Without an analysis of the actual Old Testament Law and seeing if this was actually applied or carried out is the equivalent of accusing judges of the murder of someone they have never seen or met. It is like accusing the judge of murdering a person that was murdered by someone they have on trail.
Well, shucks, I'm sorry, but you're kind of sort of wrong. You see, the issue is NOT whether the barbaric law prescribed by God was ever carried out. The issue is whether the barbaric law was prescribed by God. The question is GOD'S morality, not ancient Israel's. Or modern Israel's. Or first century Israel's. The sick thing is that the laws are patently immoral and yet presented to us as though they are God's Word. If these laws are God's Word, then God's Word is immoral, and if God's Word is immoral, God is immoral. It makes not one whit of difference if no one ever carried it out. In fact, if it was never carried out, it goes down in Israel's ledger as a positive achievement.
All I am doing now is a short evaluation of God's Laws. However, if you want to actually read a bible you might see that God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. Instead they originally had a system of judges. It was only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death.
Mark, being patronizing doesn't become you, especially when you're so demonstrably flipping WRONG about the point you're making. "God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Every law I have cited is from the Pentateuch, which LONG precedes the reigns of the judges and the kings. That law that prescribes death by stoning for the crime of picking up sticks on the sabbath? That's in Numbers. That's a little bit before Judges.
I cited three strict capital offenses in recent posts, just for kicks. NOT ONE of them fits your description of being "only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."
Mark, being patronizing doesn't become you, especially when you're so demonstrably flipping WRONG about the point you're making. "God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Every law I have cited is from the Pentateuch, which LONG precedes the reigns of the judges and the kings.
Then why don't you actually quote from what you call the Pentateuch? Again the nation of Israel started off with laws much less strict than in other nations. Exodus 18:13-27 clearly shows this with Judges deciding on individual conflicts. And this was before the Law of Exodus Chapter 20 and following was written. Sorry if you are confused with your 3rd grade math. The number 18 in Exodus is before the number 20 also in Exodus. :confused:/>
Exodus chapter 18
24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves.
"All I am doing now is a short evaluation of God's Laws. However, if you want to actually read a bible you might see that God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. Instead they originally had a system of judges. It was only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."
Those be your words.
And they be ridiculous. The law preceded the kings by GENERATIONS.
According to the Bible, God instituted these barbaric laws. Stop trying to pass the responsibility for their barbaric immorality to the Israelites. Israel RECEIVED the law. Israel didn't concoct it. At least, not unless the Bible is false. If the Bible is false, then Israel, not God, is responsible for the barbaric nature of the Old Testament law.
Why does the Old Testament contain some laws and punishments that are barbaric by today's higher moral standards?
A. Who said today's moral standards are higher? God is the standard of morality. His law is holy just and good. We should get back to it. Start stoning some heathens and Sabbath breakers. Rape my daughter? pay me 50 shekels and marry her and we'll call it even.
B. God gave Israel barbaric laws in Exodus - Deuteronomy in response to Israel's demand for a king hundreds of years later.
C. The laws were not given by God but concocted by a society that was no more morally advanced than other societies of the time.
In order to compare any two or multiple entities, there needs to be a finite criteria to serve as a measuring stick of sorts. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the criteria is whether or not it is moral to stone someone to death for a minor infraction. I think we would all opine that it's not. It's not something I would personally recommend, anyhow. Yahweh (AKA: Mac Daddy of the OT), on the other hand, not only recommends it, He prescribes it. Do a logical comparison to determine which entity displays a higher level of morality. I give you three guesses .....but the first two don't count.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "finite criteria." If I think Halle Berry is more attractive than Rosanne Barr, does that mean I'm holding them both to a "finite criteria"?
5. You own two slaves, a man and a woman. You decide to give the woman to the man. They have two sons. After six years, the man is supposed to go free. But you still own the woman and the two sons. What do you do?
A. Set the man free, but keep the woman and boys. They are your property, after all.
B. Give the man a chance to stay with his wife and sons by committing to be your slave for life.
C. Set the sons free, because they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keep the wife because she's a good cook and can work a plow, if you know what I mean wink wink.
D. You effing own effing slaves? What the eff are you effing doing owning effing slaves?
Finite means having limits or boundaries, therefore measurable. Criteria means the standard or set of standards by which something is measured. Morality is a subjective concept. In this case, however, if we all reach a consensus that killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is immoral, we have created a finite criteria. Now we can compare the two entities (self & Yahweh) using that criteria.
