OT laws and morality

[His Noodly Appendage]

Many of the laws in the Old Testament are now considered barbaric, draconian, and inapplicable, with nasty punishments for 'crimes' such as wearing mixed fibres, eating shrimp and a host of other behaviours that harm nobody.

This raises a fairly obvious question: are those behaviours immoral? Sufficiently immoral as to merit a painful death, putting them right up there with rape and murder?

If so, then how can the vast majority of Christians live with such a burden of guilt, and why do they keep doing these things, and tolerating them in others?

If they are not significantly immoral, then this raises another question:

Was it not immensely unjust and sadistic of God to decree brutal punishment and execution for actions that do not in any way deserve it?

If you would get God off the hook by claiming that what is moral has changed between then and now, then you are surely admitting that morality is fluid, changing and not determinable by ancient proclamations.

And if THAT is the case, then can we not utterly discard all scriptural proscriptions as irrelevant to determining correct behaviour?

Now, can you remind me why homosexuality/etc is Bad and Wrong?

[Resident Troll]

Moses sure was one obsessive-compulsive old bastard!

[The 800# Gorilla]

And he was stoned when he got his stones.

[Pendaric]

I'm in the middle of reading a book called 'A Year of Living Biblically'. It's about a chap trying to apply the OT laws to his modern day life. It's pretty interesting, and goes a bit in to the context and reasons for some of the more bizarre stuff.

Thing is, the bits of the bible that list the rules don't give you any context or any understanding of the reason why those rulings came in to being and what their purpose was. It's reading the sentence without hearing the arguments on either side. The Orthodox Jews who still live by these rules, or as many as possible, have a whole load of other writings which give some of the context at the back of them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no sense defending some of the barbaric, immoral acts which are commanded, condoned and committed in the OT. I'm an atheist, and I think most of it is myth. I subscribe to a relativist theory of morality, and I wouldn't treat any scriptural advice as more influential than any other source - probably less so as it stems from a book steeped in irrationality.

God didn't do anything - God doesn't exist. But the priests and tribal leaders who shaped those rules did so because of cultural reasons that made sense at that point in time.

The OT was compiled in written format during the Babylonian exile, several hundred if not thousands of years after the events it describes. It is the collected mythology of the Jewish people, in the same way that Rome was supposedly founded by Romulus and Remus, or any other civilisation has it's mythical roots.

It shows Yahweh as a war god because that is what the priests who wrote it needed for the people at that time. The Jews were dispirited - they had been conquered by the Babylonians and they needed to believe that they had a glorious past that they could hark back to in order to give them hope that they could survive the exile and reclaim their lands. They didn't need or want a God of forgiveness and love - they needed a God who could wage war and devastation on their enemies, and so they made up stories which reflected that.

They also wanted laws and customs which would differentiate them from their captors in order to preserve a cultural identity whilst in a diaspora. That's where a lot of the seemingly pointless directives come from.

[Christina]

My sense of most major religious texts is that they're as much about propaganda, crowd control and political spin as they are about faith, if not more. I agree that evaluating them without a cultural context makes a lot of it seems worse than it is, but tossing god aside, they all seem to work as an arm of the prevailing political powers when they aren't the prevailing political power themselves. I look at them all with a suspicious 'follow the money" attitude. When profit is to be made from war, war gods make sense.

[seebs]

Pendaric covered most of it. This is an interesting question, and I think context plays a huge part in it -- as it sometimes does in reading NT morality, too.

Imagine, if you will, Paul's epistle to the Christians living in Las Vegas, where he criticizes people who, too lazy to do real work, spend their days staring at screens, pushing buttons, and pulling levers.

Now, imagine that his writing is, in fact, so persuasive that slot machines are completely banned.

And imagine, a thousand years later, what his followers (who have never seen, or even heard of, a slot machine) will think about professional computer programmers.

There's a second significant point: Many Christians do not live by the Old Testament laws at all. This is not, contrary to popular belief, something taught only by the modern "liberal" Christians:

The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15, Verses 24-31
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

The idea that Christians need not "keep the law" is a bit older than the twentieth century...

[Pendaric]

A large part of the reason why Paul's epistles form a lot of the New Testament is that he was a better PR man than the other apostles. A number of them wanted to keep the rules on circumcision and dietary strictness, but Paul realised that this would be a bar to attracting converts. He did a re-branding job on it to de-Judify it and make it more palatable to Gentiles.

Of course, there is a NT recommendation a fair bit more drastic than circumcision. The words of Jesus, Matt 19:12:

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

ie, lop your tackle off for the Lord. And whatever spin modern day Christians may put on that to prevent doing it, some of those who were around during the early years of the Christian church believed it - Origen is the most famous example.

Have you self-castrated yet seebs?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Seebs, you are missing the point.

Imagine that a man, call him Fred, lives among us. Fred takes great objection to people brushing their hair on a Wednesday, and feels that anyone that does so deserves to be pounded in the face with a rock until their brains squirt out their ears. Through all the considerable political and economic influence that he wields, he manages to convince many people to bring about the horrible death of anyone who dares violate the sacrament of Tousled Wednesday.

You, I and pretty much anyone else I can name would surely consider Fred's campaign to be evil, nasty, sadistic, barbaric... and primarily unjust. Nobody deserves to die for picking up a hairbrush, so bringing it about is the very definition of injustice.

The only people - surely - that could possibly disagree would be the ones that agree that brushing your hair on a Wednesday really is so terribly bad and wrong.

Now imagine that Fred had a distant ancestor a few thousand of years ago named Argh, that did exactly the same thing, despite the primitive hairbrush technology available at the time.

Were Argh's actions then any more just than Fred's are today?

If they were, then fundamental moral principles themselves must have changed between then and now. And if THAT is the case, then there is no reason to take any ancient moral pronouncement as even slightly authoritative, being built on shifting sands, as it were.

And if they were not - why, then Argh was just a sadistic little bastard, and a poorer guide to morality could not be imagined, so there is no reason to take any of his other pronouncements seriously, either.

