God's Laws Arbitrary?

[McCulloch]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

[cnorman18]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Yes.

First, a few details: the Torah is the first five books of the Bible, not the entire Old Testament. The Law is sometimes used as a synonym for the Torah, though the word actually translates as "Teaching," not "Law."

The Law I would guess that you're referring to would be Jewish Law, or Halakhah in Hebrew, which translates literally as "Walk," as in "Path." Those laws are derived from the Torah by the consensus of sages and rabbis in the Talmud, though some are matters of oral tradition that were never written until modern times.

An enormous proportion of the laws are truly obsolete; they have to do with ritual and procedure in the Temple, and of course there is no Temple and hasn't been since 70 CE. The rabbis continued to debate and refine those laws long after the fact anyway, more as a devotional procedure than anything else; besides, much of Jewish liturgy, even today, derives from rites in the Temple. The times of prayer, for instance--shaharit, mincha and maariv, or morning, afternoon and evening--are based on the times of sacrifices in the Temple.

Virtually all of the "purity" laws that declare things or people "clean" or "unclean" are laws of this type, e.g., the laws that declare a person "unclean" after contact with the dead. These laws have nothing to do with sin or a person being guilty of anything in any sense; they have to do with some sort of ritual unsuitability for entering the Temple. The very word "unclean" is an unfortunate translation; the Hebrew word is tamei, and there is no cognate for it in any language I know. It carries no negative connotation whatever in Hebrew.

It would make no sense to associate this word with any kind of guilt or sin; for instance, a man was tamei after a seminal emission (including during intercourse), and a woman was tamei during her menses. These are normal conditions; for a woman every month, and all men, even the High Priest, were expected to father children and have families. Everyone was expected to prepare and bury their dead, and so on. Everyone was tamei at one time or another. Furthermore, since becoming ritually pure again generally required a rite of "cleansing" at the Temple, everyone is tamei today, with no way to become un-tamei.

It had nothing to do with hygiene, either; excrement was not tamei, nor did contact with it render one tamei, though it is clearly regarded as unhygienic and "dirty" in the modern sense.

There are some odd laws here; the skin disease called "leprosy" rendered one tamei, but if the whiteness covered the entire body, one was no longer tamei. (This disease apparently no longer exists; whatever it was, it certainly wasn't Hansen's disease, which is what we call "leprosy" today.) There is clearly something going on here that we no longer understand.

As for the rest of the laws, most are just commonsense corollaries of commandments in the Torah that most would agree with anyway. Laws about property, the payment of wages, boundaries between tracts of land, and so on.

As to the laws of kashrut, or the kosher laws; they are not arbitrary either. The Jewish ideal is vegetarianism, and many Jews are vegetarians. This is deduced from the reference in the Torah that "if you have a craving for meat..." implying that it ought to be resisted if possible, but if not, certain procedures are required. These all seem to be concerned with minimizing pain and the shedding of blood as far as possible, as I was quoted above.

First, only certain animals may be eaten. These are all ruminants, that is, plant-eaters. No animal that kills other creatures to live is permitted. This is clearest in the case of birds; the forbidden birds are actually specified, and they are all raptors--hawks, owls, and the like. Eating an animal that is a predator would mean that one is benefiting from and partaking of the killing done by the creature one is eating; and so it is forbidden. Pigs have fangs, like dogs; they are naturally omnivores, both plant- and meat-eaters, and in the wild they do indeed eat both plants and small animals.

Scavengers are also forbidden; thus, no vultures or shellfish. Though they may not kill (crabs and lobsters do, thus the claws), they still eat dead flesh.

Once a permitted animal is chosen, it must be killed in a particular way; not for ritual purposes, but to minimize the creature's pain. The prescribed method has always been the same: one swift, deep stroke across the throat with a literally razor-sharp knife. If you have ever cut yourself with an extremely sharp blade, you know that there is often no pain; one notices the blood, and only then finds the cut. The animal is instantly rendered unconscious, since one of the arteries cut is the one supplying blood to the brain.

Concern and respect for the animal's "feelings," as it were, is made clear in the Torah; a kid or calf is not to be slaughtered in the presence of its mother. There can be no other interpretation of this law.

The animal is then allowed to bleed out. This is essential, since the consumption of blood of any kind is absolutely forbidden; the carcass must be totally drained. This is why the animal may not be killed, for instance, by shooting it in the head; that might be more painless (though that is doubtful), but it stops the heart instantly. The heart must keep beating till all the blood is pumped out. All blood must be poured out on the ground and covered with earth in respect.

After inspection to make sure the animal is free of disease (a complex procedure that is very old, but even today is considered scientifically thorough) and butchering, the meat is then packed in salt to draw out all moisture, especially the blood. The meat is now kosher and fit to eat.

That is not all; meat may not be served at the same meal as a milk product, and Jews who "keep kosher" will almost always have two sets of dishes and cookware to make sure that meat and milk dishes are kept entirely separate. This law comes from the admonition, repeated three times in the Torah, that "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk; it is an abomination." No explicit reason is given for this, but it might be inferred that, since milk is a substance meant to nourish new life, it is inappropriate and wrong to mix it with meat, which requires a death. Life and death are to be kept separate, just as one was not to enter the Temple after being in contact with the dead.