Yeah, but what if a few centuries from now, students in a future class WANT A to be smaller than B. Can A be smaller than B now to accommodate the whims of a future class of students?
Yeah, but what if a few centuries from now, students in a future class WANT A to be smaller than B. Can A be smaller than B now to accommodate the whims of a future class of students?
People in the witness protection program get new ID's, new birth certificates, new social security numbers and so on. In reality, though, they are actually the same person. So A could grow a beard, start wearing a fedora and listen to John Coltrane reissues. Maybe A could even pass himself off as B's twin, twice removed. Alas, deep inside, A will still be A and no amount of disguise can change that.
If it's immoral today to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night, then it was always immoral to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night. Therefore, it was immoral to decree a law that says a man who picks up sticks on a Friday night is to be executed.
But that law WAS decreed, by Yahweh. And it was decreed by Yahweh centuries before Israel asked for a king. It was also decreed by Yahweh centuries before the invention of the printing press, the moon landing, and the Bush v. Gore election fiasco. It was decreed by Yahweh centuries before an uncountable number of irrelevant events. Israel asking for a king had no more effect on Yahweh's decree than the moon landing had. They were completely unrelated events.
The decree that a man who picked up sticks on a Friday night (to be fair, it could have been Saturday morning, which would make a world of difference... to flippin no one) should be executed for his crime was immoral by today's standards. It was not immoral by Yahweh's standards. (How do we know this? Because it was HIS law, not Israel's, not the surrounding nations' and not Neil Armstrong's).
But wait! There was another law that said if you stole something, you should have to repay it. That was moral, right?
In my humble opinion, yes, that was pretty moral. So we can agree that some of Yahweh's laws were quite moral.
Now, getting back to the laws that were NOT moral, the ones that were barbaric, bloodthirsty, cruel, misogynistic and tolerant of intolerable institutions like slavery...
No! I want to talk about the moral laws!
But the moral laws are not in question or dispute. No one is arguing that ALL of Yahweh's laws are immoral. One would expect SOME laws to be moral.
The issue is whether ALL of Yahweh's laws are moral. If Yahweh's laws are not moral, then by what standard to we credit Him with being moral? And please don't tell me the answer is by New Testament standards, because by New Testament standards, the Old Testament law was "holy, just and good."
Except it was not holy, just and good. It was cruel, barbaric and inhumane (among other things).
If, by today's standards, we can see that some of Yahweh's law is moral and some of it is really, REALLY not, are we not by definition operating on a higher moral standard than Yahweh's?
Incidentally, I don't believe in Yahweh, so if you substitute "ancient Israel" for "Yahweh" in the preceding sentences, you will see that nothing I am saying is even remotely controversial. It is only controversial if you think ancient Israel's laws were decreed by Yahweh. I don't believe Yahweh is a moral monster, because I don't believe he exists. I believe ancient Israel had some monstrous laws, but in that, they were no different from any other nation, culture or religion -- exactly the result one would expect if their laws were man-made and not the decrees of an Author of Morality.
Above is a link providing information about the history of the death penalty among some of the nations. Yes, the nation of Israel also had the death penalty. However, Jesus Christ, God's Son saw that his nation was using it, but was not applying the Old Testament Law pertaining to the death penalty with justice. One of Jesus Christ's famous words regarding Jews that wanted to use the death penalty was recorded in John 8:3-11.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Above is a link providing information about the history of the death penalty among some of the nations. Yes, the nation of Israel also had the death penalty. However, Jesus Christ, God's Son saw that his nation was using it, but was not applying the Old Testament Law pertaining to the death penalty with justice. One of Jesus Christ's famous words regarding Jews that wanted to use the death penalty was recorded in John 8:3-11.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
The story of the woman taken in adultery is an interpolation into the Bible and was not an original part of the gospel of John. Using it to prove a theological point reflects a lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship.
Further, it needs to be said that the issue we are discussing is God's morality. Shifting the blame for the barbarism inherent in the Old Testament law to Israel does not negate the fact that, according to the Bible, Yahweh was the author of that law.
The notion that Jesus saw they were not applying the Old Testament death penalty with justice is laughably irrelevant to this thread, because if they WERE dispensing Old Testament law with justice, we would correctly see them as bloodthirsty savages. That is because our morality today is greater than the morality of the author of the Old Testament law. And if the author of the Old Testament law was Yahweh, then you are more moral than Yahweh.
