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]

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

Death isn't irreversible in a physical sense (unless you have medical attention), but it doesn't have to be the final destination.

Nurse, you have been overworking again. Most people on the planet think death IS irreversible. Please let me know which hospital you work in so that if anything happens to me - God forbid - I can call on your services before the undertakers arrive.

Some of us haven't received our telegrams to say what the alternative destination is.
Was all this surprising info written into the old laws we are discussing?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

Marco,

I have no idea the medical care in Scotland. In the United States, we have life saving procedures that can recover SOME patients.

The life that we are to have after this one is mentioned in the Old Testament in various places....perhaps I am a little off topic.

[marco]

I have no idea the medical care in Scotland. In the United States, we have life saving procedures that can recover SOME patients.

The life that we are to have after this one is mentioned in the Old Testament in various places....perhaps I am a little off topic.

Oh, is that it? Yes, we do that here as well, usually on drunks.

I will take a rain check on looking into the OT for post-mortem accommodation. My reading of the OT tells me that any hotel set up by Yahweh will be pretty grim. We had better get back to OT rules and regulations.

[ttruscott]

It is barbarous, and if a god asks us to do that, the god is false.

It is this lifting of men's opinions above GOD's opinions that is the basis of the Christian religion, right? But this opinion can only be held by someone that does not accept the reality of GOD... Therefore it defines the one who believes this statement more than it does GOD.

[marco]

It is barbarous, and if a god asks us to do that, the god is false.

It is this lifting of men's opinions above GOD's opinions that is the basis of the Christian religion, right? But this opinion can only be held by someone that does not accept the reality of GOD... Therefore it defines the one who believes this statement more than it does GOD.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. If you are saying that man should always do whatever he believes his God tells him to do, then man is on the road to barbarity. At some point we have to act rationally and question what we believe. In the case here, I am saying it is barbarous to take your daughter and get her stoned to death for some sexual misdemeanour. If the God we accept exacts such outrageous punishment for trivia, we must reassess our beliefs. It is NOT a question of man placing himself higher than God; it is simply a case of modern man assessing the authenticity of an ancient god. Naturally, those who accept him will still ascribe omniscience to him. The acid test is to place yourself in the father's situation and ask if it is right to have your daughter killed.

You say:
But this opinion can only be held by someone that does not accept the reality of GOD... Therefore it defines the one who believes this statement more than it does GOD

It can be held by someone who asks relevant questions about basic religious belief. If, as you say, our beliefs define us, take a look at the Middle East and see what God lives there. Those who follow him and murder in his name do not question his commands. This unquestioning attitude defines them. When I examine an ancient God and find him barbaric, I am happy to accept that my education enables me to distinguish between savagery and authority, between what might be inexplicable and what is man's fabrication. There was never any attempt on my part to "define God". That has already been done for me by the old tribes of the distant past. I am simply rejecting their opinions, not God's. For me, he hasn't offered one.

[oldbadger]

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

I am so glad that this thread was submitted! It's taught me so much more about 'Jesus's' and John the Baptist's attitudes towards the Hellenist upper classes that had ditched so many in favour of Roman and Greek cultures etc. ....... and their own greed.

I have just run through a list of these old laws and stopped at random, and here were the two that I saw:-
That the hired laborer shall be permitted to eat of the produce he is
reaping (Deut. 23:25-26)
186.That the hired laborer shall not take more than he can eat.

.......... don't you just love them? This is new ground for me, who has only focused hard upon G-Mark for the last few years.

[marco]

.......... don't you just love them? This is new ground for me, who has only focused hard upon G-Mark for the last few years.

There is nothing much to love and lots to despise. You have shown how savage people can act in their own self-interest, inventing a brutal god in the process. If further indication were needed that we are dealing with the nonsense of uncultured nomads, not a God, dip further into Deuteronomy:

12: 6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices.....
12:16 only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water
13:1 If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams ....
13: 5 And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.

The invented God has all the appetites and primitive, nonsensical urges of the savages who invented him. Of course their rules were useful to them: they made them. But there is nothing to love in all this.

[Peds nurse]

.......... don't you just love them? This is new ground for me, who has only focused hard upon G-Mark for the last few years.

There is nothing much to love and lots to despise. You have shown how savage people can act in their own self-interest, inventing a brutal god in the process. If further indication were needed that we are dealing with the nonsense of uncultured nomads, not a God, dip further into Deuteronomy:

12: 6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices.....
12:16 only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water
13:1 If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams ....
13: 5 And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.

The invented God has all the appetites and primitive, nonsensical urges of the savages who invented him. Of course their rules were useful to them: they made them. But there is nothing to love in all this.

Hello Marco!

I am not quite sure how oldbadger has managed to pull off showing anyone how savage people can act, by inventing their own God. I think he has done quite the opposite.

If those Israelites invented God, and made up laws to support Him, don't you think it would be to their advantage? Why have rules that involve stoning anyone? Usually, we are a people that promotes self preservation, even back then.

How is Dueteronomy 13:1 even cross your radar as bad? God is saying, don't let other people lead you astray to worship other God's? What parent wants their children to go get new parents, or to be led to a place where they are unsafe?

