
I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
offend your God and weaken the institution?
|
twenex
|
|
response 129 of 293:
|
Dec 11 16:48 UTC 2003 |
You might want to try indenting, or otherwise marking, the bit's your
quoting, as in the post above it's qite difficult to discern which
parts are written by you, and which are quoted.
|
klg
|
|
response 130 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:12 UTC 2003 |
for mynxcat:
When a man has a son who is stubborn and a rebel one who does not
listen to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother and
they discipline him and he still does not listen to them.
Then his father and his mother are to grab him and drag him to the town
elders in the gates of his place And they are to say to the town
elders, "Our son is stubborn and a rebel he does not listen to our
voice he is a glutton and a drunkard!"
Then all the men of the town are to pelt him with stones so that he
dies. So shall you burn the evil out of your midst's and all Israel
will hear and be awed.
. . .
These are later rabbis' interpretations of my verse from the Torah:
When a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not obey his
father or mother, they shall have him flogged. If he still does not
listen to them, then his father and mother must grasp him and bring him
to the elders of the city and say "Our son is a wayward and rebellious
child, he does not listen to us and he is an exceptional glutton and
drunkard"
In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13
and one quarter. The law does not apply to girls. The boy will be
flogged with 39 lashes only if he eats the meal of the rebellious son
which is forbidden.
Both the mother and father must agree to bring him to the local Supreme
Court of 23 judges.
By tradition, the rebellious son must steal money from his father, and
buy 50 dinars of meat, and eat it rare outside of his father's property
in bad company. This is the act which must be witnessed by two
additional people besides his parents in order for the son to be put to
death. He must also drink a half a log (5 ounces) of wine with the
meal. It is forbidden for a boy of this age to eat such a meal at any
time.
If the punishment is carried out, the boy will be hung up by his hands
just before sunset for the town to see and immediately taken down again
after sunset.
These laws have been put in by rabbis in earlier centuries and changed
and made into an interpretation of what the words mean so that there
will never be a child killed.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 131 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:26 UTC 2003 |
Interesting. Thanks klg
|
twenex
|
|
response 132 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:27 UTC 2003 |
Why 13 and 13 and 3/4?
|
klg
|
|
response 133 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:39 UTC 2003 |
That would be: "13 and 13 and 1/4"
Why? We would guess:
13 = the Jewish religious age of majority for males.
Have no idea why the "1/4." Perhaps based on some other source in
order to generate the shortest possible period consistent with the
subject under discussion. Feel free to search for the answer yourself,
if you care.
BTW - The whole of 130 was lifted from a website.
|
twenex
|
|
response 134 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:46 UTC 2003 |
Oh, you mean you can *start* between 13 and 13 and 1/4? The way i read
it was you can only stone boys between 13 and 13 and 1/4.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 135 of 293:
|
Dec 11 17:47 UTC 2003 |
If they did their best to ensure the shortest possible time in which a child
could be killed, and worded it so that no child was killed, why bother having
that law in teh first place?
|
klg
|
|
response 136 of 293:
|
Dec 11 18:03 UTC 2003 |
"In order to be stoned, the boy must be between the ages of 13 and 13
and one quarter."
Why??? The explanation would most likely depend upon one's
interpretation of the origins and meanings of the Torah. Our's would
be that it contains a moral/ethical message that goes beyond its
literal reading. Similar to "an eye for an eye," which "means" to us
the penalty for taking an eye is monetary compensation for the value of
the loss of an eye - not putting out the perpetrator's eye.
|
twenex
|
|
response 137 of 293:
|
Dec 11 18:07 UTC 2003 |
That's a good point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 138 of 293:
|
Dec 12 02:11 UTC 2003 |
What a pagan practice....
|
klg
|
|
response 139 of 293:
|
Dec 12 03:35 UTC 2003 |
You in favor of blinding the guy?
|
bru
|
|
response 140 of 293:
|
Dec 12 05:58 UTC 2003 |
and remember, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are maximums, not
minimums. You can never do more than that to the violater. You can do less.
|
lk
|
|
response 141 of 293:
|
Dec 12 08:05 UTC 2003 |
Actually, the saying has nothing to do with body parts (or, necessarily) money.
It's just saying that the penalty needs to be comensurate with the crime.
It's an idiom to the tune of "apples to apples" vs. "apples to oranges".
The latter which describes the drift we've just experienced. (:
Re#129: Jeff, I was not quoting anyone else in #128 (if you referred to me).
I was quoting what I said previously and clarifying it with more commentary
as per what klg had said in response.
|
twenex
|
|
response 142 of 293:
|
Dec 12 09:18 UTC 2003 |
Still, what you were quoting would have been clearer indented...
|
lk
|
|
response 143 of 293:
|
Dec 12 17:00 UTC 2003 |
OK, here it again, indented as requested:
(Though, as I was quoting myself, I changed a word or two for clarity.)
