Do Any of God's Laws Expire?

[JoeMama]

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." --Deuteronomy 25:11-12


If the unchangeable God wanted his children to enforce this law then, wouldn't He want it enforced today?

[POI]

Maybe we should read again the Shabbat rule.

I did. Here is what it says, straight from the horse's mouth:

Exodus 20:8-11 (this is numbered as the Third Commandment by Catholics and Lutherans):

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”.

Ok, thank you. Now, if it was allowed for priests and guards to do what they do, it then must mean, not all actions are considered work.

the burnt-offering of the sabbath in its sabbath, besides the continual burnt-offering and its libation.
Num. 28:10

and commandeth them, saying, `This is the thing that ye do; The third of you are going in on the sabbath, and keepers of the charge of the house of the king, and the third is at the gate of Sur, and the third at the gate behind the runners, and ye have kept the charge of the house pulled down; and two parts of you, all going out on the sabbath--they have kept the charge of the house of Jehovah about the king, and ye have compassed the king round about, each with his weapons in his hand, and he who is coming unto the ranges is put to death; and be ye with the king in his going out and in his coming in.' And the heads of the hundreds do according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and take each his men going in on the sabbath, with those going out on the sabbath, and come in unto Jehoiada the priest,
2 Kings 11:5, 9

And as Jesus shows, people are allowed to do good, even if it is a Shabbat day. Therefore, yes, no work, but you can do good things, even if it is a Shabbat day.

How much better, therefore, is a man than a sheep? --so that it is lawful on the sabbaths to do good.'
Matt. 12:12

Before I address the above, I have to ask:

1) Do you perform 'work' on the Sabbath day (yes/no)? If not, how do you know? If yes, I guess you are screwed, unless you answer (yes) to question 2).
2) Is this law expired (yes/no)? And how do you know, either way?

[1213]

1) Do you perform 'work' on the Sabbath day (yes/no)? If not, how do you know? If yes, I guess you are screwed, unless you answer (yes) to question 2).

I have understood work means the job I do to get wage. I don't think I do it on Shabbat days. However, even if I obey it correctly, I don't think I deserve any reward for it, except rest.

I don't think work means for example breathing, even though by some definition even that could be counted work.

Why should I care, if you think I am "screwed", you are not the God?

2) Is this law expired (yes/no)? And how do you know, either way?

Bible, nor God says the law is expired, therefore I think it has not expired.

[POI]

1) Do you perform 'work' on the Sabbath day (yes/no)? If not, how do you know? If yes, I guess you are screwed, unless you answer (yes) to question 2).

I have understood work means the job I do to get wage. I don't think I do it on Shabbat days. However, even if I obey it correctly, I don't think I deserve any reward for it, except rest.

I don't think work means for example breathing, even though by some definition even that could be counted work.

Why should I care, if you think I am "screwed", you are not the God?

I agree with what you say about elaborating what is and what is not deemed as "work". However, it would be fair to say that any person, who works to earn a wage on the Sabbath day, cannot be deemed 'righteous', right? Or can they? If you believe they can, you will need to back up that claim.

2) Is this law expired (yes/no)? And how do you know, either way?

Bible, nor God says the law is expired, therefore I think it has not expired.

How exactly do we know if any OT law has expired?

[Purple Knight]

What you're seeing is how beneficial it is to the side not simply forgiving. If your side forgives, lets stuff go, and the other side pursues consequences, then you lose. Many of these consequences are not legal ones. Cancelling is the result of one side being magnanimous about words and the other side being livid and willing to use all the tools at their disposal to not forgive those words.
...
In fact the Bible says it's not okay to murder and steal. But let's say we have a criminal, the judge is a devout Christian, and this man before him is a thief and a murderer. What is the more Christian thing to do: Take vengeance and throw him in prison to be raped, or let him go?
...

If we have a law and a lawful judge, he should judge by the law. If the victim thinks, ok, I forgive, then it is ok, if the judge doesn't judge by the law. The law should always be the same for all. If it is not for some people, it should not be for any people.

Who do you think is putting criminals in jail, ultimately? It's not just the judge; he's just doing his job. It's you and me. We make the laws. We pay his salary. We pay him to throw people in jail who hurt us. We all want what you said - that the law should be the same for everybody - so we figure out what we would want if we were the victim and come to an agreement. We probably should vote on it directly.

And if we did vote on it directly, and the ballot said this, which box do you check as a righteous Christian?

If someone hurts, kills, or steals from me, I would like the law to:
[_] forgive him and let him go
[_] punish him

I'm not ashamed to check that second box because I'm not a Christian or one of these new age moralists, and I care about who that guy is going to hurt next, not my soul or my pristine virtue. I want to be a good person but not at the cost of others.