Raf, you are clearly to me not understanding the words of Jesus Christ. In the Greek the word hang means to hang or suspend. Therefore this law was for their culture and not necessary for future cultures. Yes, it had some truth in it and may have been needful for some of the bad people of the Old Testament times, but Jesus Christ expands on this and suspends there law with his law of love.
And to verify from my bible software according to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the Greek word for hang is kremannumi and means "to hang up, to suspend".
According to an English dictionary suspend means as follows:
"temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect"
Do you realize that by using this ABSURD logic, the tallest building in New York City would have to be the New York Public Library?
Because it has more stories than any other building in the city.
If you think Jesus was talking about suspending the Old Testament law, that position is scripturally indefensible.
The story of the woman taken in adultery is an interpolation into the Bible and was not an original part of the gospel of John. Using it to prove a theological point reflects a lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship.
Further, it needs to be said that the issue we are discussing is God's morality. Shifting the blame for the barbarism inherent in the Old Testament law to Israel does not negate the fact that, according to the Bible, Yahweh was the author of that law.
The notion that Jesus saw they were not applying the Old Testament death penalty with justice is laughably irrelevant to this thread, because if they WERE dispensing Old Testament law with justice, we would correctly see them as bloodthirsty savages. That is because our morality today is greater than the morality of the author of the Old Testament law. And if the author of the Old Testament law was Yahweh, then you are more moral than Yahweh.
Here is a link to show that Raf's views are contrary to the many biblical interpreters. This link shows 50 English versions of the bible and also many versions of the bible written in other languages. To see any of these versions of the bible and to verify if John 8:3-11 is written in these versions simply go to this page and with John 8:3-11 typed at the top of this web page click the down arrow to the right and choose any of the many versions of the bible that you want to see. Then to see the version and these verses click the SEARCH button
Here is scriptural information showing that Jesus' words in John 8:3-11 are in harmony with Jesus Christ's other teachings and acts of love. Also that the Old Testament law was NOT being truthfully applied by the rabbis, scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day and other times in the history of the Jewish nation and that these interpretations sometimes obscured the original purpose of the commandments.
From the Nelson Bible Dictionary, which also publishes the New King James Version.
Jesus and the law of Moses -
The people whom Jesus taught already had a large body of ethical teaching in the Old Testament law. But a further body of oral interpretation and application had grown up around the Law of Moses over the centuries. Jesus declared that He had come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it (Matt 5:17). But He emphasized its ethical quality by summarizing it in terms of what He called the two great commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God" (Deut 6:5) and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). "On these two commandments," He said, "hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt 22:40).
Jesus did not claim uniqueness or originality for His ethical teaching. One of His purposes was to explain the ancient law of God. Yet there was a distinctiveness and freshness about His teaching, as He declared His authority: "You have heard that it was said...But I say to you" (Matt 5:21-22). Only in listening to His words and doing them could a person build a secure foundation for his life (Matt 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49).
In His interpretation of specific commandments, Jesus did not use the methods of the Jewish rabbis. He dared to criticize their rulings, which had been handed down by word of mouth through successive generations of scribes. He even declared that these interpretations sometimes obscured the original purpose of the commandments. In appealing to that original purpose, He declared that a commandment was most faithfully obeyed when God's purpose in giving it was fulfilled. His treatment of the Sabbath law is an example of this approach.
In a similar way, Jesus settled the question of divorce by an appeal to the original marriage ordinance (Gen 1:26-27; 2:24-25). Since husband and wife were made one by the Creator's decree, Jesus pointed out, divorce was an attempt to undo the work of God. If the law later allowed for divorce in certain situations (Deut 24:1-4), that was a concession to men's inability to keep the commandment. But it was not so in the beginning, He declared, and it should not be so for those who belong to the kingdom of God.
Jesus actually injected new life into the ethical principles of the Law of Moses. But He did not impose a new set of laws that could be enforced by external sanctions; He prescribed a way of life for His followers. The act of murder, forbidden in the sixth commandment, was punishable by death. Conduct or language likely to provoke a breach of the peace could also bring on legal penalties. No human law can detect or punish the angry thought; yet it is here, Jesus taught, that the process which leads to murder begins. Therefore, "whoever is angry with his brother...shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matt 5:22). But He was careful to point out that the judgment is God's, not man's.
