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"?

[oldbadger]

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).

Oldbadger......clever? ....what a shocking thought....

But they didn't...... make them up. The prophets perceived them and delivered them. How many times had a dreadful disease got to sweep through a group before the lesson was learned, that the laws have to be kept or sickness will ensue, etc?

And you've left the thread title far behind.
This thread is not about who delivered the orders.
The thread title is all about 'were they good and positive in their time?'.
If you want to you could start a thread 'Did God deliver the OT laws' or something similar, maybe?

You're not going to win this thread by chucking four or five of the tougher laws (out of 600+) onto the debating floor, because they'll just be deluged by the beauty of so many of the others. They can all be explained, I feel sure, but some answers are as tough as ones which we debate in the world today, such as 'the right to choose to die' etc..... Please just can we agree that the vast majority are easy to accept as 'good and positive'?

[OnceConvinced]

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.

If she wasn't yelling it may be because she was in danger of being murdered if she didn't! Either way, why should she be put to death? There is no logical reason to do that. Even 2000 years ago it would be a cruel sadistic thing to do. It would result in innocent women being executed. That cannot be good even back then.

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.

Mmm, it seems you are right about that one. The actual verse says:

"Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

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

It's also a ridiculous and barbaric ritual, one that no one in their right mind would use to day. So how was it the right thing to do back then? Seeing as dirty water would make a woman sick, it would result in many innocent women being stoned to death.

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.

So that makes it ok to beat your slave to death?

Seriously Ted, the question wasn't to explain why they did it. The question was how was it good and positive at the time. Your explanations do not show how it was good and positive at the time. It all seems to be primitive and barbaric stuff.

[OnceConvinced]

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.

So how is that any different to now? By doing away with evil, any nation can be stronger even in this day and age.

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

No, not at all. The issue is that the woman is being raped and didn't cry out. Whether she was a virgin or betrothed or in the city is irrelevent. The only thing she did wrong was not cry out while she was raped, which could have been for a very good reason.

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+.?

There is a possibility that the rapist held a knife to her throat and she was too afraid to cry out. That would have been no different then as it is today. Women get raped in the city all the time and are too afraid to cry out. Either way it is hardly an executable offence. I don't see why it should be any different 2000 years ago.

Also you talk about disease. Back then they didn't have to worry about STDs. Now it is a real problem. So the risk of disease is greater today then it was then. So as far as I can see there is no difference. It's a barbaric and cruel law that would see many innocent rape victims put to death.

There is no good reason why that law should apply 2000 years ago but be irrelevant today.

BTW, you can skip the reference I made to Gen. 17:14. I have double checked the reference on that one and it's not about the parents neglecting to have the child circumcised.

[marco]

And you've left the thread title far behind.
This thread is not about who delivered the orders.
The thread title is all about 'were they good and positive in their time?'.

You are in error if you think that to meet the demands of the OP we are simply required to feed you with (preferably) nice laws for your imprimatur. I have accorded you credit for showing us that the laws you've examined were for the benefit of the old nomadic tribes. For some odd reason you don't want us to have a closer look at why the laws were useful. That's a bit unfair.

If we can show that the laws, which we foolishly thought (until you came along) were the work of Yahweh, were just the ordinary rules and regulations made by ancient folk to get about their daily chores, then OF COURSE THEY WOULD, IPSO FACTO, BE USEFUL since even uncultured folk would not make laws that weren't in their own interest.

You may not want to hear this, oldbadger. Nonetheless, it is crucially relevant to the OP. Why do we conclude they were useful? Answer: Because it was the tribes themselves, not Yahweh, who made them up. Simple.

The by-product of this discussion is that we've pushed Yahweh out of the picture - which you didn't want us to do. But it's your own fault. Your own cleverness has killed off Yahweh and yes, it IS highly relevant, for through that info we deduce that the laws MUST have been useful.

If you want to you could start a thread 'Did God deliver the OT laws' or something similar, maybe?

That would be unnecessary. You have already illustrated he didn't, which was an integral part of the present OP. You can't get double credit.