It is fairly easy for us to judge history and deem it as wrong and unnecessary, using today's standards. We were not alive back then, and who knows how it would have turned out if God just let the world run amok, without intervening in the lives of the Israelites. Being a parent is tough, I know, I have had many children come through our house. I have never been a parent to the entire universe! God can see how this is all going to play out, and I for one am feeling pretty thankful that He had me in mind as His plan unfolds through out history.

Be good in Scotland

[marco]

I am not quite sure how oldbadger has managed to pull off showing anyone how savage people can act, by inventing their own God. I think he has done quite the opposite.

Then marco hasn't done his job properly. Old Badger cleverly showed that every law we supplied him with had at its core the self-interest of the native people. I'm not arguing for or against old badger's reasoning -he can do that for himself. But by showing that all the laws are the sort of laws people would have made up, he has given us a reason for ignoring the agency of God. Some laws, like killing loose girls, any gays and folk who wouldn't rest on the Sabbath (I'm not sure how he justified that last one) suggested that Yahweh was cruel, but if the laws were man made, we can stop calling Yahweh cruel. In fact we can forget Yahweh altogether - he isn't needed (until we need a city demolished).

If those Israelites invented God, and made up laws to support Him, don't you think it would be to their advantage? Why have rules that involve stoning anyone? Usually, we are a people that promotes self preservation, even back then.

This is very unfair of you. You are asking ME to defend Old Badger's thesis. It was HE who proved that the laws were in the interests of the people.
He's sleeping just now so I will try to answer for him.

Bad girls were stoned because they spread disease and that would be bad for the continuation of the race. Gays were killed because obviously, if men went to bed with men, there eventually would be no race. Bad thing! You'll have to ask OB why it was good to kill those who didn't rest on the Sabbath. That looks suspiciously like a Yahweh idea.

How is Dueteronomy 13:1 even cross your radar as bad?

I was taking it with the next quote. As a dreamer of dreams myself I got quite a shock to hear that dreamers of dreams should be killed. I'm awfully glad they don't observe this custom in Scotland and I hope it isn't common practice in the US.

It is fairly easy for us to judge history and deem it as wrong and unnecessary, using today's standards. We were not alive back then, and who knows how it would have turned out if God just let the world run amok,.....

There would have been lots of grateful Sodomites, I think. You've told me already about not judging the past with modern eyes but I can't help thinking it's hard on dreamers being killed for dreaming. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that bad girls can be stoned - it's their own fault, I suppose - but dreamers dreaming! I am ever so glad I wasn't alive back then for I suppose that happy circumstance wouldn't have remained long, seeing as how I dream a lot.

Good debate. Sorry you lost but there will be other chances. Anyway, you should be attending your patients and not criticising marco.

[Peds nurse]

Then marco hasn't done his job properly. Old Badger cleverly showed that every law we supplied him with had at its core the self-interest of the native people. I'm not arguing for or against old badger's reasoning -he can do that for himself. But by showing that all the laws are the sort of laws people would have made up, he has given us a reason for ignoring the agency of God. Some laws, like killing loose girls, any gays and folk who wouldn't rest on the Sabbath (I'm not sure how he justified that last one) suggested that Yahweh was cruel, but if the laws were man made, we can stop calling Yahweh cruel. In fact we can forget Yahweh altogether - he isn't needed (until we need a city demolished).

It was commanded by God, for the people, or at least that is my perspective on what OB was saying. I believe that God was not cruel at all, that it was His very purpose to keep everyone safe, and to set His people apart from other tribes who were doing quite detestable things.

If those Israelites invented God, and made up laws to support Him, don't you think it would be to their advantage? Why have rules that involve stoning anyone? Usually, we are a people that promotes self preservation, even back then.

This is very unfair of you. You are asking ME to defend Old Badger's thesis. It was HE who proved that the laws were in the interests of the people.
He's sleeping just now so I will try to answer for him.

My apologies, because I for some reason, thought you were saying that the people created the God, and then made their own rules and regulations.

How is Dueteronomy 13:1 even cross your radar as bad?

I was taking it with the next quote. As a dreamer of dreams myself I got quite a shock to hear that dreamers of dreams should be killed. I'm awfully glad they don't observe this custom in Scotland and I hope it isn't common practice in the US.

It isn't dreaming that is bad. It was if a dreamer comes and tells you to come and worship another God, you shouldn't listen to him. Good advice to me.

It is fairly easy for us to judge history and deem it as wrong and unnecessary, using today's standards. We were not alive back then, and who knows how it would have turned out if God just let the world run amok,.....

There would have been lots of grateful Sodomites, I think. You've told me already about not judging the past with modern eyes but I can't help thinking it's hard on dreamers being killed for dreaming. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that bad girls can be stoned - it's their own fault, I suppose - but dreamers dreaming! I am ever so glad I wasn't alive back then for I suppose that happy circumstance wouldn't have remained long, seeing as how I dream a lot.

Sodomites....isn't that where the word sodomy comes from? Dreamers were killed for trying to get God's people to worship other Gods. You can reread that if you like.

Good debate. Sorry you lost but there will be other chances. Anyway, you should be attending your patients and not criticising marco.

[/quote]

I have my own little pediatric unit right here in my home I apologize if I came across as criticizing, it certainly was not my intent.

Good evening!