The law could also punish a person for breaking the seventh commandment, which forbade adultery. But Jesus maintained that the act itself was the outcome of a person's internal thought. Therefore, "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28).
Jesus' attitude and teaching also made many laws about property irrelevant for His followers. They should be known as people who give, not as people who get. If someone demands your cloak (outer garment), Jesus said, give it to him, and give him your tunic (undergarment) as well (Luke 6:29). There is more to life than abundance of possessions (Luke 12:15); in fact, He pointed out, material wealth is a hindrance to one's spiritual life. The wise man therefore will get rid of it: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). In no area have Jesus' followers struggled more to avoid the uncompromising rigor of his words than in His teaching about the danger of possessions.
Jesus insisted that more is expected of His followers than the ordinary morality of decent people. Their ethical behavior should exceed "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" (Matt 5:20). "If you love [only] those who love you," He asked, "what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them" (Luke 6:32). The higher standard of the kingdom of God called for acts of love to enemies and words of blessing and goodwill to persecutors. The children of the kingdom should not insist on their legal rights but cheerfully give them up in response to the supreme law of love.
The way of nonviolence - The principle of nonviolence is deeply ingrained in Jesus' teaching. In His references to the "men of violence" who tried to bring in the kingdom of God by force, Jesus gave no sign that He approved of their ideals or methods. The course which He called for was the way of peace and submission. He urged His hearers not to strike back against injustice or oppression but to turn the other cheek, to go a second mile when their services were demanded for one mile, and to take the initiative in returning good for evil.
But the way of nonviolence did not appeal to the people. The crowd chose the militant Barabbas when they were given the opportunity to have either Jesus or Barabbas set free. But the attitude expressed in the shout, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" (Matt 27:15-26) was the spirit that would one day level Jerusalem and bring misery and suffering to the Jewish nation.
It doesn't matter how many Bible versions contain the story, many Biblical scholars have opined that it did not appear in the texts until late in the 4th century. In other words, it was added.
Whether I am correct about the interpolated verses or not (news flash: I am correct), its relevance to the fact that God supposedly authored the barbaric laws of the Old Testament remains nil. In other words, Mark's continued effort to derail this thread remains noted. If I were observing this conversation rather than participating... but I'm not. Whatever.
It doesn't matter how many Bible versions contain the story, many Biblical scholars have opined that it did not appear in the texts until late in the 4th century. In other words, it was added.
Clearly at least to me, the scripture of John 8:3-11 is in agreement with the words and actions of Jesus Christ. My recent quote from the Nelson Bible Dictionary shows this to people of faith. Regarding the controversy of these verses being extracted from the gospel of John, here is a reason they may have been removed, but later placed back in the gospel of John.
"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."
Suppose for a moment that the record being discussed was in the "original". How do we account for OT laws that were supposed to be immutable being brushed aside in the Gospels by someone who is said to have always spoken for God?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
Well, shucks, I'm sorry, but you're kind of sort of wrong. You see, the issue is NOT whether the barbaric law prescribed by God was ever carried out. The issue is whether the barbaric law was prescribed by God. The question is GOD'S morality, not ancient Israel's. Or modern Israel's. Or first century Israel's. The sick thing is that the laws are patently immoral and yet presented to us as though they are God's Word. If these laws are God's Word, then God's Word is immoral, and if God's Word is immoral, God is immoral. It makes not one whit of difference if no one ever carried it out. In fact, if it was never carried out, it goes down in Israel's ledger as a positive achievement.
Mark, being patronizing doesn't become you, especially when you're so demonstrably flipping WRONG about the point you're making. "God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Every law I have cited is from the Pentateuch, which LONG precedes the reigns of the judges and the kings. That law that prescribes death by stoning for the crime of picking up sticks on the sabbath? That's in Numbers. That's a little bit before Judges.
I cited three strict capital offenses in recent posts, just for kicks. NOT ONE of them fits your description of being "only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Then why don't you actually quote from what you call the Pentateuch? Again the nation of Israel started off with laws much less strict than in other nations. Exodus 18:13-27 clearly shows this with Judges deciding on individual conflicts. And this was before the Law of Exodus Chapter 20 and following was written. Sorry if you are confused with your 3rd grade math. The number 18 in Exodus is before the number 20 also in Exodus. :confused:/>
Exodus chapter 18
24 So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves.
MOD EDIT: Off topic content deleted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are you reading your own posts?