You're not going to win this thread by chucking four or five of the tougher laws (out of 600+) onto the debating floor, because they'll just be deluged by the beauty of so many of the others.

You have already shown that you have a weird idea of what constitutes beauty. You think that leaving some bits of grain at the edge of a field for a starving wayfarer is beautiful. It is thoughtful. However, if you classify beauty as any bright idea that comes into the savage breast then naturally we'll be swamped by beauty. But surely talk of beauty belongs to another thread.
If you want you could start a thread: How many of the old laws are beautiful? or something similar, maybe?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

ABUSE OF POWER UNDER THE HEBREW SYSTEM

# WHY DOES THE MOSAIC LAW NOT CONDEMN BEATING SLAVES (Ex 21:20)?

It is false to say that the law does not condemn beating slaves. The Mosaic law specifically instructs the Hebrews to treat others as they would themselves want to be treated - thus brutality and beatings were ILLEGAL under the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 19:18 )

It is false to say the law had nothing to say about beating slaves or that it encouraged mistreatment of anyone (foreigner or native, slave or freeman/woman)since the offer of protection against mistreatement and brutality was one of the legal systme's underlying principles.

Punishment however was legislated in a way that reflected what was practical, provable and enforcible. Basing a complaint on eyewitness testimony would only result in those bent on abuse doing so in private or a flood of unsubstantiated allegations. The law then, as is the case today in most societies, required that physical proof of abuse be produced - - a broken tooth, bone, loss of an eye etc - before matters could be taken to the authorities.

WERE THERE CONSEQUENSES FOR BEATING ONES SLAVE?

Any INJURIES sustained by a slave would result in the the AUTOMATIC LIBERATION of the slave (This brings to mind the fictional American TV drama "Roots" where an African slave has his foot cut off to stop him running away, such brutality would never have been permitted under Mosaic law.) The above law would also have served as a strong deterrent against abuse since it is didfficult to severely beat somone and not damage their bodies in some way.

Furthermore beating your slave could lead to a substantial financial sanction for the master since the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32). His liberation would therefore have represented considerable financial loss. In short, the clear message being sent by such a law was "If you beat your slave, you run a strong risk of losing your slave, losing your investment and good reputation and (if he dies within 3 days) losing your life!



# Why would a Master not be punished if his slave died a few days after a beating?

Premeditated murder of a slave (or free man) automatically carried the death penelty. However, unintentional manslaughter (of slave or freeman) did not. If a slave owner wanted to kill his slave (which is unlikely because slaves represented significant financial benefits) it is unlikely he would chose a method that meant the slave died several days after the attack. The slaves lingering for some time indicates that the beating was not intended to kill him and the master would not be executed. If of course the slave lingered and eventually pulled through, he would be freed and would escape such a tyrant, but if unfortuately the slave died, it would as stated be judged as unintentional manslaughter and the death penalty not demanded.








JW



RELATED POSTS

Is not demanding the death penalty for all beatings of slave "effectively" de facto permission ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078846#p1078846

Does the Hebrew bible condone beating one's slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078537#p1078537

Does the Hebrew bible say owners may beat their slaves?
viewtopic.php?p=1078598#p1078598

Does the Hebrew bible say it's OK to beat a slave ?
viewtopic.php?p=1078758#p1078758

Did God ORDER absolute immunity for slavebeaters ?
viewtopic.php?p=1079551#p107955

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, SLAVE BEATING and ...THE MOSAIC LAW

[JehovahsWitness]

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

QUESTION Why was a woman required to scream if she were threatened with rape Under the mosaic law?

This law had many positive aspects. Firstly, even today, screaming is woman's first defence, as one authority states "Screaming may not stop you from being raped but it could let others know you are being raped". Not only might knowledge that this was a legal requirement give someone planning an attack reason to pause and possibly deter some potential assailents, but a womans screams could alert nearby sources of help frighten off her assailant and save her, even though he threatened her life for not quietly complying. This was especially the case in bible times were women did not often travel independently or alone and girls lived in close knit communities were family and friends were rarely far away. Indeed this law ONLY applied in the city, ie where the womans screams were likely to be heard. It would be her legal protection, since, even if nobody reacted or understood the nature of her cries at the time, any recall would bear testimony that any sexual encounter was non-consensual (especially important if she later fell pregnant).

