Morality of the Old Testament

[Jayhawker Soule]

YOU need to work on your lack of faith.

Why?

 

[dybmh]

If Yahweh is the one true God of the universe then wouldn't every sentient being in the universe be obligated to follow his commandments?

Only if Yahweh commanded it. If not, then it's not an obligation. Am I missing something? This seems simple to me.

In my locality there is one and only one ultimate authority which has written law requiring the remodel of ADA compliant bathrooms. I, myself, however, have not been directed by this authority to remodel my bathroom to be ADA compliant. It's an obligation on others, depending on the circumstances. The local building authority directs me to do other things. Even though there is only one supreme authority, their commandments are not automatically directed to each and every human being. The obligations originating from the authority are not automatically commanded universally over all. The supreme authority chooses those which are obligated and those which are not. The legal obligation is not universal on everyone unless that is what the supreme has decreed.

Written legal obligations depend on: who, what, where, when, and how. In my locality, a "home-owner" is always obligated to maintain regular garbage and sanitation services. A "renter" is not. A renter is never obligated to pay for garbage and sanitation. The obligation, in this case, is wholly derived by "who", owner-or-not. That's the way that the law is written here, but, in all legal constructs, "Who" matters. The legal obligation is dependent on how the law is written and who is included or excluded. Agreed?

The laws of the Old Testament were supposedly given to Moses by God. If that were true, then certainly all human societies would have an obligation to obey them.

According to the story, as it's written, the group which is obligated is specified. Expanding this to all human societies is changing the written law.
I think Lev 23 is a good example.

​

23:1​

וידבר יהוה אל־משה לאמר׃​

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,​

​

23:2​

דבר אל־בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם מועדי יהוה אשר־תקראו אתם מקראי קדש אלה הם מועדי׃​

Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, The feasts of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy gatherings, these are my feasts.​

That's a specific group.

​

23:14​

​

ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד־עצם היום הזה עד הביאכם את־קרבן אלהיכם חקת עולם לדרתיכם בכל משבתיכם׃​

And you shall eat nor bread, nor parched grain, nor green ears, until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.​

That's a specific group. A specific group is written in the text of the law. If this is expanded, that would be changing the written law. It's like obligating a renter to pay for garbage and sanitation disposal. That is not their obligation.

So, I ask again, from where does this "certain obligation" originate? It sounds like you have assumed it is universal as a consequence the law giver's supremacy, but, that is not how the story is actually written. I think in order to discuss a text, all parties need to agree on what is actually written in that specific text. Do you agree with this?

 

[dybmh]

Why?

Look at your avatar. Your vav is broken.

 

[McBell]

There is NOTHING wrong with my reading comprehension.

YOU need to work on your lack of faith.

Huh.
Most zealots whine about my lack of faith.
You are the first one in a long time saying I need to work on it.....

 

[jimb]

View attachment 90898


Huh.
Most zealots whine about my lack of faith.
You are the first one in a long time saying I need to work on it.....

Your silly graphic means nothing. Again, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Your silly answer means you have no valid reason to disagree.

 

[McBell]

Your silly graphic means nothing. Again, there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

Your posts strongly indicate otherwise.

Your silly answer means you have no valid reason to disagree.

See

 

[jimb]

Your posts strongly indicate otherwise.


See

I do not respect your opinions. If you have anything of value to say, please do so.

 

[McBell]

"Religions have been severely lacking installing morals into people", and you blame religion???

Do you have any pearls of wisdom concerning the two points you flat out ignored?

Oh sure, science is always reliable. That's why it is continually modified and updated. LOL!!!

Yes it is constantly updated.
That is the reason is much more reliable.

God is unchanging

Bold empty claim.

and the source of all truth.

Bold empty claim.

Guess which one I choose!

I suspect it is a safe assumption that you choose your bold empty claims.
Most people who herald bold empty claims do.

 

[McBell]

I do not respect your opinions.

And?
for an idea of just how much this remark bothers me please see post #38

If you have anything of value to say, please do so.

It would be so refreshing if you would follow your own advice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is NOTHING wrong with my reading comprehension. YOU need to work on your lack of faith.

I'd say faith is not a worthwhile endeavor and is not recommended.

 

[jimb]

Do you have any pearls of wisdom concerning the two points you flat out ignored?


