How do Abrahamic religions interpret this?

dust1n said:

I am to understand you correctly as saying that laws provided by God in the 10C's and Torah, don't have any explicit purpose, explicit in the sense that it's entirely unavailable to us?

Click to expand...

They are a covenant for a specific group of people. What more of a purpose do you want?

These commands are the result of human ignorance, specifically of God.. To certain degrees, most people align themselves with similar ignorance, in their condemnation of their brothers and sisters. The truth remains: all those who do not 'keep' their brothers and sisters, as to sustain life through the knowledge of God, are dead and dying. Ironically therefore, the author spoke of his own grave.

dust1n said:

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city,saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.



Why would this be acceptable, for a God to command, under any pretense in human history?

Click to expand...

Briefly..... the harsh judgments/death penalty for disobedience to the law under the old covenant/in the old testament kept Israel as free of sin as possible by literally removing the sinner from Israel.

The purpose was to keep Israel on a certain path and eventually bring them/their offspring to a certain mindset/point of readiness to receive the new covenant -which focused on removing the sin from the individual sinner.

Removing sin from the individual in letter and spirit required that God's spirit be made available -but a certain mindset was required before receiving it would be of any benefit.

Those people written of in the new testament were basically the result of the events of the old testament. They had experience with the letter of the law -and could then build upon that with the spirit of the law, and be given that which would actually enable them to overcome spiritual sin/their carnal nature.

It is not as harsh overall when one understands that all of those people will eventually be resurrected, all tears wiped away, etc...

So... those who were put to death in the old testament will have the benefit of being resurrected when the government under God resulting from both covenants is in effect.
At that time, Christ will rule Earth and those made immortal at his return will reign with him.
After a thousand years, all who have ever lived will be raised to the judgment -which is not all doom and gloom at all.

There is even hope for those who have their part in the lake of fire....

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Curious George said:

Perhaps the inability to discern what is ethical about keeping the Sabbath lies in the subtle differences between moral and ethical.

Click to expand...

That could be. It was recently pointed out to me that morality is the following of any code of laws. Not specifically those that relate to one's interaction with one's fellow.

dust1n said:

So you'd disagree with this assessment? (I know it seems like we are digressing, but I'll pull it around in a second.)

"There are 603 more Torah commandments. But in giving these ten—with their wise insight into the human condition—God established a standard of right and wrong, a powerful code of behavior, that is universal and timeless."

Living Judaism: The Complete Guide to Jewish Belief, Tradition, and Practice, pp. 31–33. HarperCollins (1995).

Click to expand...

Now I'm not sure. It was recently pointed out to me, that morality is the following of any code of laws, not strictly those that relate to how one interacts with another (as I had thought). That being the case, keeping the Sabbath is as much a moral responsibility for me as anything else, I guess.

Although I definitely disagree about it being universal.

dust1n said:

I didn't say "us" as to imply that the rules were intended for everybody, but just clarifying that we all are equally unable to ascertain the reasoning by the ten commandments. But thanks.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think we are equally unable to ascertain the reasoning behind the ten commandments. I think the ones that it was intended for, were given extra-Scriptural information called the Oral Torah to provide background and other information necessary for understanding the Written Torah of which the 10 commandments are a part.

dust1n said:

It's an interesting perspective that God's dictate for not murdering is not necessarily predicated on any moral consideration and that the reason people follow out it are not out of any ethical consideration, but that of because it says to do and it says we get a reward for doing it.

Click to expand...

At the moment, I'm not sure what the difference is any more. According to what I am currently given to understand, following it because G-d said to, is doing it for a moral reason. That is, following a code of [Divine] laws, is synonymous with following a moral code. It looks like this needs to be ironed out.

Aquitaine said:

My own question is do you support such a stance?

Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. This Law has no practical application today, but nonetheless I fully support every facet of Jewish Law.

Tumah said:

That could be. It was recently pointed out to me that morality is the following of any code of laws. Not specifically those that relate to one's interaction with one's fellow.

Click to expand...

And there we have the problem. Morality is the code.

Curious George said:

And there we have the problem. Morality is the code.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Nor is it clear to me that we share a common problem.

disciple said:

Huh? Keeping the Sabbath is a personal religious statute. Has nothing to do with other people, or, it shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Ethics need not have to do with another person.

However, this particular ethic certainly has to do with another entity.

Tumah said:

I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Nor is it clear to me that we share a common problem.

Click to expand...

No, we do not share a common problem. But we should be able to see the problem in your understanding from your comment.

However, my earlier choice of words seems much less aggressive than what I have written here. I would have much preferred to have used just those.

disciple said:

A religious statute can be ''moral'' to an individual, but not ''necessary'', for everyone.

Click to expand...

Hmm, did I say it was necessary?

disciple said:

What is the problem

Click to expand...

I have no idea.

