Name of a book

Tim Robbins

I remember reading about a book where someone tried to live exactly by every single rule in the bible for one year - even all the really crazy OT stuff.
Anyone remember the name of it?

Cheers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

Wouldn't someone who did that end up in jail fairly sharpish, what with all the slavery, sacrificing stuff and stoning people to death?

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Wouldn't someone who did that end up in jail fairly sharpish, what with all the slavery, sacrificing stuff and stoning people to death?

http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp?id=excerpt

The Hebrew scriptures prescribe a tremendous amount of capital punishment. Think Saudi Arabia, multiply by Texas, then triple that. It wasn’t just for murder. You could also be executed for adultery, blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, perjury, incest, bestiality and witchcraft, among others. A rebellious son could be sentenced to death. As could a gluttonous or a drunkardly son.

The most commonly mentioned punishment method in the Hebrew Bible is stoning. So I figure, at the very least, I should try to stone. But how?

I can’t tell you how many people have suggested I get adulterers and blasphemers stoned in the cannabis sense. Which is an interesting idea. But I haven’t smoked pot since I was at Brown University and I wrote a paper for my anthropology class on the hidden symbolism of bong hits. (Brown was the type of college where this paper actually earned a B+).

Instead, I figured my loophole would be this: the bible doesn’t specify the size of the stones. So…pebbles.

A few days ago, I gathered a handful of small white pebbles from Central Park, which I stuffed in my back pants pocket. Now all I needed were some victims. ...

It goes on, just didn't want to spam the page


edit: quote at the end is interesting though:

We don’t stone people today because you need a Biblical theocracy to enforce the stoning. No such society exists today. But even in ancient times, stoning wasn’t barbaric.

“First of all, you didn’t just heave stones,” says Yossi. “The idea was to minimize the suffering. What we call ‘stoning’ was actually pushing the person off the cliff so they would die immediately upon impact. The Talmud actually has specifications on how high the cliff must be. Also, the person getting executed was given strong drink to dull the pain.”

Plus, the stonings were a rare thing. Some rabbis say executions only occurred once every seven years, others say even less often. There had to be two witnesses to the crime. And the adulterer had to be tried by a council of 70 elders. And weirdly, the verdict of those 70 elders could not be unanimous– that might be a sign of corruption or brainwashing. And so on.

I half-expected Yossi to say they gave the adulterer a massage and a gift bag. He made a compelling case. And yet, I’m not totally sold. Were ancient times really so merciful? I suspect there might be some whitewashing going on. As my year progresses, I’ll need to delve deeper

robindch

AJ Jacobs + Yossi wrote:

We don’t stone people today because you need a Biblical theocracy to enforce the stoning. No such society exists today. But even in ancient times, stoning wasn’t barbaric. “First of all, you didn’t just heave stones,” says Yossi. “The idea was to minimize the suffering. What we call ‘stoning’ was actually pushing the person off the cliff so they would die immediately upon impact. The Talmud actually has specifications on how high the cliff must be. Also, the person getting executed was given strong drink to dull the pain.”

Wasn't barbaric?

There are a few gruesome videos circulating on the internet which look like genuine stonings. In one blurry, two or three minute scene, the victim is wrapped in a blanket, wedged thigh-deep in a narrow hole, then perhaps a hundred bearded, turbanned, chanting men slowly begin throwing rocks around the same size as cups or mugs. The stoning continues after the still-twitching victim falls over sideways, legs seemingly broken, while the blanket slowly becomes stained with stone-shaped blotches of blood.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Wasn't barbaric?

There are a few gruesome videos circulating on the internet which look like genuine stonings. In one blurry, two or three minute scene, the victim is wrapped in a blanket, wedged thigh-deep in a narrow hole, then perhaps a hundred bearded, turbanned, chanting men slowly begin throwing rocks around the same size as cups or mugs. The stoning continues after the still-twitching victim falls over sideways, legs seemingly broken, while the blanket slowly becomes stained with stone-shaped blotches of blood.

The first video I saw of stoning on youtube (NSC tagged one on to the end of a video) almost knocked the wind out of my sails. It was terrifying watching the event and realising that these stoners believe they are doing the right thing.

nozzferrahhtoo

The author is here talking about the book. He managed to cover most of it in the hour long talk if you do not feel like reading it yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q-Oqpp4biE

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks. Has anybody read it? Is it any good?

I am looking for a laugh here.

sonicthebadger*

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thanks. Has anybody read it? Is it any good?

I am looking for a laugh here.

It is pretty good,

but depressing towards the end when he starts to go on about mutilating his son for the sake of tradition.

liamw

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The author is here talking about the book. He managed to cover most of it in the hour long talk if you do not feel like reading it yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q-Oqpp4biE

I could not sit through an hour of that nerdy voice

magicbastarder

Malty_T wrote: »

these stoners believe they are doing the right thing.

'whoah, dude, this **** is like, so *real*! i'm hungry now.'

Tim Robbins

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

It is pretty good....