[lpetrich]

From seebs's analogy, it would seem that the Bible is a VERY obscure and difficult-to-understand book. So why worship it and treat it as a perfect instruction manual?

And how does one avoid self-serving interpolations? I've seen too many of them:

If I like it, it's literal; if I don't like it, it's metaphorical or allegorical.
If I like it, its context is irrelevant; if I don't like it, it's out of context.
If I like it, it's straightforward language; if I don't like it, it's rhetoric or hyperbole.
If I like it, it was translated correctly; if I don't like it, it was mistranslated.
If I like it, it's a moral absolute; if I don't like it, it's legalism.
If I like it, it's a moral law; if I don't like it, it's a ceremonial law.
If I like it, that law applies to everybody; if I don't like it, that law applies only to the original audience.

[Pendaric]

I would tend to agree with you lpetrich, but......

Over the years lurking and participating in GRD, I've seen plenty of attacks on bible passages that quite frankly did take them out of context and weren't prepared to give any leeway at all for metaphor and allegorism. Sometimes the Christian objections are quite fair and atheists bay for blood for the sake of it without giving any consideration to the wider picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, and a lot of the bible shocks and disgusts me. But we weaken our arguments by going after the wrong targets and then not acknowledging when a Christian makes a valid point in defense.

[stumpjumper]

Jesus taught situational ethics anyway. I would say Christian ethics are a form of virtue ethics and not deontic.

Regardless, though, morality is not absolute and Jesus taught that we needed to situationally interpret moral obligations.

Matthew 22:
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

[His Noodly Appendage]

So exactly what situation makes it morally acceptable to pound someone's face in with a rock for wearing a mixed-fibre shirt?

Can you give me an example of when following this law would be just and right and good and loving?

[stumpjumper]

None from my perspective.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Also, can you explain how wearing mixed fibres is actually immoral?

If not, can you explain why God saw fit to have people brutally killed for something that was not even immoral?

[His Noodly Appendage]

None from my perspective.

So, under which circumstances was the law meant to be enforced?

[stumpjumper]

So, under which circumstances was the law meant to be enforced?

You're missing the point of those commandments, though.

The commandments in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were meant to reinforce a sense of separation or ritual holiness within Israel as contrasted with the communities that surrounded them.

They also all had spiritual meanings and theological messages. Take the one about mixed fabric clothing. You need to interpret that in comparison with Deut. 22:9 and like passages about not mixing seeds in fields. The meaning is that we should not blur the distinctions within nature and that Israel should enforce the distinctions God made within nature. This is all part of the commandments about Israel not mixing with other nations but should be Holy and set apart from God.

A lot of the commandments you see in the Bible emphasize this belief that Israel should separate and make distinctions between themselves and the tribes around them. The sexual commandments against incest in Lev. 18 explicitly contrast commandments for Israel with those of the Canaanites and Egyptians where incest was practiced regularly.

The meanings of those commandments goes much deeper than just prohibiting certain actions. Regardless, though, Jesus was of the Pharisaical tradition and believed in an oral and "evolving" law...

[His Noodly Appendage]

But it doesn't matter what the laws were intended to reinforce.

God ordered his people to take up a rock and smash open the skulls of people who had done no wrong, simply because they'd put on a shirt of the wrong cloth.

Imagine it was your own child being dragged into the stoning pit. Would you give a flying fuck about spiritual meanings or a sense of separation?

Do any of those things matter worth a damn next to someone's son or daughter being brutally killed?

He ordered their murder.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's a question - how do you feel about torture by the US government?

Do the politics behind it have any bearing on the ethics of the human suffering being inflicted?

How do you feel when people condone it on political grounds, ignoring the rather more immediate issue of, well, torture?

How should I feel about your post above?

[stumpjumper]

But it doesn't matter what the laws were intended to reinforce.

Sure it does if you want to attempt to understand the culture and people that wrote those commandments.

God ordered his people to take up a rock and smash open the skulls of people who had done no wrong, simply because they'd put on a shirt of the wrong cloth.

I would say both that God did not order that as I do not believe in plenary verbal inspiration nor is that even what the commandments actually say. Carrying out the punishments for violations of the Law was a lot more complicated then just throwing rocks at people.

Imagine it was your own child being dragged into the stoning pit. Would you give a flying fuck about spiritual meanings or a sense of separation?

Do any of those things matter worth a damn next to someone's son or daughter being brutally killed?

He ordered their murder.

Who ordered their murder? What murder are you talking about?

Here's a question - how do you feel about torture by the US government?

Do the politics behind it have any bearing on the ethics of the human suffering being inflicted?

How do you feel when people condone it on political grounds, ignoring the rather more immediate issue of, well, torture?

How should I feel about your post above?

I don't think you can look at anything in a vacuum, though, HNA. This line of thinking that you are putting forth is very black and white.

Overall I do not condone torture of any kind and I'm certainly not a big fan of the current administration's policies but I'm sure that one could lay out a situation where torture (if it is the only means to exact necessary information) is a moral imperative. Perhaps we knew of an immanent threat where an entire city block would be destroyed by a dirty bomb. We have, in custody, the person responsible for planting that bomb and we only have two hours to find it or else an entire NYC block and tens of thousands of people will be destroyed.

Would you object to extracting that information from the terrorist even if torture needed to be used to do so? I would say the greater good dictates the moral imperative in that situation...

[fundie]

In the law of Moses God gives many commands to Israel, such as not eating shrimp, not wearing mixed fibres, etc. These things were not prohibitted because they were immoral. They were part of Gods covenant with Israel, serving to keep them seperate and remind them of their God. The law was not a grievous burden, but for those that loved the Lord keeping his law was a delight.
Other parts of the law of Moses are about morality. God prohibits lying and stealing and murder, and instead commands us to love our neighbour. Under Christ we received a new covenant and the ceremonial parts of the law were done away with. The bible is explicit that followers of God need not obey Law of Moses commands about diet, or about the circumcision. Much of the moral law is repeated under the new covenant.
So why is homosexuality a sin under the new covenant? It is stated directly that it is a sin in the New Testament, in Romans. It is part of the biblical morality about sex, which is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. Our bodies are not our own, but belong to God, and so we should honor God with our bodies. Also lusting, wicked imaginations and pornography are all sinful, and the reasons are given in the NT.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Sure it does if you want to attempt to understand the culture and people that wrote those commandments.

