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"?

[marco]

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.

Good day to you too, Nurse. All is well in Scotland - I think.

You will be pleased to know that many people today uphold the old ways of killing their daughters if they transgress. Islam bases its way of thinking on the OT and some obey the rules with great precision. So not all people are lax in their attitudes.

That being said, if a man raped a woman, and dishonored her, he also dishonored the family.

Honour killings are with us today as well. In Afghanistan where religion is VERY important, a father buried his 18-year old daughter alive. He was helped by his brother. The girl had foolishly chosen to go out with someone of the wrong faith. You say: "Affairs were not tolerated, it dishonored God and the families. " That is EXACTLY how it is seen today in some places.

I think we should condemn where condemnation is called for. It is ABSOLUTELY wrong to kill girls for any sexual impropriety. It is barbarous, and if a god asks us to do that, the god is false. Sadly, many people today DO listen to such horrendous instructions and carry out killings to satisfy their awful God.

[oldbadger]

Old Badger, you are demonstrating that religion can justify anything.

I'm not justifying religion.
I'm simply observing and noting that The God of the Israelites (as layed down or written about by the prophets) loved his people. He was their God, and clearly did not care (so much) about outsiders or other nations. Seen simply as 'the God of Israel' he appears to have been quite a tough God, but massively supportive and loving of them alone.

I'm not interesting in justifying (or tearing apart) any religion...... I'm just trying to study the history of it all.

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.

You heard a dreadful story. That was very sad. So you can't refute or challenge the thread title, is that right?

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.

Good. Yes. Very barbaric....... really hard stuff..... the very rock-bottom roots of survival in a World where your only true friends are related.
Not much has changed, really, has it? In some countries, (including one European country) they still execute people for various crimes...... and some of the techniques can cause long lingering deaths. But the Israelite God can't be blamed for that....... after all, as far as I can see, he was only their od, not mine or yours.

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

I'm not killing off Yahweh, I'm simply doing my best to discover as much historical fact as possible. I am against the idea of subjecting modern societies to ancient ways and laws that are no longer wanted, needed or justifiable.

You are still using recent events to debate about old laws from antiquity. This thread is about:-
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

[oldbadger]

You will be pleased to know that many people today uphold the old ways of killing their daughters if they transgress. Islam bases its way of thinking on the OT and some obey the rules with great precision. So not all people are lax in their attitudes.

Honour killings are with us today as well. In Afghanistan where religion is VERY important, a father buried his 18-year old daughter alive. He was helped by his brother. The girl had foolishly chosen to go out with someone of the wrong faith. You say: "Affairs were not tolerated, it dishonored God and the families. " That is EXACTLY how it is seen today in some places.

I think we should condemn where condemnation is called for. It is ABSOLUTELY wrong to kill girls for any sexual impropriety. It is barbarous, and if a god asks us to do that, the god is false. Sadly, many people today DO listen to such horrendous instructions and carry out killings to satisfy their awful God.

Again, this thread is all about :-
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

The fact that fanatical families throw acid over their daughters in, say, Swindon, England, because the daughter doesn't want to marry some foreign guy that she was promised to back when she was 9years old, is not the fault of the ancient God of the Israelites. The same people (in, say, Swindon) would be happy to see the Israelite God's people swept from the Earth.

I say again, all of God's 600+ laws were beneficial for his people in the earely days of the Israwelites.

It's just a fact....

[marco]

Old Badger, you are demonstrating that religion can justify anything.

I'm not justifying religion.

But I didn't say you were. Far from it!

I'm simply observing and noting that The God of the Israelites (as layed down or written about by the prophets) loved his people. He was their God, and clearly did not care (so much) about outsiders or other nations. Seen simply as 'the God of Israel' he appears to have been quite a tough God, but massively supportive and loving of them alone.

You are terribly keen to direct my full attention to the OP, which is fair. But you insist on pushing God into the question: "Were OT laws good and positive (in their time)"?
I am not at all disagreeing with your line of argument. What I AM saying is that, by establishing self interest for each law, you are making it reasonable to believe that the laws were framed by people. God isn't needed.

You go a bit further and ASSUME that an outside agency framed the laws and was particularly solicitous about minute details of keeping people safe, healthy and happy. But there's no need to assume divine interference when you have successfully argued for natural, human reasons.

I know perfectly well it wasn't your intention to unseat God, but unwittingly (or otherwise) you have done so. You should take the credit.

[Peds nurse]

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.

You will be pleased to know that many people today uphold the old ways of killing their daughters if they transgress. Islam bases its way of thinking on the OT and some obey the rules with great precision. So not all people are lax in their attitudes.

Marco, I am not pleased that anyone would kill a child! I am a pediatric nurse, and we do foster care and have for the last 18 years. Children have a special place in my heart. We are not living in Old Testament times, nor are we (or at least me), an Israelite. Islam, is actually (from what I know) a peaceful religion, however people are radical in their thinking at times, using religion as a means to carry out selfish deeds and acts. Christianity is not exempt from this. There are many instances where parents have beat there children to death for the sake of a lesson. It certainly does not stem from the teaching of Jesus.

That being said, if a man raped a woman, and dishonored her, he also dishonored the family.

Honour killings are with us today as well. In Afghanistan where religion is VERY important, a father buried his 18-year old daughter alive. He was helped by his brother. The girl had foolishly chosen to go out with someone of the wrong faith. You say: "Affairs were not tolerated, it dishonored God and the families. " That is EXACTLY how it is seen today in some places.