The society we have now is probably a result of everyone checking the first box and hoping that they get outvoted, preserving their moral perfection and getting safety from rampaging raping murderers at the same time. I don't know why they do it while not being religious, but nobody wants to be the dirty, tainted, impure, morally imperfect one and advocate for that second option. So we get the first.

[1213]

...We make the laws.

I have not made any law.

And if we did vote on it directly, and the ballot said this, which box do you check as a righteous Christian?

If someone hurts, kills, or steals from me, I would like the law to:
[_] forgive him and let him go
[_] punish him

I'm not ashamed to check that second box because I'm not a Christian or one of these new age moralists, and I care about who that guy is going to hurt next, not my soul or my pristine virtue. I want to be a good person but not at the cost of others....

If I would decide, the law would say, the one who stole things, pays back everything he stole, unless the victim forgives. And murderer, I think Biblical law would be good in this.

[1213]

...However, it would be fair to say that any person, who works to earn a wage on the Sabbath day, cannot be deemed 'righteous', right? ...

I don't know, I leave that to God to decide. I am not good enough to say who are truly righteous. I can only say that according to the Bible, people should not work on Shabbat day and I think it is a good rule.

How exactly do we know if any OT law has expired?

Maybe we can't really know anything. I believe it is not expired, because it is not said so in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems clear to me that religious work; doing duty as a priest, Rabbi or preacher - even if one gets paid for it - is permitted 'work' on a holy day. It is mundane (not religious) work that is prohibited and there are penalties if one breaks that rule, or the Religious would like there to be. The Jewish tradition even prohibits normal stuff like tearing toilet - paper. That has to be done on the day of preparation. Folks, it ain't just a Christian I'm glad I'm not

But I think the actual question is being overlooked here. It appears to be a pilpul discussion about where one puts the fence around the Torah. It is not 'here is the line - do not cross it' but 'this is beyond what is permitted to keep you away from crossing the line'. The point about No work on the Sabbath (other than working as a priest or Synagogue ruler - that is a red herring) is not a discussion about what is permitted to 'save life or health', which is a point even in Jewish law, but about breaking the Sabbath for no good reason, like husking grain, never mind ignoring 'church', but about doing good like healing to do away with the Sabbath. There is no 'pilpul' discussion about it (1) The Rabbis are silenced and plot dirty deeds. This tells us that the account is not about what is permitted under the law (or should be) but doing away with the law. In fact doing away with a commandment. Support for this is found with David and the Shewbread, where Jesus says that a less than sinless king ate Temple food (never mind the priest decided it was ok) and thus we can ignore church - going. This is clear; it is doing away with Jewish law and is pushing the Paulinist Christian agenda. Depend upon that Add to that the Christian take on the Messiah being a divine title (Nativity and blasphemy charge) and you have the evidence that this is Christian Law -breaking polemic, not eyewitness accounts of a Rabinical reform discussion.

(1) It didn't have to be done there, Jesus could have done it th next day. 'But maybe Jesus or patient wouldn't be there', But even then it is not life -threatening. There would be quite a debate about it.

[Purple Knight]

If I would decide, the law would say, the one who stole things, pays back everything he stole, unless the victim forgives.

That is not far off from the society we have. The only difference is that because we wish to have equal justice for equal crime, we have to decide if we would forgive 1) collectively and 2) before it happens to us... usually. Everyone says they will always forgive. This is the genuine collective Will of the People.

Now I think this minor difference is probably the cause of the problem. I think your world is significantly different than ours. This is because I believe people are (in general, but nobody on this forum) vacillating idiots who don't give a single thought to how they would feel if it did happen to them. They approach the problem only thinking about how good the immediate choice will make them look, and will worry about having the courage of their convictions... never. They'll get upset when it does happen to them and their criminal isn't punished, but they won't even connect what they said before and what they say now. They're not even capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance; they just act for their immediate benefit with completely thoughtless, shocking efficiency... like cockroaches.

But if people weren't such unthinking nincompoops, and this same problem of the law not punishing anyone existed, but for the reason that the people did have the courage of their convictions and nobody wanted to punish anybody, wouldn't you still be equally upset at the state of the world? Wouldn't it be just as horrible that criminals ran around doing whatever they wanted, hurting whoever they pleased?

Some people will make the case that these people do have the courage of their convictions, in which case the law making people decide first and collectively, is irrelevant. I don't think that's correct, but there could easily be a world in which it was correct, and we had the same problem of the law never punishing anybody.

[1213]

... because we wish to have equal justice for equal crime, we have to decide if we would forgive 1) collectively and 2) before it happens to us... usually.

I think we could leave the forgiveness part for the victim to decide. I think it would be equal, because all would have the same right. If criminal doesn't like to be judged, he should not do the crime.