I'm not. I'm trying to judge the God (whether it exists or no) that their descendents see fit to worship, and its suitability as a moral guide.

I would say both that God did not order that as I do not believe in plenary verbal inspiration

Right, um. So what about Jesus? Did the things he said have any kind of divine weight?

Because he did speak of coming to fulfil the law, and all that. If he was no prophet, why do you take what he said as, well, gospel?

On the other hand - if he was one, then why didn't he decry all those that came before him as fakes for claiming to speak for God - and isn't that one hell of a coincidence that he agreed with so much of what they said?

nor is that even what the commandments actually say. Carrying out the punishments for violations of the Law was a lot more complicated then just throwing rocks at people.

A subtlety that tends to be lost on the people doing the actual dying-horribly.

Who ordered their murder? What murder are you talking about?

The being stoned, burned, beheaded, etc. You can't call it justice if someone is killed for no wrongdoing. What name do you give the equivalent actions of nasty little dictators, such as throwing people in a woodchipper for their political views?

I don't think you can look at anything in a vacuum, though, HNA. This line of thinking that you are putting forth is very black and white.

Yes. Yes it is. It's a shit sandwich. It doesn't matter how much strawberry jam you put on it, or what shape you cut it into, it's still a shit sandwich.

People were horribly killed for behaviour you cannot condemn as wrong at all, much less meriting the death penalty. That is injustice, that is barbarism, that is evil.

Those facts will not go away, whatever you stack atop them. And if someone took a rock to your loved ones' skulls, methinks the contrast would increase for you somewhat and all.

Overall I do not condone torture of any kind and I'm certainly not a big fan of the current administration's policies but I'm sure that one could lay out a situation where torture (if it is the only means to exact necessary information) is a moral imperative. Perhaps we knew of an immanent threat where an entire city block would be destroyed by a dirty bomb. We have, in custody, the person responsible for planting that bomb and we only have two hours to find it or else an entire NYC block and tens of thousands of people will be destroyed.

Would you object to extracting that information from the terrorist even if torture needed to be used to do so? I would say the greater good dictates the moral imperative in that situation...

Find a randomly-selected person off the street, hold a pair of pliers to their face, then look me in the eye and tell me that again.

While you're at it - an exercise for you.

Write a letter to the traumatised, grieving parents of a stoning victim, explaining why it was not only necessary, but also good and right and moral and just, that their daughter be killed for the shirt she put on.

I'd love to see it.

[stumpjumper]

I'm not. I'm trying to judge the God (whether it exists or no) that their descendents see fit to worship, and its suitability as a moral guide.

Well I don't see how you can judge God as a moral guide unless and until you put religious beliefs and statements in perspective.

And, when you do so, you will only really be judging the moral statements and positions of those scribes and redactors who actually wrote the scriptures.



Right, um. So what about Jesus? Did the things he said have any kind of divine weight?

Because he did speak of coming to fulfil the law, and all that. If he was no prophet, why do you take what he said as, well, gospel?

The Gospel is much more than what Jesus said, though. And even what he said needs to be interpreted through understanding the contextual situation within which it arose and was put to pen by others.

Did he fulfill the law? Sure. But what do you think that means?

A subtlety that tends to be lost on the people doing the actual dying-horribly.



The being stoned, burned, beheaded, etc. You can't call it justice if someone is killed for no wrongdoing. What name do you give the equivalent actions of nasty little dictators, such as throwing people in a woodchipper for their political views?



Yes. Yes it is. It's a shit sandwich. It doesn't matter how much strawberry jam you put on it, or what shape you cut it into, it's still a shit sandwich.

People were horribly killed for behaviour you cannot condemn as wrong at all, much less meriting the death penalty. That is injustice, that is barbarism, that is evil.

Those facts will not go away, whatever you stack atop them. And if someone took a rock to your loved ones' skulls, methinks the contrast would increase for you somewhat and all.

And how many people do you think died horribly because of the Levirite commandments on mixed fabric clothing?

More specifically, how many people do you believe were stoned because of mixed fabric clothing? This wasn't 20th century America we're talking about here where you can buy a Hanes 50/50 at Walmart for 10 bucks.

Fact of the matter is they just didn't wear mixed fabric clothing for the most part. Additionally, you can find a lot of writings against those Levirite laws in Leviticus by other authors in the Bible. I believe Ruth would be a good source to look up.

Find a randomly-selected person off the street, hold a pair of pliers to their face, then look me in the eye and tell me that again.

While you're at it - an exercise for you.

Write a letter to the traumatised, grieving parents of a stoning victim, explaining why it was not only necessary, but also good and right and moral and just, that their daughter be killed for the shirt she put on.

I'd love to see it.

That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I suppose that because of your black and white thinking you would let tens of thousands of people die a horrible death because you know that torture is wrong and you would never allow it under any circumstances.

Black and white thinking like that is very dangerous...

[hecaterin]

The terrorism analogy is TERRIBLE. Torture notoriously does not extract any useful information, only what the torturer wants to hear (if the victim can guess what that it is while they still have teeth). Even the CIA knows that. Hollywood and TV have lied to you. Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

As to the rest of it, stoning was not a fictitious scare-punishment that would never be applied. People have been stoned to death *recently*, for violating some stupid commandment about sex. There was one on youtube. Look that up first and then say it's perfectly fine as a punishment for anything at all.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Bah. Just lost a huge post. I HATE that.

Well I don't see how you can judge God as a moral guide unless and until you put religious beliefs and statements in perspective.

And, when you do so, you will only really be judging the moral statements and positions of those scribes and redactors who actually wrote the scriptures.

In that case, I presume you'll agree that the laws were, basically, forgeries. A bunch of religious nuts had their own ideas how people should live, and pretended that God Said So, in order that other people should give a damn - and in fact there's no reason to ascribe any moral weight to scripture.

