Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

[Zzyzx]

.
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

From a current thread:

.

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

Perhaps you refer to Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish -- these are scaleless fish -- which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks, sturgeons, and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale. http://www.giveshare.org/Health/cleanunclean.html

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.

Questions for debate:

Does or did the prohibition against eating aquatic animals "without fins and scales" make sense? WHY?

Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?

[Royston]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

That would be presuming the conclusion, another fallacy.

Not quite, but keep going, there are plenty more fallacies to be tried for size.

Fact is, my answer ("To properly address this question would amount to a tortuous ask, surely.") had nothing to do with presuming a conclusion with respect to the OP's ask; rather it had everything to do with the phrasing of the original question itself.


Go well

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I am wondering if it isn't because they were bottom dwellers, eating the yucky stuff that was left over from other fish. I think it had to do with unclean things being consumed by God's people. No research on my part, just a thought off the top of my head.

Have an awesome day people!!!

Yep.
All the forbidden shellfish, lobsters, Crays, Crabs Catfish et al are either carrion scavengers, thus concentrating any poisons etc within, or they carry deadly disease.

Simple......

Every single law was for the good of the tribes.... their safety, security, health, cohesion and strength.

It was just absolute common sense, and the fact that this is almost lost in the haze of either Holy acceptance or atheistic fanaticism is amazing.

[oldbadger]

Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

You see?

When you look at the laws with a view as to how they protected, secured, strengthened and aided cohesion, all of a sudden you're not seeing a load of crazy stuff that God commanded because he could, you're seeing obvious sense.

And when 'Jesus' tells cured folks that their sin is forgiven, everything just clicks into place. I would suggest that G-Mark is the most accurate report of 'Jesus's life and attempted mission. I don't try to support John, for instance.

And so, you can see the good that God produced there, which answers another thread as well, I think.

[OnceConvinced]

I'd say that the application of common sense tends to make short shrift of those OT laws that are - at least by today's standards - either questionable or downright ridiculous.


All the best

Hello!....
Let's try it..... pick a ridiculous law and maybe we can worry some sense out of it.
These laws kept the tribes strong, safe, secure and thriving...... or rather, to break them lead to sickness, death, weakness etc.

It would be an interesting discussion, maybe?

I would like to see you justify these ones:

Deut 22:23-4
Death penalty for a betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped.

Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised

Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

[ttruscott]

I would like to see you justify these ones:

Deut 22:23-4
Death penalty for a betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped.

The Jews looked for Divine help to answer tough questions, not mere day to day living. They knew what to do when a woman declared she had been raped but they did not know what to do when a woman was caught in flagrante delicto who then cried rape. If she wasn't yelling to attract attention in a city where she would be easily heard, she was probably guilty and later we are told that if she was in the field this did not apply as there would be no one to hear.

Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised

Since the punishment is severe, it is obvious that this refers to an adult child. The sin is probably due to the idolatry of the parents followed in secret by the idolatry of the child as a grown man, who thereby shows himself as no longer part of the congregation and banished.

Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty

"This law would make the women of Israel watch against giving cause for suspicion. On the other hand, it would hinder the cruel treatment such suspicions might occasion. It would also hinder the guilty from escaping, and the innocent from coming under just suspicion. When no proof could be brought, the wife was called on to make this solemn appeal to a heart-searching God." ~ Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

The length of time taken to die from what the owner was legally allowed to do barring death, would be taken as proof he was no trying to kill the slave and was punished enough by losing the money the slave cost him.

Other laws about slavery would have us conclude that these were not total slaves as in the cultures surrounding them, but were more like indentured servants, under strict servitude but not liable to an arbitrary death and with a set time for the end of service. As such these laws were very progressive for their time...which did not mitigate against the Christian Churches spearheading the fight against the awful slavery trading business out of Africa on compassionate grounds.

[Elijah John]

I'd say that the application of common sense tends to make short shrift of those OT laws that are - at least by today's standards - either questionable or downright ridiculous.


All the best

Hello!....
Let's try it..... pick a ridiculous law and maybe we can worry some sense out of it.
These laws kept the tribes strong, safe, secure and thriving...... or rather, to break them lead to sickness, death, weakness etc.

It would be an interesting discussion, maybe?

I would like to see you justify these ones:

Deut 22:23-4
Death penalty for a betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped.

Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised

Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

These are dispicable and indefensible. And Fundamentalists lose crediblity when they TRY to justify such barbarism. These verses are proof that the Bible is not innerrant nor is the Bible infallible.

Still, these verses can be ignored and/or repudiated, by non-literalist Theist and atheist alike. They may have been literally intended by "Moses" but they are more a reflection of the barbarism of the times then they are the will of God. One way or another, I think they can be safely disgarded and considered primitive vestige.

Just demonstrates that the Bible, if inspired, is not infallible.

With this understanding, one can still embrace such Biblical imperatives as "love your neighbor, and the stranger in your midst, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt". This is a moral and benevolent standard.