Screaming could not only potentially destabalize opposers but could also spur an individual's fight instincts, which is one reason solders often give battle cries when going to face their enemies, and this again may well be a determinating factor in whether the attack will continue or not. Finally, screaming was a firm statement of non-compliance, proving she was guilty of no wrong doing, the law discouraged women from seeing themselves as passive victims that could do nothing faced with male aggression, which, if nothing else, reportely helps in the pyscological recovery of some victims.

CONCLUSION: There was nothing "barbaric" about the mosaic law that stipulated someone being sexually attacked should scream if help could be potentially at hand. Indeed it could be the means by which help could be alerted, and if not could be psycologically positive for the victim in her recovery.


RELATED POSTS

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Could a Hebrew soldier rape a captive slave with immunity?
viewtopic.php?p=1073044#p1073044

Does the bible give husbands the right to RAPE their wives?
viewtopic.php?p=1057293#p1057293

Why was a woman required to scream if she were threatened with rape Under the mosaic law?
viewtopic.php?p=764030#p764030

Does the bible command or endorse RAPE?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 46#p976946

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

MARRIAGE, WOMEN and .. RAPE

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

QUESTION: What, if any, are the positive aspects having the legal provision for a Jealousy ritual?

This public ritual had many positive aspects. Firstly it protected an innocent woman from being publically humiliated without grounds by a suspcious husband. Having her name cleared in front of the community and divinely appointed authorities, meant she and any children she might later bear would not have their heritage called into question.

It also acted as a restraint for husbands tempted to accuse their wives of infidelity on trivial grounds. Since the Israelites believed firmly in divine intervention, swearing before God was not taken lightly, and seeing his wife swear before God that she was above reproach would likely appease a more reasonable man. Finally, for a deeply religious nation that definitely believed in miracles, the existence of this ritual discouraged immorality on a national basis, which again would be benefitcial to any children whose paternity might have otherwise been questioned.

CONCLUSION: The law was entirely positive as it gave innocent woman a means of clearing her name from groundless accusations, protecting any offspring born to her and acted as a restraint for jealous husbands whose accusations would be seen as false in the absense of a miracle* (see note below). In a deeply religious society it discouraged adultery, even if the adulterous act could be concealed.

NOTE: *There was actually nothing in the water that was drunk that could physically harm the woman [clear water with a bit of dust (not "dirt") and traces of ink] and the process should not be confused with any "trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages. Those torturous trials had power in themselves to injure seriously or kill. Whereas the law about jealousy required a miracle to bring about the punishment, the trials by ordeal during the Dark Ages required a miracle to deliver from punishment.

[Zzyzx]

.

Due to the absence of refrigeration in OT-times, I'd say eschewing crustaceans as a foodstuff made good sense.

Notice that aquatic animals "without fins and scales" includes a LOT of sea life other than crustaceans. Whales and seals come to mind as prime example of mainstay food sources for some societies. Squid and catfish are not considered dangerous to eat.

Even today, people are rightfully wary of food poisoning from consuming crab, lobster, shrimp etc. that is past its best.

A reasonable policy, therefore, would be to not eat spoiled food (of any kind). Spoiled or incorrectly prepared / handled beef (or other "clean animal") may also make a person ill.

People can, and do, die from eating seafood that's off (the entrepreneur Peter de Savory, by the by, nearly expired after eating bad shrimp on a British Airways' Concorde flight in the 80s).

If one in a thousand or a million (or whatever large number) become sick eating a spoiled food, is it rational to make a rule that NO ONE shall eat that food (whether spoiled or not).

Shall we pass a law outlawing eating shrimp?

Along similar lines to the above prohibition: the Koran instructs its adherents not to eat dead animals that they find on the roadside ('roadkill' in today's parlance, I suppose).

Koran or religious texts aside, what (exactly) sound reasoning prevents eating freshly killed (and not badly mangled) animals killed by vehicles?