...Everyone says they will always forgive. This is the genuine collective Will of the People.

Why do you think so?

...and nobody wanted to punish anybody, wouldn't you still be equally upset at the state of the world? Wouldn't it be just as horrible that criminals ran around doing whatever they wanted, hurting whoever they pleased?

Would the criminals like the world without punishments? Then they would probably soon be killed, because why would anyone care about do they live or not, if there is no punishments? In a way, it may be that laws are only helping criminals, because they protect them from harm that common people could cause to them, if there would be no laws.

I think it is good to have law and order. But, obviously the laws should be good.

[Purple Knight]

... because we wish to have equal justice for equal crime, we have to decide if we would forgive 1) collectively and 2) before it happens to us... usually.

I think we could leave the forgiveness part for the victim to decide. I think it would be equal, because all would have the same right. If criminal doesn't like to be judged, he should not do the crime.

In modern day we'd have a bunch of people thinking they got the shaft because of their race whether they did or not, and we'd have massive social backlash against anyone who decided to punish, just like we have social backlash now against people who merely advocate to punish. We'd also have criminals getting smart and only attacking people who they knew would forgive. They would probably attack groups they knew would get the most social backlash for deciding to punish.

And then we'd have the worst of both worlds as far as Christians are concerned. We'd have people who did not forgive in their hearts, going to Hell for it (if you believe in Hell) and not getting the right to extract the eye-for-an-eye the law allows them while alive because other people would jump on them for it and ruin their lives.

These virtuists are the problem. They're the ones who demand that others forgive, when they have never had an encounter with an aggressor. They would ruin your system just as much as they ruined our system that is designed to (compared to yours) make a few sacrifices for the cause of treating criminals equally, independent of who exactly they hurt.

...Everyone says they will always forgive. This is the genuine collective Will of the People.

Why do you think so?

Because the virtuists have cowed them into it. Even if people prefer to be genuine, they can't afford it when competing with a virtue cockroach who accrues virtue more efficiently than they do.

People will tell you, it's not genuine virtue. I will tell you, it is real virtue because that's all virtue is: Appearing virtuous. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is that it appears genuine to observers. That's why they select it. When society is still the driving force of human interaction, rewarding high virtue and punishing low, a virtuist exerts such massive competitive pressure that they force everyone else to become virtuists.

"Genuine will" might have been confusing because I believe a lot of people are secretly wishing against this dynamic, but if you put the question to them, society punishes them so harshly for failing to forgive, that everyone always says they will forgive. I probably should have said "genuine result of our honest measurement of collective will" because if people are lying about what they want in fear of social backlash, there's no honest way to measure that short of trampling people's right to enforce that backlash.

...and nobody wanted to punish anybody, wouldn't you still be equally upset at the state of the world? Wouldn't it be just as horrible that criminals ran around doing whatever they wanted, hurting whoever they pleased?

Would the criminals like the world without punishments?

They'd love it, because they alone would always punish. Imagine being attacked by a serial mugger, rapist, and mutilator in such a world. He doesn't care about social backlash because he just takes what he wants through force. He doesn't have a job to protect or the how-dare-you-not-forgive police to deal with. He's always the poor unfortunate soul on the side in need of forgiveness. So after a struggle for your life, you find you've killed the fellow, but your relief that you're still alive is short-lived because he left a testament that anyone who kills him... gets killed.

Even if the forgiveness is genuine, and such a world is genuine, criminals want to hurt people. Criminals aren't going to follow everyone else's conventions. That's why they're criminals. If there are people who want to hurt others sprinkled into a world of perfect forgiveness, why would they forgive those who hurt them? They can hurt again if they punish, and they want to hurt, so that's a win for them.

In this kind of situation you need laws that heavily favour defenders over aggressors. You can't just have, this action and therefore this punishment.

I think it is good to have law and order. But, obviously the laws should be good.

Designing a world where criminals can't take advantage and come out ahead of people who follow the law, is hard. That thing where the law just benefits the criminals? That's easy. That persists until people do something about it. And that includes wanting people to be punished even if they attack people who want to forgive them.

I think we're of like mind in that we would not like to be raped, mugged, mutilated or murdered. I would also like to form a society with people of this like mind, one where we do what is necessary to stop people from raping, stealing, and murdering, even if that's punishing them.

I think the paranoia about disease in the recent escapade went too far. But there's a rational need to prevent people from becoming breeding grounds for disease. If there were some Let's-Spread-Ebola-Amongst-Ourselves pizza party, I hope the government would break it up. Likewise, if extreme forgiveness becomes a breeding ground for crime, I feel good laws that protect people, would step in and stop that, too.