Good.


The Gospel is much more than what Jesus said, though. And even what he said needs to be interpreted through understanding the contextual situation within which it arose and was put to pen by others.

Either his words had divine authority, or they didn't.

If they didn't, then he's just another religious nut whose ideas can be discarded.

If they did, then the fact that he acknowledged 'the law' affirms that law with divine authority, and we're back where we started - with god condoning the brutal death of innocents for blameless behaviour.

Did he fulfill the law? Sure. But what do you think that means?

I think it means that you are acknowledging its existence as the Will of God.

And how many people do you think died horribly because of the Levirite commandments on mixed fabric clothing?

More specifically, how many people do you believe were stoned because of mixed fabric clothing? This wasn't 20th century America we're talking about here where you can buy a Hanes 50/50 at Walmart for 10 bucks.

Fact of the matter is they just didn't wear mixed fabric clothing for the most part. Additionally, you can find a lot of writings against those Levirite laws in Leviticus by other authors in the Bible. I believe Ruth would be a good source to look up.

It doesn't *matter* how many times it was enforced. If scriptural law had divine authority, then God condones the brutal death of innocents for blameless behaviour.

That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Yes, it has. You were making excuses for the law, claiming that essentially political motivation (a sense of separation and holiness for the people as a whole) justified it, despite its draconian, inhumane nature.

I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is, and explain to a grieving parent why natty political symbolism was more important than the life of their child, that it was necessary to kill them over such a trivial matter.

If you cannot, then the law is an abomination, and its author abominable.

I suppose that because of your black and white thinking you would let tens of thousands of people die a horrible death because you know that torture is wrong and you would never allow it under any circumstances.

Black and white thinking like that is very dangerous...

While you're at it, explain how a slight lessening of separation and holiness is as bad as a dirty bomb.

[stumpjumper]

Yes, it has. You were making excuses for the law, claiming that essentially political motivation (a sense of separation and holiness for the people as a whole) justified it, despite its draconian, inhumane nature.

I'm not trying to justify it, though. I'm just attempting to explain it or understand it and I thought you were attempting to do the same.

I already said that I couldn't give you a context within which those laws are just but that doesn't mean we can't take the time to understand why many of those laws were created.

Additionally, if you read the Jewish scriptures you will see that nothing was quite so black and white. A great many of the Prophets wrote about inhumane aspects of the Levirite laws. That's what Leviticus stands for, btw, the Levirite or Priestly laws. Dig through Jeremiah or Micah and you'll see condemnations of the purity laws for the most part.

I'm just not going to give a blanket condemnation of something without taking the time to understand the culture and perspective. Nor do I feel that the Jewish scriptures have nothing to teach us even if some of the purity and holiness laws within are quite primitive.

They were a primitive people afterall...

[His Noodly Appendage]

Stumpy: do you believe that any part of scripture represents How God Really Feels About Stuff?

[Barbarian]

Additionally, if you read the Jewish scriptures you will see that nothing was quite so black and white. A great many of the Prophets wrote about inhumane aspects of the Levirite laws. That's what Leviticus stands for, btw, the Levirite or Priestly laws. Dig through Jeremiah or Micah and you'll see condemnations of the purity laws for the most part.That's a protip. Let me see if I can find those parts.I'm just not going to give a blanket condemnation of something without taking the time to understand the culture and perspective.Wouldn't it be more straightforward to condemn both the law and the culture in the same breath? The culture was primitive, insecure and bloodthirsty; to our major surprise, their laws reflect these qualities.Nor do I feel that the Jewish scriptures have nothing to teach us even if some of the purity and holiness laws within are quite primitive.What, exactly, do they have to teach us? There's the part we know is wrong and there's the part we know is right based on other sources. Is there a third part which is right and only known from the Bible, not from other sources which would make the Bible unnecessary? What of importance would we not know if the Bible was forever lost and forgotten?

[stumpjumper]

Stumpy: do you believe that any part of scripture represents How God Really Feels About Stuff?

Sure but filtered through all the rest of those aspects that break down communication and revelation.

I mean I don't believe that the authors of scripture had a direct line to God and could just take dictation.

I also think you can learn about how God really feels about stuff from places outside of the Bible. There is harmony and disharmony.

I see God in the harmony.

"Our valors are our best gods." ~ Emerson

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ah, so there's no reason to take seriously anything the bible says about ethics and morality?

Well, howdy, brother! You're one of us!

Of course if the bible is so fundamentally redundant on ethical matters, what makes you think it's any better in any other field?

[Gary Hurd]

Many of the laws in the Old Testament are now considered barbaric, draconian, and inapplicable, with nasty punishments for 'crimes' such as wearing mixed fibres, eating shrimp and a host of other behaviours that harm nobody.

This raises a fairly obvious question: are those behaviours immoral? Sufficiently immoral as to merit a painful death, putting them right up there with rape and murder?

If so, then how can the vast majority of Christians live with such a burden of guilt, and why do they keep doing these things, and tolerating them in others?

If they are not significantly immoral, then this raises another question:

Was it not immensely unjust and sadistic of God to decree brutal punishment and erevealation"xecution for actions that do not in any way deserve it?

If you would get God off the hook by claiming that what is moral has changed between then and now, then you are surely admitting that morality is fluid, changing and not determinable by ancient proclamations.

And if THAT is the case, then can we not utterly discard all scriptural proscriptions as irrelevant to determining correct behaviour?

Now, can you remind me why homosexuality/etc is Bad and Wrong?

Those of us who support the notion of evolution acknowledge that the first, second, or millionth lifeform was imperfect. And now that we are witness to the million-billion-trillionth life forms, none of them are perfect.

I suspect that many of the primitive regulations had some sort of rational agrument. In fact the rational argument was probably prior to the "revelation." This would be the argument of Marvin Harris in his books. But, this allows the examination of a notion of "moral." Someone is moral as they consistantly follow a set of precepts. The precepts may be considered wrong at a latter time, but the person who had priviously followed them need not be cosidered immoral as a consequence of that later repudiation. Creationists like to point to old failures of evolutioary theory and claim that these invalidate all sicence.

