Ch. 2: Petty
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:01 pm
Please use this thread to discuss Ch. 2: Petty.
There are so many of these instances in the Bible. I am thinking about the man who put his hand up to steady the Ark of the Covanent when the children of Israel were carrying it over some rocky ground. God had told them they were not to touch it.....this poor man just followed his instincts, allegedly, and he was smited. Then, what about poor Judas? He was prophesied to betray Jesus....so what chance did he have, poor chap??Robert wrote:
This chapter is devoted to showing how the Bible depicts God as inflicting arbitrary and disproportionate punishments. Clearly in terms of any normal modern view of fairness such capricious punishment is wrong. However, in the ancient world, themes of governance included ‘tremble and obey’, the ‘shock and awe’ method of establishing dominance and hierarchy, and Draco’s opinion that small crimes deserve death.
yeah that is a classic isn't it, i thought of it too!P wrote: I am thinking about the man who put his hand up to steady the Ark of the Covanent when the children of Israel were carrying it over some rocky ground. God had told them they were not to touch it.....this poor man just followed his instincts, allegedly, and he was smited.
This reminds me of something that happened to me when I was about ten years old, and with some friends was exploring a derelict bread factory. We found this enormous machine, and I touched it and got a mild electric shock. It could have been much worse, like the accidental death of Thomas Merton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton#Death . When we try to depict God as good there is a basic conflict with the possibly deeper idea that God is fate. We hope for a good fate, but are at the mercy of capricious forces.Penelope wrote: the man who put his hand up to steady the Ark of the Covanent when the children of Israel were carrying it over some rocky ground. God had told them they were not to touch it.....this poor man just followed his instincts, allegedly, and he was smited.
The whole story of Jesus and Judas is an allegorical myth about the presence of the spirit of the golden age in the midst of the iron age. It is about the inevitability of betrayal and misunderstanding, and how the impact of betrayal can be as bad for the betrayer, in this case Judas, as for the betrayed, with Jesus getting flogged and having nails hammered through his hands and feet.Penelope wrote: Then, what about poor Judas? He was prophesied to betray Jesus....so what chance did he have, poor chap??
I don’t see it like that Penelope. In Australia, there is an old indigenous myth of the rainbow snake, who is unlike the Abrahamic God in having no sense of love or care or compassion for people, but like God in exercising total capricious power. I think we will gradually see the old Christian myths about God evolve to reflect some of the ecological ideas about how the planet that nurtures us could also spit us out.Penelope wrote:Sometimes, I wonder if these instances, which are so unjust, are placed in there just to check whether we are paying attention.....I mean, maybe it is saying, 'Look what happens if you blindly obey the instructions of a bully'.
The point is there is no possible context that would justify the extreme pettiness of most of the rules listed in this chapter. Well actually here is one context in bold, which if added to scripture might redeem Deuteronomy 22:12. Only a very small minded deity would require us to "make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear" while not banning rape, genocide, or slavery.Mr. Tulip wrote:Constantly through Barker’s protestations that we can ignore the context for such petty rules, he is wrong. The context is that the shift from a rule of revenge to a vision of restorative justice only began with the development of the messianic theory of Jesus Christ. So it is petty and pointless on Barker’s part to accuse Christianity of holding to an ethical framework that went out with Moses.
The authors are not saying all pettiness should be abolished. You seem to be confusing normal human pettiness with that of YahWeh, but there is no comparison. Take the demand to kill everyone picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week: YahWeh is psychotically petty.Pettiness is a good case in point, since petty decisions never seem to be rational. But it is petty that we stand up when a judge enters a court room. People who don’t stand are in contempt of court. This is a social ritual which reflects the background idea that standing is a mark of respect for the rule of law. If we say that such petty rituals make no sense and should be abolished we are on a slippery slope towards a delinquent attitude towards the core institutions of society. Delinquency is all about the absence of an orderly paternal authority. Barker and Dawkins should be careful what they wish for.
The context for the petty rules outlined by God in the Old Testament is the desire of the Jewish authorities to instil a popular attitude of fear and subservience in order to ensure total social obedience to a divinely ordained hierarchical military caste of kings and priests. Before the Bronze Age and then the Iron Age, which introduced steadily increasing levels of organised state violence, social authority had been relatively fluid. It had been possible to allow religious diversity, including goddesses and nature worship. But with the emergence of armies and broadscale imperial conquest, and with Israel a tiny area compared to the adjacent empires, drastic measures were needed for security.LanDroid wrote: there is no possible context that would justify the extreme pettiness of most of the rules listed in this chapter.
Jesus specifically countermanded the Mosaic law of eye for an eye in the Sermon on the Mount. So to blame Christianity today for still having a holy book with unsavoury details is a bit like blaming Barack Obama for the Three Fifths Compromise, even though that slaver demand from the US constitution is now totally obsolete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_CompromiseLanDroid wrote: your point about what "went out with Moses" makes no sense - the chapter begins with the first four commandments which Moses brought down from the mountain, i.e. he introduced them...
That is again like saying we can blame the USA for counting blacks as inferior, even though such rules were formally abolished after the Civil War. Barker does not engage with the relevance of these more difficult ideas from the Torah.LanDroid wrote:Again, we should stick to the Old Testament for now - the book doesn't discuss the New Testament until the final chapter.
The general point, as I understand the insistence on Sabbath observance, was that rigid conformity was seen as a essential test for loyalty and reliability. Tyrants always see a slippery slope in such matters – if people routinely get away with misdemeanours like vandalism then it creates a social climate where more serious crime becomes more likely. That is obviously not to justify tyranny, especially considering the blunt conflicting view of Jesus that the Sabbath is made for man not man for the Sabbath.LanDroid wrote: Take the demand to kill everyone picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week: YahWeh is psychotically petty.