All kosher fish (those with both fins and scales), all eggs, and all plant products are considered "pareve," that is, neither meat nor milk, and may be cooked and served with both.

There is, of course, much more; but these are the basics. They reflect a time when people were much more aware of where their food came from and were much closer to its sources. They also reflect a certain awareness of one's responsibilities toward and respect for other creatures, even the creatures one kills and eats, and a certain humility associated with that practice. One is never permitted to forget that one's meat meal required a death, and one is required to take that fact seriously.

We are, most of us, rather far from that kind of awareness and humility today. Chicken McNuggets and hamburger patties do not grow on bushes; they were once part of living beings that walked and ate and breathed and had, or were, "children" themselves.

There are some laws that seem brutal and unreasonable given in the Torah, like the various offenses that carry the death penalty; cursing one's parents, desecrating the. Sabbath, and so on. The derivations in Halakhah of those laws are interesting; the sages loaded them down with so many layers of conditions, qualifications, exceptions, and other requirements that they were virtually never imposed.

For instance: Suppose a man were charged with cutting down a tree on the Sabbath, an unambiguous act that was supposed to be punished by stoning. Here are the conditions that must be met before that penalty was imposed:

There must be at least two witnesses, neither of whom were personally acquainted with the man, to ensure that there were no maliciously false charges at work. The man must have been warned before the fact, in precise language from the Torah, that what he was about to do was a violation of the law, including a specific warning about the consequences of doing it in graphic terms. The man must then have specifically announced his intention, not just to cut down the tree, but to violate that specific law, again using the precise words from the Torah, and he must include a description of the penalty he would be made to suffer. He must then immediately carry out the act, swinging the ax or whatever. If he stops after his statement to do anything--take a drink of water, wipe his brow, or pick up the ax before swinging it--all bets are off and the case is thrown out of court.

And what if all these conditions are fulfilled? It will come as no surprise that the man would then be declared insane and not responsible for his actions--a reasonable conclusion, considering.

There were other conditions. Even in a case of murder--virtually the only kind of case where a death sentence was ever actually imposed--if the entire assembly voted unanimously to convict, the case was thrown out; some kind of prejudice against the defendant was assumed. If anyone in the assembly was absent for any portion of the trial, the case was thrown out. If no one at all spoke in the man's defense, the case was thrown out.

And so on. The Talmud records that a court that imposed the death penalty more than once in ten years was called a "bloody-handed court."--and as far as we know, none ever was.

Some laws, notably the prohibition against "lying with a man as with a woman," probably did not then have the same significance that we give them today--in that case, a prohibition against homosexuality. The Torah does not seem to be aware, so to speak, of homosexuality as a sexual orientation or a lifestyle choice as we are today; there is no indication of that anywhere. The reference most probably was referring to homosexual anal rape as a kind of formal degradation and humiliation of an enemy after defeating him, in war or perhaps in personal combat. Certainly there doesn't seem to have ever been a prosecution under that statute.

There are a few--a very few--laws in the Torah that make no sense at all to us today, and which even seem to have puzzled the sages of old. Most famous is the very peculiar business of the "Red Heifer," which involved making a potion to be given to a woman suspected of adultery. If guilty, she was supposed to suffer pain and swelling of various kinds; if innocent, nothing would happen. We have no idea how this was supposed to work or if it ever did, or even if it was ever actually done. It was proposed very long ago that it was never intended as anything more than a mere sham, intended to inevitably acquit the woman and put the doubts of the suspicious husband to rest with a ritual show. Of course, it's also possible that the effects could have been produced psychosomatically in a woman conscious of guilt. We have no way of knowing today.

In any case; the laws of the Torah, and the laws of Halakhah derived from them, are virtually never purely arbitrary, though some reflect a world, and a world-view, very different from our own. After 3,000 years or so, it would be very surprising indeed if they all seemed familiar and sensible today.

They weren't written just because God, or the rabbis, got bored one day and decided to make up some fraternity-initiation hoops for people to jump through. They are all there for a reason, though sometimes we're not entirely clear about what that reason may have been.

[AB]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Great statment. I am too lazy to comfirm it.

[Cathar1950]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Great statment. I am too lazy to comfirm it.

I am even more lazy.
My confirmation would be, as long as they are obeyed what difference does it make what they are( arbitrary laws)if anything is right because God commands it?
Does not the judge of all the earth do right?
It seems to imply that unless they are arbitrary they must be good because to some intrinsic nature even if it is related to experience and outcomes. It is somehow reasonable or it is arbitrary.
I don't see how it could be other then a human construct even as revealed. The most of the writing were produced by those that came later then the revelations and even the those that were reveled seem confused and God seems to be distant.

[cnorman18]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Great statment. I am too lazy to comfirm it.