[His Noodly Appendage]

GH: Yes, but read the OP - that's what I was shooting for.


Morality is fluid (and the precepts in the bible are now obsolete), and/or
God is evil (and the precepts in the bible are thus irrelevant), and/or
The bible is not authoritative (and the precepts therein are thus irrelevant).


Scriptural basis for moral condemnation is thus completely baseless.

[stumpjumper]

Ah, so there's no reason to take seriously anything the bible says about ethics and morality?



Well I wouldn't say that either.

I do think that the Christian depiction of morality is virtue based, though. That being the case, you can't look within the Bible or anything for absolute commandments on how to act or what to do as morality is inherently contextual and guided by what type of person we should be not what types of actions we should do.

So, is there any reason to take the commandments within the Bible seriously? It really depends upon the context within which you find yourself. Should I take the commandments to not wear mixed fabric clothing seriously? No.

Was there a context within which that commandment, not the draconian punishment, had some value, though? Yes. The listed punishment was obviously extreme but that's a different issue than the actual commandment.

Regardless, though, Jesus was generally viewed as belonging to a Pharisaical school of exegesis and would have followed an oral and evolving law or Torah.

[Ray Moscow]

They were a primitive people afterall...

If they were so "primitive", then why does anyone expect that they preserved, or even recorded accurately in the first place, God's word?

The picture we get from the Hebrew Bible often paints God as a insane, unpredictable and very immoral character. I see no reason to worship such a god, even if it did exist.

[stumpjumper]

That's a protip. Let me see if I can find those parts.

Jeremiah and the talk of a "new covenant", Jer. 31 or so, would be a good example.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to condemn both the law and the culture in the same breath? The culture was primitive, insecure and bloodthirsty; to our major surprise, their laws reflect these qualities.What, exactly, do they have to teach us?

Well I think we need to separate the laws themselves from the punishments for violating the laws. The punishments, overall, were obviously extreme but that is characteristic of all of the cultures of that time.

It's not the Egyptians, Canaanites, or Babylonians had more "modern" forms of punishment.

I think we can find a valued sense of family, honor, and justice in the Old Testament for one thing and I do think they are important values today.

There's the part we know is wrong and there's the part we know is right based on other sources. Is there a third part which is right and only known from the Bible, not from other sources which would make the Bible unnecessary? What of importance would we not know if the Bible was forever lost and forgotten?

I would say that's a very difficult question to answer. For one thing, Western culture would be completely different were it not for Christianity. For better or for worse, Christianity has had the largest impact upon the past 2000 years of western culture than any other philosophy.

Are there unique statements in the Bible? Yes and no. I think the formulation of what the Bible and Christianity tells us about the world is unique even if many of those aspects or statements can be found in other philosophies...

[Ray Moscow]

Jeremiah and the talk of a "new covenant", Jer. 31 or so, would be a good example.



That was just a revival of the Mosiac "convenant", not anything particularly new. The Torah was thought to be valid forever.

Christians hammer on Jeremiah 31 out of context frequently as if it applied to Christianity. It doesn't.

[stumpjumper]

That was just a revival of the Mosiac "convenant", not anything particularly new. The Torah was thought to be valid forever.


I'd disagree and that really depends upon the Jewish exegetical school you are following.

The Sadducees (Sudduceean), Pharisees (Pharisaical), and the Essenes all had different ways of viewing the Torah.

The Pharisees, whom Jesus' view of the Bible was closest, believed in an oral and evolving Torah and it was from this school that the Talmudic interpretations emerged.

Sure, the Torah was valid but what is the Torah? You'd get a different answer from each school of thought...

[Ray Moscow]

I'd disagree and that really depends upon the Jewish exegetical school you are following.

The Sadducees (Sudduceean), Pharisees (Pharisaical), and the Essenes all had different ways of viewing the Torah.

The Pharisees, whom Jesus' view of the Bible was closest, believed in an oral and evolving Torah and it was from this school that the Talmudic interpretations emerged.

Sure, the Torah was valid but what is the Torah? You'd get a different answer from each school of thought...

The views differed indeed, but not the Torah nor its permanence. The term refers to the written "books of Moses". It refers to other things only in a loose, general sense.

Just search through the Torah for words like "forever" and "everlasting" to see what I mean.

The Talmud was interpretations and commentary -- it never replaced the Torah itself, and was never intended to.

[stumpjumper]

The views differed indeed, but not the Torah nor its permanence. The term refers to the written "books of Moses". It refers to other things only in a loose, general sense.

That's not exclusively correct. Yes, the written Torah is the Pentateuch or Chumash but Torah means teaching. The oral Torah is still a teaching and goes beyond the written law in the first five books of Moses.

Just search through the Torah for words like "forever" and "everlasting" to see what I mean.

I know what that means. To be quite honest, I don't think you do, though.

What did Rabbi Hillel say when he was asked to sum up the Torah? What does that mean?

What does it mean for the law to be fulfilled?

The Talmud was interpretations and commentary -- it never replaced the Torah itself, and was never intended to.

And I never said it did replace the written Torah. The Talmudic era was an off-shoot of the school that believed in an oral Torah.

Torah, teaching, and/or law, though, has a much broader meaning than just the five books of Moses.

[Ray Moscow]

I know what that means. To be quite honest, I don't think you do, though.



Ha! What does "forever" mean, then?

To be quite honest, I think you are dishonest about this, as your two comments below illustrate.

What did Rabbi Hillel say when he was asked to sum up the Torah? What does that mean?

Not relevant

What does it mean for the law to be fulfilled?

Not relevant, and in any event "fulfilled" doesn't mean "nullified".

[stumpjumper]

Ha! What does "forever" mean, then?

To be quite honest, I think you are dishonest about this, as your two comments below illustrate.

Again, though, what is the Torah?

The word Torah does not just refer to the Pentateuch. The Torah/Law stands until all if fulfilled but what is the Torah/Law and what does it mean to be fulfilled?



Not relevant


It's completely relevant because it shows that the Law/Torah refers to something much deeper than the first five books in the Jewish Bible.