"All I am doing now is a short evaluation of God's Laws. However, if you want to actually read a bible you might see that God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. Instead they originally had a system of judges. It was only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."
Those be your words.
And they be ridiculous. The law preceded the kings by GENERATIONS.
MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted.
According to the Bible, God instituted these barbaric laws. Stop trying to pass the responsibility for their barbaric immorality to the Israelites. Israel RECEIVED the law. Israel didn't concoct it. At least, not unless the Bible is false. If the Bible is false, then Israel, not God, is responsible for the barbaric nature of the Old Testament law.
What a concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
New question.
Why does the Old Testament contain some laws and punishments that are barbaric by today's higher moral standards?
A. Who said today's moral standards are higher? God is the standard of morality. His law is holy just and good. We should get back to it. Start stoning some heathens and Sabbath breakers. Rape my daughter? pay me 50 shekels and marry her and we'll call it even.
B. God gave Israel barbaric laws in Exodus - Deuteronomy in response to Israel's demand for a king hundreds of years later.
C. The laws were not given by God but concocted by a society that was no more morally advanced than other societies of the time.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In order to compare any two or multiple entities, there needs to be a finite criteria to serve as a measuring stick of sorts. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the criteria is whether or not it is moral to stone someone to death for a minor infraction. I think we would all opine that it's not. It's not something I would personally recommend, anyhow. Yahweh (AKA: Mac Daddy of the OT), on the other hand, not only recommends it, He prescribes it. Do a logical comparison to determine which entity displays a higher level of morality. I give you three guesses .....but the first two don't count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Please elaborate on what you mean by "finite criteria." If I think Halle Berry is more attractive than Rosanne Barr, does that mean I'm holding them both to a "finite criteria"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
5. You own two slaves, a man and a woman. You decide to give the woman to the man. They have two sons. After six years, the man is supposed to go free. But you still own the woman and the two sons. What do you do?
A. Set the man free, but keep the woman and boys. They are your property, after all.
B. Give the man a chance to stay with his wife and sons by committing to be your slave for life.
C. Set the sons free, because they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keep the wife because she's a good cook and can work a plow, if you know what I mean wink wink.
D. You effing own effing slaves? What the eff are you effing doing owning effing slaves?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Finite means having limits or boundaries, therefore measurable. Criteria means the standard or set of standards by which something is measured. Morality is a subjective concept. In this case, however, if we all reach a consensus that killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is immoral, we have created a finite criteria. Now we can compare the two entities (self & Yahweh) using that criteria.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Gotcha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So. Umm. Do we agree that executing a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath is immoral?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Teacher: If we know that A is larger than B and B is smaller than A, can we then do a size comparison?
Student: Depends
Teacher: On what?
Student: Culture stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yeah, but what if a few centuries from now, students in a future class WANT A to be smaller than B. Can A be smaller than B now to accommodate the whims of a future class of students?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
People in the witness protection program get new ID's, new birth certificates, new social security numbers and so on. In reality, though, they are actually the same person. So A could grow a beard, start wearing a fedora and listen to John Coltrane reissues. Maybe A could even pass himself off as B's twin, twice removed. Alas, deep inside, A will still be A and no amount of disguise can change that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, so let's bring it home:
If it's immoral today to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night, then it was always immoral to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night. Therefore, it was immoral to decree a law that says a man who picks up sticks on a Friday night is to be executed.
But that law WAS decreed, by Yahweh. And it was decreed by Yahweh centuries before Israel asked for a king. It was also decreed by Yahweh centuries before the invention of the printing press, the moon landing, and the Bush v. Gore election fiasco. It was decreed by Yahweh centuries before an uncountable number of irrelevant events. Israel asking for a king had no more effect on Yahweh's decree than the moon landing had. They were completely unrelated events.
The decree that a man who picked up sticks on a Friday night (to be fair, it could have been Saturday morning, which would make a world of difference... to flippin no one) should be executed for his crime was immoral by today's standards. It was not immoral by Yahweh's standards. (How do we know this? Because it was HIS law, not Israel's, not the surrounding nations' and not Neil Armstrong's).
But wait! There was another law that said if you stole something, you should have to repay it. That was moral, right?
In my humble opinion, yes, that was pretty moral. So we can agree that some of Yahweh's laws were quite moral.