The Bible is, admittedly a mixed bag. But we can use the higher standards, )to paraphase Lincoln, the "better angels of the Bible" in order to judge the nonsense.

The Bible on the one hand condemns itself, and on the other, redeems itself.

[oldbadger]

I would like to see you justify these ones:

Deut 22:23-4
Death penalty for a betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped.

Hi.........

I can only do the first one tonight.... I will look at the others tomorrow.
OK, so you picked four of the 600+, now let's look at Deut 22:23-24

{22:22} If a man be found lying with a woman married to
an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man
that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put
away evil from Israel.
{22:23} If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an
husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
{22:24} Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of
that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die;
the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and
the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so
thou shalt put away evil from among you.

As can be seen, 22:22 which you missed out gives the all important reason for these laws...... 'so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.'
So what do you think that this means?
This is very important, because Sin and evil are being joined together here, in writing, and sin (or evil) leads to..... (you'll know this from previous posts?) SICKNESS!

So God's Laws lead to Health in Israel, and Evil leads to sickness. It's not about Heaven and Hell but a strong nation that this kis all about.

Now...... your version of 23/24 is massively wrong, isn't it? You left out (being) in the city.... yes?

So, firstly, if this happened outside in the wilds and the two were seen, the man taking the virgin, she has a defence. However, if this happens in the midst of a multitude of folks and she is not heard to call out for help, she appears to lose her defence. Promiscuity was known to be so deadly (AT THAT TIME) that the rules were THAT IMPORTANT. Deadly desease could be transmitted through a people very quickly if they did not keep these rules sacred. Look at that word SACRED.

Everything Holy, Godly, Sacred was about strength in the tribes/nation. Everything Evil, Devilish, Sinful was about Sickness....... right there, on earth.

However, today, Fundamentalists who try to impose such OT laws and rules are most misguided. I will look at the others tomorrow. In the meantime, would you like to show some OT Laws that definitely support my point, possibly.After all, there are 600+.?

[oldbadger]

These are dispicable and indefensible. And Fundamentalists lose crediblity when they TRY to justify such barbarism. These verses are proof that the Bible is not innerrant nor is the Bible infallible.

Hello....... we are not discussing the application of laws like Deut 22:22/23 today, but two thousand years ago. This one was all about reasonable defence in a trial about adultery or rather, promiscuity.
At that time, surely this law was defensible?

I haven't had time to look at the others.

[marco]

I can only do the first one tonight.... I will look at the others tomorrow.
OK, so you picked four of the 600+, now let's look at Deut 22:23-24

Old Badger, you are demonstrating that religion can justify anything. I heard of a little Ukrainian girl whose mum and dad had been brutally murdered. She ran upstairs and got down on her knees to pray for help. The murderer confessed he heard her praying and smashed her skull. God -if he exists - heard her too. I was told by a devout person that perhaps the little girl used the WRONG prayer. You are in danger of doing the same sort of thing.

A father taking his daughter outside to be stoned may well be acting in the interests of the Tribe. It is barbaric, nonetheless. But ironically you have made a case for the view that Yahweh is the creation of primitive minds; experience with bad fish and loose women has taught them that they need rules, and they put their rules into the mouth of God, to give them clout.

You have produced one of the best arguments for killing off Yahweh.

[Peds nurse]

I can only do the first one tonight.... I will look at the others tomorrow.
OK, so you picked four of the 600+, now let's look at Deut 22:23-24

Old Badger, you are demonstrating that religion can justify anything. I heard of a little Ukrainian girl whose mum and dad had been brutally murdered. She ran upstairs and got down on her knees to pray for help. The murderer confessed he heard her praying and smashed her skull. God -if he exists - heard her too. I was told by a devout person that perhaps the little girl used the WRONG prayer. You are in danger of doing the same sort of thing.

A father taking his daughter outside to be stoned may well be acting in the interests of the Tribe. It is barbaric, nonetheless. But ironically you have made a case for the view that Yahweh is the creation of primitive minds; experience with bad fish and loose women has taught them that they need rules, and they put their rules into the mouth of God, to give them clout.

You have produced one of the best arguments for killing off Yahweh.

Hello Mr. Marco Polo (haha)! I hope things are well in your part of the world!

I understand Oldbadger's point. Here we are living in the 21st century, critiquing how barbaric God's laws were back then, and we would be correct if we applied them to today's world. Back then, a virgin bride was a must, especially to get a good husband. A woman who wasn't a virgin had a difficult time finding a husband, and it affected the family name. Fathers worried about their daughters, and wanted them to marry into a good family.

That being said, if a man raped a woman, and dishonored her, he also dishonored the family. If a person knew they were going to get the death sentence for raping a woman, perhaps He would think twice. Affairs were not tolerated, it dishonored God and the families. There weren't attorney's and alimony pay, nor was there child support. It certainly would also make couples think twice about having an affair if they were going to die.

My sister was telling me of a guy that she worked with, that had three different women pregnant, at the same employment site! He told them all to have abortions....there aren't any laws in place for that!