Curious George said:

No, we do not share a common problem. But we should be able to see the problem in your understanding from your comment.

However, my earlier choice of words seems much less aggressive than what I have written here. I would have much preferred to have used just those.

Click to expand...

Well if you care to elucidate either of your comments, you know my address.

Tumah said:

Well if you care to elucidate either of your comments, you know my address.

Click to expand...

See, I knew this second phrasing was more problematic.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Just what did you not understand? I'm not a big fan of murderous xenophobia.

Click to expand...

You are Jewish in your faith, right? As curious just as to how that is considered erroneous? Is it sort of what Levite saying, that maybe it's self-evident that it's just not valid? Is this common?

Levite said:

I don't know of midrash in translation, with the exception of the old Soncino translation of Midrash Rabba-- doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that I don't know about it. It's hard going, because it's not a very good translation, but it's out there, and shouldn't be impossible to find. As for halachah, there is also a Soncino translation of the Talmud-- also not very good-- and there is beginning to be a nice one put out by Koren, translated by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. There is, of course, the Artscroll Talmud translations, though they tend to be heavily biased in translation and commentary to a fairly right-wing Orthodox viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I guess it makes since, considering Judaism isn't really a spread it around religion, that such things are not commonly translated from Hebrew, as there is less reason to.

If one goes in presuming that God could not literally want us to kill idolators, since that would be immoral, it follows that we do the next best thing, which is to effectively treat them as dead to us so long as they are idolators.

Click to expand...

I guess this would be true, but what allows us to make this presumption? I mean, I realize it's obviously immoral to us, but it isn't for everyone at all times.

rosends said:

for midrash in general (I can't say if a specific one is there or not) in English try Legends of the Jews or Sefer haAgadah

Click to expand...

Sweet. Thanks. I found a copy and will check it out.

dust1n said:

Is this common?

Click to expand...

Whether or not a particular attitude is common depends very much on the particular stream of Judaism being addressed. I view the Tanakh as human-authored and too often bellicose text reflective of the times. I suspect that this outlook is very common outside of orthodoxy.

Kolibri said:

Regulations and functions. The priests were required to maintain personal fleshly cleanliness and high moral standards. When entering the tent of meeting and before presenting an offering at the altar, they were to wash their hands and feet at the basin in the courtyard “that they [might] not die.” (Ex 30:17-21; 40:30-32)

Click to expand...

Not labor intensive.

With similar warning they were commanded not to drink wine or intoxicating liquor when serving at the sanctuary. (Le 10:8-11)

Click to expand...

Not labor intensive.

They could not defile themselves by touching a corpse or mourning for the dead; this would make them temporarily unclean for service.

Click to expand...

Not labor intensive, and also not allowed to mourn for the dead? Touching a corpse, fine. That must a weird translation thing.

The underpriests (but not the high priest) might do so, however, for one in very close family relationship: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or virgin sister who was close to (apparently, living with or near) him; also the wife was possibly included as one close to him. (Le 21:1-4)

Click to expand...

The virgin sister is telling. Also maybe possibly you can touch your wife.

Any priest who became unclean, by leprosy, by a running discharge, or by a corpse or other unclean thing, could not eat of the holy things or perform sanctuary service until cleansed, otherwise he must die.—Le 22:1-9.

The priests were commanded not to shave their heads or the extremities of their beards, or to make cuttings in themselves, practices common among pagan priests. (Le 21:5, 6; 19:28; 1Ki 18:28)

Click to expand...

Not labor intensive.

While the high priest could marry only a virgin girl, the underpriests could marry a widow, but not a divorced woman or a prostitute. (Le 21:7, 8; compare Le 21:10, 13, 14.) Evidently, all the members of the high priest’s family were to uphold the high standard of morality and the dignity due the priest’s office. Thus, a priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be put to death, being burned afterward as something detestable to God.—Le 21:9.

Click to expand...

"if she profane herself by playing the whore; which brings scandal and disgrace on any person, and much more on anyone that had the honour of being related to a person in such a sacred office, and the advantage of a more strictly religious education, and had eaten of the holy things in her father's house; all which were aggravations of her crime, and made it the more scandalous and reproachful to her: some render it, "when she begins to play the whore" (b); as soon as ever it is discovered in her, and she is taken in it; even for the first that she commits, she is not to be spared, but put to death: she profaneth her father: which is another aggravation of her sin; she brings him under disgrace, disparages his office, and exposes him to censure, reproach, and ridicule, as not having taken care of her education, and taught her better, and kept her under restraints; men will upbraid him with it, saying, this is a priest's daughter that has committed this lewdness; nor will say of him, as Jarchi observes, cursed be he that begat her, and cursed be he that brought her up: she shall be burnt with fire; not with hot melted lead poured down her mouth, but with faggots set about her; See Gill on Leviticus 20:14; no punishment is here fixed for the person that lay with her, but, according to the Jewish canons (c), she was to be strangled."

- Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

When in the wilderness, at the time of moving camp, it was the duty of Aaron and his sons to cover the holy furniture and utensils in the tent of meeting before the other Kohathites were allowed to come in to carry them, so that the Kohathites would not die. Likewise they uncovered and set up these things in the tent at the new location. (Nu 4:5-15) On the march, the priests carried the ark of the covenant.—Jos 3:3, 13, 15, 17; 1Ki 8:3-6.

Click to expand...

They are chores, I'll grant you that.

The priests were responsible for blowing the holy trumpets, thus giving definite leadership to the people, whether in the matter of setting up or breaking camp, assembling, engaging in battle, or celebrating some festival to Jehovah. (Nu 10:1-10) The priests and Levites were exempt from military conscription, though they did serve as blowers of the trumpets and singers before the army.—Nu 1:47-49; 2:33; Jos 6:4; 2Ch 13:12.

Click to expand...

Not labor intensive and also very convenient.

When the priests were on assignment at the sanctuary, their duties included the slaughtering of sacrifices brought by the people, sprinkling the blood on the altar, cutting up the sacrifices, keeping the altar fire burning, cooking the meat, and accepting all other offerings, such as the grain offerings. They were to take care of matters dealing with uncleannesses contracted by individuals, as well as their special vows, and so forth. (Le chaps 1-7; 12:6; chaps 13-15; Nu 6:1-21; Lu 2:22-24) They took care of the morning and evening burnt offerings and all other sacrifices regularly made at the sanctuary except those that it was the high priest’s duty to offer; they burned incense on the golden altar. (Ex 29:38-42; Nu 28:1-10; 2Ch 13:10, 11) They trimmed the lamps and kept them supplied with oil (Ex 27:20, 21) and took care of the holy oil and the incense. (Nu 4:16) They blessed the people at the solemn assemblies in the manner outlined at Numbers 6:22-27.

Click to expand...

I mean... housekeeping and tedious work, I suppose. Not exactly back breaking work.

But no other priest could be in the sanctuary when the high priest went into the Most Holy to make atonement.—Le 16:17.

Click to expand...

Convenient.

The priests were primarily the ones privileged to explain God’s law, and they played a major role in Israel’s judiciary. In the cities allotted to them the priests were available to assist the judges, and they also served with the judges in extraordinarily difficult cases beyond the ability of local courts to decide. (De 17:8, 9) They were required to be on hand along with the older men of the city in cases of unsolved murder, to assure that the proper procedure was followed to remove bloodguilt from the city. (De 21:1, 2, 5) If a jealous husband charged his wife with secret adultery, she had to be brought to the sanctuary, where the priest carried out the prescribed ceremony in which Jehovah’s knowledge of the truth of the woman’s innocence or guilt was appealed to for His direct judgment. (Nu 5:11-31) In all cases, judgment rendered by the priests or appointed judges was to be respected; deliberate disrespect or disobedience brought the death penalty.—Nu 15:30; De 17:10-13.

Click to expand...

Whew.. I glad I don't let around these people. Think of I might have been screwed half way through this post.

Granted, there's a lot of work in judging people and and solving murders.

The priests were teachers of the Law to the people, reading and explaining it to those coming to the sanctuary to worship. Also, when not on assigned duty, they would have wide opportunity for such teaching, whether in the area of the sanctuary or in other parts of the land. (De 33:10; 2Ch 15:3; 17:7-9; Mal 2:7) Upon returning to Jerusalem from Babylon, Ezra the priest, assisted by other priests along with the Levites, gathered the people and spent hours reading and explaining the Law to them.—Ne 8:1-15.

Click to expand...

More talking.

The priestly administration served as a safeguard to the nation in religious cleanness as also in physical health. The priest was to judge between the clean and the unclean in cases of leprosy of a man, a garment, or a house. He saw to it that the legal quarantine regulations were carried out. He also officiated in the cleansing of those who had been defiled by a dead body or were unclean from morbid discharges, and so forth.—Le 13-15.
- http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003553

Click to expand...

Sounds nice for the time. I wonder what things a typical ancient farmer had to do on a day by day basis.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Whether or not a particular attitude is common depends very much on the particular stream of Judaism being addressed. I view the Tanakh as human-authored and too often bellicose text reflective of the times. I suspect that this outlook is very common outside of orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. I guess once the notion God doesn't dictate holy books verbatim, there isn't much difficulty accepting the ways people of the past conducted affairs.

dust1n said:

I'd agree. I guess once the notion God doesn't dictate holy books verbatim, there isn't much difficulty accepting the ways people of the past conducted affairs.

Click to expand...

Where did I ever indicate (a) acceptance or (b) a belief that the text accurately reflects "the ways people of the past conducted affairs"?