How Hard is the O.T.?

[liamconnor]

We've all been in situations where the impossible was required of us and when we could not perform, we suffered the consequences...right? And of course the consequences don't fit the crime, because the crime was almost inevitable.

Many complain about the consequences imposed on 'sins' by the O.T. They are deemed barbaric.

But rarely do we hear the question, Was the expectation ridiculous? I mean, "What is so hard about not committing adultery?" or "What was so hard about not gathering sticks that Saturday?"


Question for debate: of all the O.T. commandments which were breached by someone in the O.T. and thereby triggered the prescribed consequences, which of them were impossible in their expectations?

[Zzyzx]

.

We've all been in situations where the impossible was required of us and when we could not perform, we suffered the consequences...right?

Wrong.

I, for one, have not been in a situation in which the impossible was required of me. I HAVE been in situations wherein I did not or could not meet externally imposed 'requirements'. However, never did I regard the 'requirements' as impossible. They may have been beyond my ability or willingness or motivation in the given circumstances -- but not 'impossible'.

And of course the consequences don't fit the crime, because the crime was almost inevitable.

If a given action is 'almost inevitable', I question regarding it as a 'crime'.

Many complain about the consequences imposed on 'sins' by the O.T. They are deemed barbaric.

Yes. Killing people for committing adultery, being a 'witch', collecting firewood, worshiping competing 'gods', being homosexual, disobeying parents, calling someone 'baldy', etc IS barbaric in my opinion. If others regard those actions as justification for a death sentence, they have a problem.

But rarely do we hear the question, Was the expectation ridiculous? I mean, "What is so hard about not committing adultery?"

More appropriately, 'Why should I accept an ancient text telling me what I may or may not do sexually?'

or "What was so hard about not gathering sticks that Saturday?"

Likewise, whether hard or easy, WHY should someone's religious beliefs determine whether I (or anyone) can 'gather sticks' on ANY day?

Question for debate: of all the O.T. commandments which were breached by someone in the O.T. and thereby triggered the prescribed consequences, which of them were impossible in their expectations?

I would use the term 'irrational' expectations rather than 'impossible'.

It does not require genius to make 'rules' that entrap people for doing common things -- similar to 'don't step on a crack in the sidewalk'. Perhaps someone willing to focus their attention on avoiding cracks could manage to do so -- BUT WHY?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to liamconnor]

All your analysis and questions are irrelevant.

Morality is the result of millions of years of evolution.

“Premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.�

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the empathic process) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by:

“The Golden Rule� or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

It is a fact that when you hear of people being killed for working on the Sabbath or being killed for adultery; your mirror neurons fire and the empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be killed, your existence to be stopped(because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

But religious people fight this natural process, ignore their innate morality because of their religious psychological programing. Cognitive dissonance comes into play and by means of cognitive dissonance reduction they resolve these issues.

Q: Would you liked to be killed for working on the Sabbath?
Q: Would you liked to be killed for committing adultery?
Q: Would you kill someone for working on the Sabbath?
Q: Would you kill someone for committing adultery?
(Yes/No questions)

Q: Why do you ignore your innate morality that tell you this things are wrong?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

I am not sure how you answered the OP?

The OP is about how hard the prohibitions are to follow.


I understand that some people have emotional ties to such questions which block their ability to read the OP and answer it appropriately, and so may start railing on issues not in the OP, but, as I have been taught by at least one Mod here, honorable debate begins with sticking to an OP.

So, the accusation is that the O.T. is barbaric in its consequences.

But how hard are its proscriptions?

If anyone (love the 3rd person!) thinks the OP is not specific enough, I kindly ask him or her to suggest a revision.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by alexxcJRO]

All your analysis and questions are irrelevant.

My 'analysis'? What analysis did I give?

I asked how hard it is to avoid the O.T. prohibitions.

I could've asked how hard it is to avoid the U.S. prohibitions.


I am just asking questions. Purely Neutral questions: the kind asked by any moderator.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to liamconnor]

“I asked how hard it is to avoid the O.T. prohibitions.
I could've asked how hard it is to avoid the U.S. prohibitions.
I am just asking questions. Purely Neutral questions: the kind asked by any moderator.�


Like I said the questions are irrelevant.

Morality is the result of millions of years of evolution.

“Premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.�

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the empathic process) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by:

“The Golden Rule� or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

It is a fact that when you hear of people being killed for working on the Sabbath or being killed for adultery; your mirror neurons fire and the empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be killed, your existence to be stopped(because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

But religious people fight this natural process, ignore their innate morality because of their religious psychological programing. Cognitive dissonance comes into play and by means of cognitive dissonance reduction they resolve these issues.

Q: Would you liked to be killed for working on the Sabbath?
Q: Would you liked to be killed for committing adultery?
Q: Would you kill someone for working on the Sabbath?
Q: Would you kill someone for committing adultery?
(Yes/No questions)

Q: Why do you ignore your innate morality that tell you this things are wrong?

[Justin108]

We've all been in situations where the impossible was required of us and when we could not perform, we suffered the consequences...right? And of course the consequences don't fit the crime, because the crime was almost inevitable.

Many complain about the consequences imposed on 'sins' by the O.T. They are deemed barbaric.

But rarely do we hear the question, Was the expectation ridiculous? I mean, "What is so hard about not committing adultery?" or "What was so hard about not gathering sticks that Saturday?"


Question for debate: of all the O.T. commandments which were breached by someone in the O.T. and thereby triggered the prescribed consequences, which of them were impossible in their expectations?

I must say, as far as attempts to justify the barbaric OT laws, this one is pretty weak. I don't care how easy it is to not gather sticks on a Saturday... killing someone for it is inexcusable. How would you respond to a mother killing her child for not making his bed? I mean... making your bed is easy, right? So I guess that justifies killing a child for not doing it.

[Bust Nak]

But rarely do we hear the question, Was the expectation ridiculous?

I think that question is implied, I would go as far as to say it's not a question at all. We wouldn't be complaining about it if the expectation wasn't ridiculous.

I mean, "What is so hard about not committing adultery?" or "What was so hard about not gathering sticks that Saturday?"

Depends on the person.

Question for debate: of all the O.T. commandments which were breached by someone in the O.T. and thereby triggered the prescribed consequences, which of them were impossible in their expectations?

Start from the beginning - not eating from the tree of knowledge.

[Willum]

The eternal curse upon mankind for eating an apple: An eight year old could have figured out how to repair the situation, instead of curse everyone for (almost) all eternity.
The plagues - if God didn't keep changing the Pharaoh's mind...
The curse upon Cain. He could have just let his line end.

The flood.
After the flood, God could have fixed things.

Goodness, is there a single thing in the Bible that isn't a mind-numbingly disproportionate punishment?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

I am not sure how you answered the OP?

The OP is about how hard the prohibitions are to follow.


I understand that some people have emotional ties to such questions which block their ability to read the OP and answer it appropriately, and so may start railing on issues not in the OP, but, as I have been taught by at least one Mod here, honorable debate begins with sticking to an OP.

So, the accusation is that the O.T. is barbaric in its consequences.

But how hard are its proscriptions?

If anyone (love the 3rd person!) thinks the OP is not specific enough, I kindly ask him or her to suggest a revision.

Okay then the burden is on you. Research all the laws or commandments of ancient Israel, list off the ones that have the death penalty then try to convince us that it's not hard to live by such rules.