Not relevant, and in any event "fulfilled" doesn't mean "nullified".

Nope and that's not what I said.

It does mean moving beyond, though. All Jews and Christians would say that the Torah/Law serves a purpose and one which will be realized with God's action.

[Ray Moscow]

Me previously: Not relevant, and in any event "fulfilled" doesn't mean "nullified".


Nope. It means moving beyond, though.

No, it doesn't. That's a Christian interpretation that's foreign to Judaism, ancient or modern.

I have "fulfilled" the laws of England since I have lived here. That doesn't mean I can now ignore them.

Think about this in any context other than the Christian NT and it commentors, and you'll see that "forever" means "forever", and "fulfilled" doesn't mean "moving beyond" or "nullified".

[stumpjumper]

No, it doesn't. That's a Christian interpretation that's foreign to Judaism, ancient or modern.

Do Reform Jews follow each and every commandment in the written Torah?

Do you know what role the Law plays in connection with Jewish eschatology?

I have "fulfilled" the laws of England since I have lived here. That doesn't mean I can now ignore them.

If you don't live in England anymore you sure can. Doesn't mean that when the laws were nullified, though. It just means that they are no longer applicable to you.

Think about this in any context other than the Christian NT and it commentors, and you'll see that "forever" means "forever", and "fulfilled" doesn't mean "moving beyond" or "nullified".

I would tell you to look up Reform Judaism. They would agree that the Law lasts forever until fulfilled but they would disagree both on what the Law is and what it means to fulfill something eschatologically speaking.

[Lucretius III]

Do Reform Jews follow each and every commandment in the written Torah?

Do you know what role the Law plays in connection with Jewish eschatology?



If you don't live in England anymore you sure can. Doesn't mean that when the laws were nullified, though. It just means that they are no longer applicable to you.


I would tell you to look up Reform Judaism. They would agree that the Law lasts forever until fulfilled but they would disagree both on what the Law is and what it means to fulfill something eschatologically speaking.

Just question about the highlighted part
What is the distinction you make between "nullified" and "no longer applicable (to you )"?

[Ray Moscow]

Do Reform Jews follow each and every commandment in the written Torah?

Do you know what role the Law plays in connection with Jewish eschatology?



Again, not relevant

If you don't live in England anymore you sure can. Doesn't mean that when the laws were nullified, though. It just means that they are no longer applicable to you.

Go back and look up "forever" again, and it wouldn't hurt you to read a bit of the Torah you keep going on about.

I would tell you to look up Reform Judaism. They would agree that the Law lasts forever until fulfilled but they would disagree both on what the Law is and what it means to fulfill something eschatologically speaking.

I don't see how modern Reform Judaism eschatology is relevant to the discussion.

[stumpjumper]

Just question about the highlighted part
What is the distinction you make between "nullified" and "no longer applicable (to you )"?

It's covenantal theology. There are different covenants within the Jewish Bible and the Christian message is that Jesus Christ inaugurated a "New Covenant". Now whether or not you believe that is true, that the Christian message is a new covenant, is a side issue.

The fact remains that there are numerous covenants within the Jewish Bible and newer covenants do not nullify the old ones but expand upon them in different ways so that one lives by the covenant that they affirm with God.

[stumpjumper]

Again, not relevant.

It is relevant.

The fact is that Reform Jews as well as Christians affirm the validity of the Law but do not believe that all commandments listed in the written Torah are currently valid.



Go back and look up "forever" again, and it wouldn't hurt you to read a bit of the Torah you keep going on about.

I've read the Torah. I've read the Prophets.

You keep harping on "forever" but you are missing the point that the Law is something bigger than the first five books in the Bible.

If you had read the Prophets and the rest of the Tanakh, you would understand that...

I don't see how modern Reform Judaism eschatology is relevant to the discussion.

What are you even arguing at this point?

It is relevant because it is germane to the discussion about the "Law".

That thing that you think stands "forever"...

[Ray Moscow]

It's covenantal theology. There are different covenants within the Jewish Bible and the Christian message is that Jesus Christ inaugurated a "New Covenant". Now whether or not you believe that is true, that the Christian message is a new covenant, is a side issue.

The fact remains that there are numerous covenants within the Jewish Bible and newer covenants do not nullify the old ones but expand upon them in different ways so that one lives by the covenant that they affirm with God.

This seems identical to just "making stuff up to suit my religious views".

Ray (former Christian who's heard this stuff thousands of times)

[Lucretius III]

I am still a litle bit confused Stumpjumper (I accept that as I have been online researching and writing all afternoon about "non religious stuff ", my brain may be a bit befuddled by now ), as I cannot see any practical difference between a part of the "Law" as you call it that has been "nullified" and one that is "no longer applicable".

[Ray Moscow]

The fact is that Reform Jews as well as Christians affirm the validity of the Law but do not believe that all commandments listed in the written Torah are currently valid.


Yes, I know all that. It's not relevant to what the Torah says nor how it was traditionally interpreted in Judaism.

I've read the Torah. I've read the Prophets.

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the Torah.

You keep harping on "forever" but you are missing the point that the Law is something bigger than the first five books in the Bible.

We covered that already. You are using the word in a very vague sense that allows you to talk crap by twisting its meaning.

If you had read the Prophets and the rest of the Tanakh, you would understand that...

I have read them, probably more than you, judging for your posts -- which are mostly Christian apologetics.

What are you even arguing at this point?

That you are talking out of your ass by spouting Christian apologetic BS that doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.

It is relevant because it is germane to the discussion about the "Law".

That thing that you think stands "forever"...

It's not what I think, it's what the Torah says.

What I think is that the Torah is wrong about practically everything, except for being a compilation of what Jews believed in a certain period of their history.

[Ray Moscow]

I am still a litle bit confused Stumpjumper (I accept that as I have been online researching and writing all afternoon about "non religious stuff ", my brain may be a bit befuddled by now ), as I cannot see any practical difference between a part of the "Law" as you call it that has been "nullified" and one that is "no longer applicable".