You shouldn't give away the end of books or movies.

sonicthebadger*

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You shouldn't give away the end of books or movies.

Apologies Tim. Better late than never I inserted some spoiler tags.

Lab_Mouse

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Apologies Tim. Better late than never I inserted some spoiler tags.

and we need Tim to un-quote you:D

nozzferrahhtoo

liamw wrote: »

I could not sit through an hour of that nerdy voice

Hah. Different Strokes. I actually find his semi lisp somewhat endearing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Thanks. Has anybody read it? Is it any good?

I am looking for a laugh here.

It is actually OK and I read it myself only 2 months ago now.

I found him funnier talking about it at Google Authors than reading the book itself, but like most of his books there was a couple of good laugh out loud moments but not a huge amount.

One of my favorites is when he discovered the rule that you can not use a seat that a menstruating woman has ever used. Upon telling his wife of this she waited until her period and then sat on every useable surface in the house, forcing him to purchase a foldable transportable chair off ebay to take everywhere he went.

However it did manage sometimes to be interesting. He explores the bible from the perspective of many different traditions from the extreme to the tame, and not just from the perspective of his own Jewish Heritage. He maintains a full panel of religious advisors during the entire year.

I also found it interesting how actually living those traditions did actually start to make him begin to believe in god. It is amazing the effect ritual and tradition can have on the mind. If you tell yourself you believe something, and act like you believe it, for long enough you actually can convince yourself you believe it.

It certainly did not blow me away but it was a useful book, and I would recommend putting it on your reading list somewhere.

Atheist Ireland plan to have a “Read the Bible campaign”. They want to promote the reading of it, maybe even to the point of including it on the literature courses in our schools. When they fully launch that campaign, I think Jacobs would be a very good choice for celebrity speaker to open it… as would Christopher Hitchens who also heavily recommends reading the Bible and has even put some clerics to shame with how much of it he can quote verbatim.

panda100

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Atheist Ireland plan to have a “Read the Bible campaign”. They want to promote the reading of it, maybe even to the point of including it on the literature courses in our schools.

That would be the best campaign ever. If people actually read it they'd see how f*cked up it is.
I reckon they should start with the chapter on menstruating women

zoomtard

panda100 wrote: »

That would be the best campaign ever. If people actually read it they'd see how f*cked up it is.
I reckon they should start with the chapter on menstruating women

What chapter is that? Seeing as you must have read it to see how f*cked up it is, right?

MikeC101

zoomtard wrote: »

What chapter is that? Seeing as you must have read it to see how f*cked up it is, right?

Leviticus 15 has the fun stuff about menstruation, uncleanliness, and the need to bring a couple of doves to your local priest so that he can sacrifice them to make up for your uncleanliness in the eyes of the LORD.

Or is that one of the parts that's considered a metaphor, or doesn't apply to Christians?

coffee_cake

MikeC101 wrote: »

Leviticus 15 has the fun stuff about menstruation, uncleanliness, and the need to bring a couple of doves to your local priest so that he can sacrifice them to make up for your uncleanliness in the eyes of the LORD.

Or is that one of the parts that's considered a metaphor, or doesn't apply to Christians?

I think the coming of jesus was supposed to make the OT "fulfilled", so none of the OT applies anymore to christians?
Not that that stops some of them cherrypicking from the OT when it suits them

I think the OT is part/all of the Torah so it's jews that it would apply to... or something

The Torah is the first of three parts of the Tanakh (i.e. Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism,[4] and is divided into five books, whose names in English are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

I heard the local rabbi wouldn't shake hands with women at a graduation ceremony just in case :pac:

ColmDawson

Matthew 5:18-19 wrote:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

.

coffee_cake

ColmDawson wrote: »

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Yep, and the bit before that:

:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

zoomtard

bluewolf wrote: »

I think the OT is part/all of the Torah so it's jews that it would apply to... or something

The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

ColmDawson wrote:

Quote:

Matthew 5:18-19 wrote:

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Cherry picking verses is something fundamentalists do. But in all four Gospels Jesus has ongoing battles with the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees over his constant breaking of the ceremonial law so either you missed that part or you'll have to perhaps consider that Jesus, as a second Temple Jew, might be making a more complex point than you're suggesting.

Back to the topic, I loved the book, especially the chapter where he interviews Rosario Dawson.

coffee_cake

zoomtard wrote: »

Cherry picking verses is something fundamentalists do. But in all four Gospels Jesus has ongoing battles with the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees over his constant breaking of the ceremonial law so either you missed that part or you'll have to perhaps consider that Jesus, as a second Temple Jew, might be making a more complex point than you're suggesting.

Who are you addressing that to?

zoomtard

You and Colm.

Leviticus 15 still applies in Christian interpretation of the text. There is a great chapter from the acclaimed Old Testament scholar Walter Bruggemann on Google Books if you want to see how we read it.

Christians really do value the words of Jesus. We fail on pretty much everything else that we claim but come on guys, its not like we don't think about what Jesus' movement (an amazing interpreter of the Old Testament in his own right) means for texts like Leviticus. When you cite verses out of context as if you are ending an argument you actually are lowering yourselves. Atheists and sceptics generally don't need to settle for the level of fundamentalists- you have little invested in a game of Biblical interpretation so you really can aim higher.