I think we should condemn where condemnation is called for. It is ABSOLUTELY wrong to kill girls for any sexual impropriety. It is barbarous, and if a god asks us to do that, the god is false. Sadly, many people today DO listen to such horrendous instructions and carry out killings to satisfy their awful God.

I would agree that some religions go to great lengths to keep honor in their family. If someone thinks that God is telling them to kill their children, they probably either need to get some psychiatric help, or rethink their belief's. Sometimes however, it isn't the religion as much as the people being misinformed or they have some psychotic disorder. I think of the mom who drove her 5 children off a bridge, or the mom who drowned everyone of her children. It wasn't religion, it was very sick thinking, psychotic even, that led to such acts. There are millions of people in various religions who don't hurt their children.

Also, I would like to point out, that sometimes far worse than death, is torture of children, either physical, mental or emotional, that cause devastating effects, that renders them wounded and tormented throughout life.

Have a relaxing day...I plan to!

[catnip]

.
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"?

Certainly, we must consider its time and place. This was among the earliest written law codes. I read that a good percentage of them were taken straight from Hammurabi's code. It was a beginning system of law and in that I think it is great. I think they made a lot of laws on the fly as circumstances seemed to require. 613, btw.

I do think that their dietary restrictions were for health. Pigs tend to carry trichinosis and they may not have understood about cooking sufficiently. Scavengers of all kinds, as I understand it, were forbidden. One law that I could appreciate was that when a house was moldy, the people should abandon it.

The Magna Carter came along in the 1200s. Systems of law have been developing ever since their time and the OT law was among the first. Imagine having arbitrary rule where some petty official might be able to think up diabolical rules in individual cases on a whim. It is profound, actually, even if we don't see all their laws as practical, realistic or even reasonable.

The only thing I am concerned about are the areas of the ME where Hammurabi's Code and similarly ancient codes are still being applied.

[oldbadger]

I am not at all disagreeing with your line of argument. What I AM saying is that, by establishing self interest for each law, you are making it reasonable to believe that the laws were framed by people. God isn't needed.

Yep. True.
Since the priesthood was the senior-body, right through to the time of Jesus, I personally do think that it is reasonable to believe that senior-folks wrote the laws. But, of course, they might have had visions before they presented them to the people.

You go a bit further and ASSUME that an outside agency framed the laws and was particularly solicitous about minute details of keeping people safe, healthy and happy. But there's no need to assume divine interference when you have successfully argued for natural, human reasons.

Yes. Assumption...... yes. The joy (for me) of this is that believers can say that prophetic vision received these laws, whilst and history student can see it as a nation writing laws for its survival and benefit.
I haven't got a 'prove-God' agenda. But as soon as you just look at this thread historically it does 'click' into real place, and what's more it helps me to understand some of Yeshua's reactions law, trials, juidgements and so forth. That's my agenda.... to learn more about Yeshua and his time.

I know perfectly well it wasn't your intention to unseat God, but unwittingly (or otherwise) you have done so. You should take the credit.

To atheists it could look as an unseating, but to some Theists it could look like delivery from God via prophets.......... or just objective research.......

Take your pick!

[marco]

Marco, I am not pleased that anyone would kill a child! I am a pediatric nurse, and we do foster care and have for the last 18 years. Children have a special place in my heart. We are not living in Old Testament times, nor are we (or at least me), an Israelite. Islam, is actually (from what I know) a peaceful religion, however people are radical in their thinking at times, using religion as a means to carry out selfish deeds and acts. Christianity is not exempt from this. There are many instances where parents have beat there children to death for the sake of a lesson. It certainly does not stem from the teaching of Jesus.

Hello again nurse. I hope I'm not keeping you from your patients. I was arguing along the lines you offered. It was you who praised the common sense in the old laws, keeping daughters in check and preserving family honour. I took that view to its practical conclusion and showed you what happens when people try to live by it. Daughters get killed.

I would agree that some religions go to great lengths to keep honor in their family. If someone thinks that God is telling them to kill their children, they probably either need to get some psychiatric help, or rethink their belief's.

I don't recall Abraham asking for psychiatric help. We are arguing pleasantly here. Old Badger constantly reminds me that these old laws were good for old peoples. But today people STILL accept these laws as God's word and act accordingly. They don't need psychiatric help -they need to discard the book that gives them bad advice, be it Bible or Koran.

Also, I would like to point out, that sometimes far worse than death, is torture of children, either physical, mental or emotional, that cause devastating effects, that renders them wounded and tormented throughout life.

Well, some would say death is pretty severe and has the unfortunate property of being irreversible.

[marco]

To atheists it could look as an unseating, but to some Theists it could look like delivery from God via prophets.......... or just objective research.......

Take your pick!

I did. You demonstrated that we do not need to invent a deity to explain the old laws. You have argued successfully that they are in each case useful for the community. When the street lighting comes on we can assume it is God's doing or the work of thoughtful humans. Tough call!

[Peds nurse]

Well, some would say death is pretty severe and has the unfortunate property of being irreversible.

Death is severe, I'm not taking that lightly at all. However, I have witnessed great turmoil in children's lives, and some have grown to take their own life. Death isn't irreversible in a physical sense (unless you have medical attention), but it doesn't have to be the final destination.