The main difference is that Stumper thinks that there is a difference. He might be shocked now that he's outside of church and finds that his doctrines have no clothes.

[stumpjumper]

This seems identical to just "making stuff up to suit my religious views".

Ray (former Christian who's heard this stuff thousands of times)

There are various covenants within the Bible.

I would suggest you read up on them and how even Genesis shows that they change.

This is the Noachic Covenant. It is different from the previous Covenants...

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

[Ray Moscow]

***Yawn*** So now we're back in dispensationalist Sunday school?

[stumpjumper]

I am still a litle bit confused Stumpjumper (I accept that as I have been online researching and writing all afternoon about "non religious stuff ", my brain may be a bit befuddled by now ), as I cannot see any practical difference between a part of the "Law" as you call it that has been "nullified" and one that is "no longer applicable".

Well, in a sense, it is nullified. That's not really a word I would use though because I would say that Jesus fulfilled and affirmed the Law not made it invalid.

The Law though is not the first five books of the Bible as Ray would have us believe.

Regardless, though, what is the "Law"? It's not a static thing. It's a dynamic presence of the reason/Logos of God within creation. You can look in the Jewish scriptures and see this overlap between Chockmah (Wisdom) and the Law.

Rabbi Hillel said that the whole of the Torah can be summed up as "do not do unto others what you would not want them to do to you".

Jesus said that all the Law and all the Prophets hang on the commandments to love one another. All of that is situational and dynamic.

The Law itself is not nullified in any sense but certain commandments are no longer valid and even many Jews affirm that. The Law is dynamic and evolving and can only be applied contextually.

That is what it means to have the law written on one's heart...

[stumpjumper]

***Yawn*** So now we're back in dispensationalist Sunday school?

No.

I'm not a dispensationalist.

Honestly, I am not going to waste any more time on this as it is clear to me that you just want to argue.

Covenantal Theology is not dispensationalism.

I've got more important things to do though.

[Ray Moscow]

Stumper, let's cut the chase, shall we?

First you need to establish that the Bible has some reasonable accuracy or validity as an historical document, or a scientific document, or some other endevour that has some applicability to the human condition.

Till then, it's just another collection of bronze and iron age mythology and religious pseudo-history. I've read it a fair bit, plus many books and articles about it, and I've never found anything to elevate it above that status.

[Ray Moscow]

No.

I'm not a dispensationalist.

Honestly, I am not going to waste any more time on this as it is clear to me that you just want to argue.

Covenantal Theology is not dispensationalism.

I've got more important things to do though.

Perhaps you can try a Covenantal Theology forum then.

IIRC, your OP was to the effect that the laws of the Hebrew Bible were not immoral. Your attempted explanation relies on "covenantal theology". As far as I've seen, you haven't establish that as a relevant subject.

In other words, FAIL.

The laws of the Hebrew Bible are in large part immoral.

[Febble]

No.

I'm not a dispensationalist.

Honestly, I am not going to waste any more time on this as it is clear to me that you just want to argue.

Covenantal Theology is not dispensationalism.

I've got more important things to do though.

Well, I'm interested. Tell me about Covenantal Theology.

[Dlx2]

Oh man, this is silly.

First of all, the Mosaic Laws are not uniquely Jewish. Most of them are equivalent to the laws in Hammurabi's code. So, either they were derived from the same set of tribal semitic practices, or the Hebrews borrowed extensively from Hammurabi. The fact that Hammurabi put up big stone steles around his empire with his code engraved in them suggests to me that this is the basis of Moses's stone tablets from a social/literary perspective. This is, however, idle speculation on my part.

Now, what does the law actually indicate?

There are a lot of mitzvot and not all of them are applicable to modern life. A vast majority of the mitzvot are associated with temple duties of the priesthood, or cleanliness duties associated with the offering of sacrifices at the temple. These are not relevant to modern life because there is not a temple to Yahweh anymore, and there probably never will be.

Then you have a bunch of laws associated with the celebration of the festivals. These laws are specifically of interest to Jews. Not all Jews follow them, but that's partly a result of living in a modern society where going off into your field and building a temporary shack for a week in the fall just isn't possible.

Finally, you have a lot of laws associated with conduct towards other people. These are essentially a list of secular rules for how to live in society. What you in fact see is not a set of regulations so much as an explanation for how violations of civil behavior (or the ancient semitic conception of civil behavior) will be settled by the courts. It's highly concerned with blood guilt, which is why the text says over and over again that an executed offender's blood will be on his/her own hands. The basis for this is to centralize punishment rather than leaving punishment to vigilantism, and to codify the punishments for various violations of civil behavior.

Now, ignore the dictates concerning the temple and the festivals and focus solely on the third set. Yes, some of these are morally wrong from a 20th century perspective. Some of the punishments are unduly harsh, some of the "crimes" are things we would not consider crime in this enlightened age, and some of the laws condone institutions, like slavery, that are highly immoral in retrospect. I'd argue though that codification of violations and their punishments, and the elimination of blood guilt and vengeance killing, are at least steps in the right direction as far as civilized legalism goes.

So, no, I wouldn't say that the Mosaic laws are the pinnacle of morality, but in context of the time they were originally codified, they are civilized at the very least. Most Jewish eschatology (both liberal and orthodox) emphasizes the aspects of the laws that correspond to treating others with dignity and generally discards the intolerant and bloodthirsty bits as being remnants of an earlier time.

[Barbarian]

Jeremiah and the talk of a "new covenant", Jer. 31 or so, would be a good example.Thanks. I haven't gotten around to look it up yet, but will.I think we can find a valued sense of family, honor, and justice in the Old Testament for one thing and I do think they are important values today.Well, I beg to differ there. The sense of justice is that of ius talionis, today typically confined to third world countries. As for honor, that's a double-edged word; for me, it means that one has a ridiculous number of silly ways he can be provoked, and 'defending one's honor' is but a codeword for licence to violence ("Did you stare at me? I'll knock your teeth out."). As for the sense of family, isn't that natural even without a book?Are there unique statements in the Bible? Yes and no. I think the formulation of what the Bible and Christianity tells us about the world is unique even if many of those aspects or statements can be found in other philosophies...I don't think this is an issue of being unique. Of course much of it is unique, but then Harry Potter is unique, too. The question is, are there components in the Bible which would point to it being anything more than a collection of folklore? Because too many people have announced too many times that the Bible contains special knowledge, which could only have come from God - therefore, my default is to assume that anyone promoting any virtue of the Bible is doing the same.