I have hit several deer over the years and used at least portions of the meat – to no ill effect.

A more sensible "rule" would be to cook all food thoroughly and to eat it while it is hot (avoiding leaving it at temperatures between 40 F and 140 F).

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.

That means "use your own judgment" to decide which rules / laws to keep and which to ignore.

How is doing so any different from simply "use your own judgment" WITHOUT the baggage of rules?

[oldbadger]

If you want to you could start a thread 'Did God deliver the OT laws' or something similar, maybe?

That would be unnecessary. You have already illustrated he didn't, which was an integral part of the present OP. You can't get double credit.

Wrong! You seem as if totally biased....
An objective view might decide that:-
1. The Prophets decided upon the laws
or....
2. The prophets received the laws from the God of the Israelites.

I don't know which....... and nor, I think, do you.
But we've already shown that these laws were good for the Israelites AT THAT TIME.
And these laws, imo, were all about goodness, health, strength within the nation, and therefore they were a clear demonstration of the Israelites' God's love for them.

And to sin was to invite sickneses. And when Yeshua healed people, he took away their sins.

....click..... click....click..... it all clicks together, making clear sense. And your posts have guided to these simple facts.... truths, so you must share the credits here as well...

[catnip]

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.

ABUSE OF POWER UNDER THE HEBREW SYSTEM

# WHY DOES THE MOSAIC LAW NOT CONDEMN BEATING SLAVES (Ex 21:20)?

It is false to say that the law does not condemn beating slaves. The Mosaic law specifically instructs the Hebrews to treat others as they would themselves want to be treated - thus brutality and beatings were ILLEGAL under the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 19:18 ) It is false to say the law had nothing to say about beating slaves or that it encouraged mistreatment of anyone (foreigner or native, slave or freeman/woman)since the offer of protection against mistreatement and brutality was one of the legal systme's underlying principles.

Punishment however was legislated in a way that reflected what was practical, provable and enforcible. Basing a complaint on eyewitness testimony would only result in those bent on abuse doing so in private, so, the law then, as is the case today in most societies, required that physical proof of abuse be produced - - a broken tooth, bone, loss of an eye etc - before matters could be taken to the authorities; Any such injuries would result in the the AUTOMATIC LIBERATION of the slave (This brings to mind the fictional American TV drama "Roots" where an African slave has his foot cut off to stop him running away, such brutality would never have been permitted under Mosaic law.)

The above law would also have served as a strong deterrent against abuse since it is didfficult to severely beat somone and not damage their bodies in some way. Furthermore beating your slave could lead to a substantial financial sanction for the master since the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32) and his liberation would therefore have represented considerable financial loss. In short, the clear message being sent by such a law was "If you beat your slave, you run a strong risk of losing your slave. He walks home a free man and you lose 30 shekels!"

# Why would a Master not be punished if his slave died a few days after a beating?

Premeditated murder of a slave (or free man) automatically carried the death penelty. However, unintentional manslaughter (of slave or freeman) did not. If a slave owner wanted to kill his slave (which is unlikely because slaves represented significant financial benefits) it is unlikely he would chose a method that meant the slave died several days after the attack. The slaves lingering for some time indicates that the beating was not intended to kill him and the master would not be executed. If of course the slave lingered and eventually pulled through, he would be freed and would escape such a tyrant, but if unfortuately the slave died, it would as stated be judged as unintentional manslaughter and the death penalty not demanded.

It seems ridiculous to me for us to debate this considering that right up to 1865 slavery was allowed in this country and beating them was allowed, as well. In fact, I am not sure that an owner here couldn't beat his slave to death without any penalty. Our law allowed their abuse! Why should we be so harsh in judging people who lived 3000 years ago in an early civilization as to the "positive" quality of their laws.

I think it is good enough that they began a system of law and once a system is established, it provides the means to begin to examine the laws and improve the system. What would be a crime would be to continue to apply those ancient laws as though they were God's perfect will up to the present day. In other words, I am more concerned about the Fundamentalists who want to reinstate slavery NOW.