I am even more lazy.
My confirmation would be, as long as they are obeyed what difference does it make what they are( arbitrary laws)if anything is right because God commands it?
Does not the judge of all the earth do right?
It seems to imply that unless they are arbitrary they must be good because to some intrinsic nature even if it is related to experience and outcomes. It is somehow reasonable or it is arbitrary.
I don't see how it could be other then a human construct even as revealed. The most of the writing were produced by those that came later then the revelations and even the those that were reveled seem confused and God seems to be distant.

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this post, but I've been rereading it for several days now, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't mean I disagree with it; I mean it literally doesn't make sense. I can't make out what you're trying to say.

My best guess is that you're saying if the laws are understandable and seem to have good reasons behind them, they must be man-made; only laws that we can't understand could be God's laws. But they should be followed anyway, because whatever God says must be right, even if it's apparently meaningless. But reading it over again, that doesn't seem to be quite right either.

I really just can't make this out. Could you try again?

[The Duke of Vandals]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Of course they're arbitrary. They have to be, especially in our culture.

Look at Lot.

Lot has two angels in his house. The people of his city, they want to rape the angels so they show up and demand Lot produce them.

Lot says, "I can't give you the angels... but you can have my daughter(s)".

As readers, we're left thinking "Huh?"

If there is a moral lesson here, what is it? Presumably, if Lot had been doing something that offended god, the angels would have had something to say about it. They don't. So, we're left to conclude that god endorses throwing one's daughter to a mob of rapists... which is horrible. Not a father in the world would do something so vile.

So, we as readers have to arbitrarily decide what's moral and what's not in the bible. It's why I laugh when I hear people talking about how the bible gives us "absolute morality". It's not. Christians and Jews pick and choose.

Now, Christians have the excuse of "Jesus showed up and said we don't have to follow the old laws". I'm not sure what excuse Jews have for not performing all the idiocies of Leviticus and the other books of the Torah / OT.

[XaWN]

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Arbitrary is a dangerous word. Perhaps you mean: "Is there any reason to believe that the rules derived from the Torah are not attributable to man?"

In which case, I have to say no, there's no reason to think that the Torah (first five book of the OT, not the whole OT, hope someone brought that up) is anything but a construct of man. I think a supreme being would hold Himself to a higher standard of accuracy than is demonstrated in the Torah.

[Cathar1950]

Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.

Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?

Great statment. I am too lazy to comfirm it.

I am even more lazy.
My confirmation would be, as long as they are obeyed what difference does it make what they are( arbitrary laws)if anything is right because God commands it?
Does not the judge of all the earth do right?
It seems to imply that unless they are arbitrary they must be good because to some intrinsic nature even if it is related to experience and outcomes. It is somehow reasonable or it is arbitrary.
I don't see how it could be other then a human construct even as revealed. The most of the writing were produced by those that came later then the revelations and even the those that were reveled seem confused and God seems to be distant.

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this post, but I've been rereading it for several days now, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't mean I disagree with it; I mean it literally doesn't make sense. I can't make out what you're trying to say.

My best guess is that you're saying if the laws are understandable and seem to have good reasons behind them, they must be man-made; only laws that we can't understand could be God's laws. But they should be followed anyway, because whatever God says must be right, even if it's apparently meaningless. But reading it over again, that doesn't seem to be quite right either.

I really just can't make this out. Could you try again?

If it makes you feel any better it probably doesn't make sense to me either.
Whitehead was once asked why he didn't write more clearly and his response was because he didn't think more clearly and I am no Whitehead.

I guess what I am getting at is that if we go with the divine command theory of morality it is not morality and for all practical purposes it is arbitrary. It simply is right because God said it was and humans have told us what God said. So when God commands humans to do evil such as kill every man, woman and child or everyone that is not a female virgin (one can only imagine how they determined this) they reflect the people and there times not any God that may or may not exist.
Yet there are those that still defend such actions with all kinds of rationalizations. We have out grown such nonsense. One of the best defenses of the idea of the Christian incarnation was that the activity of God was now among humans. If you want to love God the proper way was to love others. God's justice and mercy were now up to us and it is in our hands.
Things are wrong or evil because of consequences and are related to our culture as well as mediated through our cultures and language. Even that which is claimed to be revelation is mediated through our cultures, experiences and languages or meaning. There are codes that predate the 10 commandments supposedly handed down from God to Moses. We see these in “The Egyptian Book of the Dead or in the code of Hammurabi and even the covenant is an Assyrian contract.
This should not surprise us as this seems to be when these thing where written.
The laws give us rules about kings and prophets before there are kings and prophets according to when the were claimed to be written because when they were written there were kings and prophets.
“Does not the judge of all the earth do right?” is a profound question even if it was one of the titles of the Pharaoh. This seems to indicate that there is some sense of morality that even God should be held to and those that think somehow God is above such things because he created us and therefore owns us are rather childish notions.
But our ideas of God are human constructs and limited to our experiences.
I guess that is what I am trying to say when I write things like:

It seems to imply that unless they are arbitrary they must be good because to some intrinsic nature even if it is related to experience and outcomes. It is somehow reasonable or it is arbitrary.

The nature of language and meaning is related to what is reasonable because we are structure that way.
If it didn't fit our experiences it would be of no use to us.
I am working on trying to be clearer.