Anyway, your OP seems to boil down to "the OT laws were not considered immoral in their age", which nobody disagrees with. The question is, are they considered moral after an additional three thousand years worth of social experience, i.e. from a more informed point of view?

[Ray Moscow]

Well, I'm interested. Tell me about Covenantal Theology.

Febble, I thought everyone (church-going folks at least) knew this stuff from Bible class. Maybe I just did too much reading on the wrong subjects!

Covenant theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Theology)

Covenant theology is a prominent feature in Protestant theology, especially in churches holding a reformed view of theology such as the Reformed churches and Presbyterian churches and, in different forms, some Methodist churches and in some Baptist churches.

[Ray Moscow]

Oh man, this is silly.

SNIP

So, no, I wouldn't say that the Mosaic laws are the pinnacle of morality, but in context of the time they were originally codified, they are civilized at the very least. Most Jewish eschatology (both liberal and orthodox) emphasizes the aspects of the laws that correspond to treating others with dignity and generally discards the intolerant and bloodthirsty bits as being remnants of an earlier time.

IMO, the silly bit is taking any of the more brutal aspects of "the law of Moses" as having any moral validity today. To take a couple of examples,

Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

or

Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely
be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If those could be considered "civilsed" by the standards of their period, that only shows that that period has nothing to teach us about morality.

[Dlx2]

IMO, the silly bit is taking any of the more brutal aspects of "the law of Moses" as having any moral validity today.

Actually, I would consider that less silly and more "fucking disgusting."

Re: Witches: The phrase in question explicitly means a person who bewitches other harmfully. Recognize that in a lot of tribal societies, accidents, insanity, suicide, and so forth were/are assumed to be the product of witchcraft, not accident or psychological issues. The reason we don't kill witches anymore is not because we've suddenly become tolerant of this sort of magic, but rather because we have come to recognize that this sort of magic does not exist. Modern neopagan and wiccan reappropriation of the word "witch" aside, a malevolent witch (if they actually existed) would be guilty of a form of torture or murder, for which death was a reasonable punishment.

Re: homosexuality:

These passages are certainly not relevant to modern concepts of morality. Most Jewish eschatology ignores such laws, or addresses them in context of "these laws are old and we don't use them anymore."

If those could be considered "civilsed" by the standards of their period, that only shows that that period has nothing to teach us about morality.

The portions of the Moraic (and Hammurabi) code which are relevant to modern discourse on legislation and morality have already been incorporated to such a great degree that they hardly seem like a portion of the Torah at all. Studying the Mosaic laws is interesting from a historical perspective, but it really doesn't make much sense in context of modern ethical discourse.

[Ray Moscow]

Dlx2, I certainly have no problem with a rational exploration (like yours) of the Bible or religious traditions. I've participated in such discussions myself many times, and I still probably read a lot more on such topics than I should (an old habit from my religious days).

The problem is basically those who regard this stuff as "God's eternal Word" or some such and use it as the basis of not only their own morality but also want to push it on the rest of society.

If it's an immoral or evil rule, we need to call it that so that uneducated and, well, stupid people don't get mislead into following it. There are a lot of people trying to mislead the gullible to do exactly that.

[Dlx2]

Dlx2, I certainly have no problem with a rational exploration (like yours) of the Bible or religious traditions. I've participated in such discussions myself many times, and I still probably read a lot more on such topics than I should (an old habit from my religious days).

The problem is basically those who regard this stuff as "God's eternal Word" or some such and use it as the basis of not only their own morality but also want to push it on the rest of society.

If it's an immoral or evil rule, we need to call it that so that uneducated and, well, stupid people don't get mislead into following it. There are a lot of people trying to mislead the gullible to do exactly that.

I suppose my take on the matter is that putting the entire thing in the proper context is potentially the best approach to the whole situation. Attacking specific aspects of the OT laws and saying "well, this is immoral by today's standards" tends to play into the hands of the sorts of religious fanatics who say "well, yes, the old testament was screwed up, but then Jesus came along and made everything better." That's obviously not the case; the New Testament basically says, "don't worry about keeping kosher and circumcising your children (which are frankly relatively innocuous cultural practices) but the slavery and homophobia? that's just fine."

The fact of the matter is, morality is an ever-evolving set of concepts. Once, slavery was the big moral issue when it came to race, then segregation. Today, issues of stereotyping, racial profiling, and white-normative expectations are the main concern. In twenty years, it'll be something else entirely. A similar trend can be seen in context of sex and gender issues. Homosexuality is finally become acceptable, but what about polyamory? What about trasngenderism? What about people who lack a sexual identity or gender identity? People may be okay with gays, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 99.99% of those people (including gays!) still support raising their children with rather strict gender identities. It that moral? I'd argue that it isn't, but it's still the norm in our society.

What I mean to say is, morality is a process, not a specific set of principles. A progressive society is one which recognizes that no matter how far we've come, we still have a long way to go. A stagnant society is one which is perfectly willing to rest on its past achievements without recognizing that new achievements still must be made. A regressive society is one which opts for the olden days where things were better for them at the expense of other people. Fundamentalists are generally of the third party, and represent a decline in civilization not because they espouse principles which were progressive in their day, but because they reject all progress since that time in favor of a world where they succeed at the expense of others.

[Febble]

Febble, I thought everyone (church-going folks at least) knew this stuff from Bible class. Maybe I just did too much reading on the wrong subjects!

Covenant theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Theology)

Musta been to the wrong churches.

[stumpjumper]

Well, I'm interested. Tell me about Covenantal Theology.

Karl Barth can tell you best ;)

He was neither a Calvinist or a dispensationalist but he had a lot to say about Covenant theology...