OT laws and morality

[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.