In the specific case of polygamy amongst Jews, you might recall that
Yemenite Jews didn't receive R. Gershom's letter and continued to
practice polygamy into the 20th century (a custom not foreign to the
Muslim world in which they lived, though I'm not sure how widespread
this practice was amongst the Jews -- but it did happen.).
So at least amongst Yemenite Jews this did change in the last 100
years, which builds up to the rest of what I said which you ignored:
> More widely and to the point, the institution of marriage has changed
> dramatically in the last hundred and some years. Few here enter into
> arranged marriages. In fact, most people marry for love. Scandalous!!
> Even more recently, as Richard correctly points out, we've come to
> accept inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.
Let me clarify that these are changes of definitions. Your new
definition just happens to be a superset of the old definitions.
Christians defined marriage as a wedding between a Christian man
and a Christian woman.
Likewise marriage was commonly defined (as practiced!) as being
between a man and a woman of the same "race".
In turn, my definition is a superset of yours. (Shall we call
this the evolution of an idea and institution?)
The point is that both practices and definitions have changed over the
past 100-150 years.
> Those who value marriage shouldn't be asking if the institution has been
> "effective and useful for thousands of years" but if it will continue to
> be so.
> I ask (again): how does the marriage of homosexuals weaken the institution?
> Does the marriage of atheists, "infidel Muslims" or pagans not likewise
> offend your God and weaken the institution?
|
twenex
|
|
response 144 of 293:
|
Dec 12 17:29 UTC 2003 |
Thanks.
|
bru
|
|
response 145 of 293:
|
Dec 12 19:36 UTC 2003 |
Muslims worship the same God jews and Christians do. It just that they have
teh "particulars" wrong. The same God the Mormons do, but they have the
"particulars" wrong.
Forget religion. For most of human history, people have practiced a one man,
one woman relationship. A Nuclear family, if you will.
That doesn't mean people have not strayed.
That doesn't mean some nations haven't allowed multiple marriages.
That doesn't discount the harems.
That doesn't discount prostitution.
But the majority of human societies have practiced one on one relationships.
Nature built us that way, that is why we get jealous, thats why men commit
some murders. Because an uncontrolable age seeks to remove those who cheat
on them. (women do this as well)
It is a lot deeper in us than religion creates. It is rather something that
religion tries to control, to regulate, to codify. So people who are to dumb
to see the reality in society have a place where they can be instructed in
how the society expects them to behave.
God, or nature (if you prefer) made us want to be monogomous.
|
willcome
|
|
response 146 of 293:
|
Dec 12 19:40 UTC 2003 |
No-way, man, it's the lack of mushrooms in the diet.
|
drew
|
|
response 147 of 293:
|
Dec 12 19:41 UTC 2003 |
Re #140:
The idea that these are maximums makes sense, but do you have a specific
reference for this?
|
edina
|
|
response 148 of 293:
|
Dec 12 20:02 UTC 2003 |
For most of human history there have been a one man, one woman relationship?
What?? I mean, for the longest time, humans didn't even realize that sex is
what led to children, and sex was just an urge to fulfill.
|
gull
|
|
response 149 of 293:
|
Dec 12 20:23 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:145: Even a casual reading of the Bible suggests that "one man,
one woman" has been the exception, rather than the rule, for much of
human history. Maybe you should be specific about what parts of human
history you're counting, and what parts you're editing out.
A lot of conservatives seem to feel that the 1950's were the American
utopia. They take the norms of that time -- nuclear families, the man
going out and earning money, the woman staying home and raising quiet,
respecful kids, etc. -- and try to filter the rest of history to make it
seem like things were always and should always be that way.
|
keesan
|
|
response 150 of 293:
|
Dec 12 20:41 UTC 2003 |
During periods of warfare there is a man shortage, which is why people are
adaptable to various forms of family structure, otherwise the population would
decrease among any group that could not adapt. Was there anything resembling
formal marriage in hunter-gatherer societies, or is it more like the situation
now, where people couple for a while and then drift apart?
|
bru
|
|
response 151 of 293:
|
Dec 12 23:59 UTC 2003 |
edina, when do you think humanity learned sex led to babies? Had to be at
the point they started domestication of animals. Right?
100,000 years ago?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 293:
|
Dec 13 00:37 UTC 2003 |
uhhh... I'm not sure how much I believe this, but it has been said
that certain islanders of the South Pacific had NOT put it together by
the time European ethnographers visited them in the nineteenth or ealy
twentieth century.
|