Now, getting back to the laws that were NOT moral, the ones that were barbaric, bloodthirsty, cruel, misogynistic and tolerant of intolerable institutions like slavery...
No! I want to talk about the moral laws!
But the moral laws are not in question or dispute. No one is arguing that ALL of Yahweh's laws are immoral. One would expect SOME laws to be moral.
The issue is whether ALL of Yahweh's laws are moral. If Yahweh's laws are not moral, then by what standard to we credit Him with being moral? And please don't tell me the answer is by New Testament standards, because by New Testament standards, the Old Testament law was "holy, just and good."
Except it was not holy, just and good. It was cruel, barbaric and inhumane (among other things).
If, by today's standards, we can see that some of Yahweh's law is moral and some of it is really, REALLY not, are we not by definition operating on a higher moral standard than Yahweh's?
Incidentally, I don't believe in Yahweh, so if you substitute "ancient Israel" for "Yahweh" in the preceding sentences, you will see that nothing I am saying is even remotely controversial. It is only controversial if you think ancient Israel's laws were decreed by Yahweh. I don't believe Yahweh is a moral monster, because I don't believe he exists. I believe ancient Israel had some monstrous laws, but in that, they were no different from any other nation, culture or religion -- exactly the result one would expect if their laws were man-made and not the decrees of an Author of Morality.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Above is a link providing information about the history of the death penalty among some of the nations. Yes, the nation of Israel also had the death penalty. However, Jesus Christ, God's Son saw that his nation was using it, but was not applying the Old Testament Law pertaining to the death penalty with justice. One of Jesus Christ's famous words regarding Jews that wanted to use the death penalty was recorded in John 8:3-11.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would you clarify the point you're making?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The story of the woman taken in adultery is an interpolation into the Bible and was not an original part of the gospel of John. Using it to prove a theological point reflects a lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship.
Further, it needs to be said that the issue we are discussing is God's morality. Shifting the blame for the barbarism inherent in the Old Testament law to Israel does not negate the fact that, according to the Bible, Yahweh was the author of that law.
The notion that Jesus saw they were not applying the Old Testament death penalty with justice is laughably irrelevant to this thread, because if they WERE dispensing Old Testament law with justice, we would correctly see them as bloodthirsty savages. That is because our morality today is greater than the morality of the author of the Old Testament law. And if the author of the Old Testament law was Yahweh, then you are more moral than Yahweh.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
From earlier in this thread:
Do you realize that by using this ABSURD logic, the tallest building in New York City would have to be the New York Public Library?
Because it has more stories than any other building in the city.
If you think Jesus was talking about suspending the Old Testament law, that position is scripturally indefensible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is a link to show that Raf's views are contrary to the many biblical interpreters. This link shows 50 English versions of the bible and also many versions of the bible written in other languages. To see any of these versions of the bible and to verify if John 8:3-11 is written in these versions simply go to this page and with John 8:3-11 typed at the top of this web page click the down arrow to the right and choose any of the many versions of the bible that you want to see. Then to see the version and these verses click the SEARCH button
John 8:3-11
Here is scriptural information showing that Jesus' words in John 8:3-11 are in harmony with Jesus Christ's other teachings and acts of love. Also that the Old Testament law was NOT being truthfully applied by the rabbis, scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day and other times in the history of the Jewish nation and that these interpretations sometimes obscured the original purpose of the commandments.
From the Nelson Bible Dictionary, which also publishes the New King James Version.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mark
It doesn't matter how many Bible versions contain the story, many Biblical scholars have opined that it did not appear in the texts until late in the 4th century. In other words, it was added.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whether I am correct about the interpolated verses or not (news flash: I am correct), its relevance to the fact that God supposedly authored the barbaric laws of the Old Testament remains nil. In other words, Mark's continued effort to derail this thread remains noted. If I were observing this conversation rather than participating... but I'm not. Whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Clearly at least to me, the scripture of John 8:3-11 is in agreement with the words and actions of Jesus Christ. My recent quote from the Nelson Bible Dictionary shows this to people of faith. Regarding the controversy of these verses being extracted from the gospel of John, here is a reason they may have been removed, but later placed back in the gospel of John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Suppose for a moment that the record being discussed was in the "original". How do we account for OT laws that were supposed to be immutable being brushed aside in the Gospels by someone who is said to have always spoken for God?
Maybe that's too far off topic. I'm not sure.
edit: spelling
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.