That's all I'm suggesting.

coffee_cake

zoomtard wrote: »

You and Colm.

Leviticus 15 still applies in Christian interpretation of the text. There is a great chapter from the acclaimed Old Testament scholar Walter Bruggemann on Google Books if you want to see how we read it.

Christians really do value the words of Jesus. We fail on pretty much everything else that we claim but come on guys, its not like we don't think about what Jesus' movement (an amazing interpreter of the Old Testament in his own right) means for texts like Leviticus. When you cite verses out of context as if you are ending an argument you actually are lowering yourselves. Atheists and sceptics generally don't need to settle for the level of fundamentalists- you have little invested in a game of Biblical interpretation so you really can aim higher.

That's all I'm suggesting.

I find that curious after engaging in many discussions with christians explaining in detail that the OT doesn't apply since the coming of jesus.
But apparently listening to christians talk about their own bible makes me a fundie, thanks :rolleyes:

zoomtard

bluewolf wrote: »

I find that curious after engaging in many discussions with christians explaining in detail that the OT doesn't apply since the coming of jesus.
But apparently listening to christians talk about their own bible makes me a fundie, thanks :rolleyes:

Nah! Citing verses out of context makes you like a fundie.

And you either didn't get what the Christians were saying or they didn't have a clue what they were saying. But I think we went to college together so that might be a petard to hoist myself on!

You can see that I might be making sense by clicking on the link to an utterly mainstream work of interpretation by the most esteemed Reformed Old Testament scholar of our age dealing with the very passages we are discussing. Obviously Christians think the OT applies! How is a complex question only because Jesus really complexified it.

coffee_cake

zoomtard wrote: »

Nah! Citing verses out of context makes you like a fundie.

And you either didn't get what the Christians were saying or they didn't have a clue what they were saying. But I think we went to college together so that might be a petard to hoist myself on!

You can see that I might be making sense by clicking on the link to an utterly mainstream work of interpretation by the most esteemed Reformed Old Testament scholar of our age dealing with the very passages we are discussing. Obviously Christians think the OT applies! How is a complex question only because Jesus really complexified it.

I actually went off and looked it up in a few places, the idea that jesus "fulfilled" the OT isn't an obscure one. Differing schools of thought?

And yes excelsior we sure did
I remember following up IRL discussions on here where you claimed ignorance :P

zoomtard

bluewolf wrote: »

I actually went off and looked it up in a few places, the idea that jesus "fulfilled" the OT isn't an obscure one. Differing schools of thought?

And yes excelsior we sure did
I remember following up IRL discussions on here where you claimed ignorance :P

I claimed ignorance once? Damn. That is not like me.

Christians of course believe that Jesus fulfilled the OT. In fact, the verses you cite that actually in the logic of the text strongly point towards that (and not to the meaning suggested in this thread).

But the way in which that fulfillment worked out is not to render Leviticus 15 meaningless or irrelevant for Christians. The specific cultic purity expectation is no longer functional because of who Christians think Jesus is. Hence, my menstruating wife isn't anathema to me. But that text is still canonical for us and as Bruggemann explains it, those texts deeply inform how we view Jesus.

I don't want to hijaack this thread and turn it into a theological discussion. In another thread I am trying to avoid other posters dragging me into a "let's poke the Christian" discussion. All I am saying is that it is more complicated and Christians make more sense on this issue than is sometimes suggested.

Also, AJ Jacobs is a very entertaining author.

Turtwig

zoomtard wrote: »

You and Colm.

Leviticus 15 still applies in Christian interpretation of the text. There is a great chapter from the acclaimed Old Testament scholar Walter Bruggemann on Google Books if you want to see how we read it.

Christians really do value the words of Jesus. We fail on pretty much everything else that we claim but come on guys, its not like we don't think about what Jesus' movement (an amazing interpreter of the Old Testament in his own right) means for texts like Leviticus. When you cite verses out of context as if you are ending an argument you actually are lowering yourselves. Atheists and sceptics generally don't need to settle for the level of fundamentalists- you have little invested in a game of Biblical interpretation so you really can aim higher.

That's all I'm suggesting.

The problem is that Christians themselves don't even agree on what is the "correct" context to read a bible verse. This is why debating bible verses as an atheist is usually a lose lose situation. The reason why atheists choose to quote these passages is because a vast majority of à la carte Christians are oblivious to repugnant material contained within the holy texts. I'm fairly confident a significant number would find such passages at the very least disturbing. The thing I find most interesting though is how any bible passage that contradicts a Christian's belief is out of context yet any passage that reinforces is it is perfectly within the literal context.

cooker3

He did a ted talk about it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MkpzMAOZM

He wrote a funny article in the New Yorker I think about he got someone in some eastern bloc country to do all his work for him, call people, book stuff, even got her to read stories for his kids.
He certainly doesn't do things by half.