Yes it is constantly updated.
That is the reason is much more reliable.


Bold empty claim.


Bold empty claim.


I suspect it is a safe assumption that you choose your bold empty claims.
Most people who herald bold empty claims do.

To you the claims are bold and empty, which is sad. "Don't criticize what you don't understand" (Bob Dylan)

 

[jimb]

I'd say faith is not a worthwhile endeavor and is not recommended.

Okay, so deny faith. Much of the world's population disagrees with you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay, so deny faith. Much of the world's population disagrees with you.

I feel sorry for them.

 

[jimb]

I feel sorry for them.

You feel sorry for most of the world's population? If you had faith, you would have a different attitude. "For God so loved the world..."

BTW, what does "Monk Immaculate of the highest order of SCREAMING MONKEY ZEN" supposed to mean?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You feel sorry for most of the world's population? If you had faith, you would have a different attitude. "For God so loved the world..."

BTW, what does "Monk Immaculate of the highest order of SCREAMING MONKEY ZEN" supposed to mean?

The screaming monkey is my specialty. Comes naturally and ordained by nature. ;0)

 

[metis]

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories.

Yes, and this is generally true with most or all social animals as there's a "pecking order" that is ingrained in them, although there are also some "delinquents" as well who don't always follow the "rules".

 

[joe1776]

Yes, and this is generally true with most or all social animals as there's a "pecking order" that is ingrained in them, although there are also some "delinquents" as well who don't always follow the "rules".

I'll have to think about that. I haven't specifically considered the pecking order in connection with morality.

However, of late, I have been considering the possibility that the moral intuitive sense that we call "conscience" might actually be evolved survival instincts. For example, our conscience finds killing in self-defense justifiable. Over the course of many generations, that would deplete the gene pool of aggressive killers.

 

[DavidSMoore]

So, I ask again, from where does this "certain obligation" originate? It sounds like you have assumed it is universal as a consequence the law giver's supremacy, but, that is not how the story is actually written. I think in order to discuss a text, all parties need to agree on what is actually written in that specific text. Do you agree with this?

In the context of that passage, yes-- I agree that the laws were given to the Israelites. But in the broader context of the Old Testament as a whole I think there's more to it than that. Here's an excerpt from Isaiah:

In days to come
the mountain of the LORD'S house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains
and shall be raised above the hills;
all the nations shall stream to it.
Many peoples shall come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths."
(Isaiah 2:2-3, NRSVue)

From Isaiah's point of view the teachings of Yahweh were to be disseminated to all the peoples of the world. They weren't just for the Israelites.

 

[Elihoenai]

Do Christians actually believe in the morality of the Old Testament? Let’s consider the Fourth Commandment:



As a general principle, certainly that is good advice. But what if your father and mother are criminals? Should you still honor them? What if a young woman’s father is a sexual predator who has raped his own daughter repeatedly-- should the daughter honor him? Or should she instead leave home and seek shelter somewhere where she isn’t likely to be raped? There is no nuance in the Commandment as stated above, so we can’t really determine what the proper course of action should be in such cases, based on the literal wording in the Bible. Furthermore, here’s what the Bible says about the punishment that should apply to disrespectful children:



So it would appear that any form of resistance to the desires of an evil parent is to be punished by death. That doesn’t seem to allow much room for children of immoral or predatory parents to defend themselves.

The Fifth Commandment says:



That is also a good rule of thumb in general, but there are exceptions-- specifically cases of accidental killing, killing in self defense, and killing in the line of duty. The Bible itself provides additional nuance for the Fifth Commandment in the following passage:



The method proposed is to provide for cities of refuge to which a manslayer may flee. Once there the manslayer may appeal to the city elders for asylum. The example given is of accidental killing. There are no specific examples in the Bible of how killing in self defense or killing in the line of duty should be handled. The passage cited above does say that the killer “did not deserve to die, since he was not at enmity with his neighbor.” But enmity is often involved in self defense killings, as in a case of two neighbors who have had a years long dispute over a fence and finally one snaps, grabs his handgun, and goes over to his neighbor’s house to finish the matter once and for all. Shouldn’t the other neighbor be considered within his rights to defend himself?

The above passage from Deuteronomy is a continuation of a long narration by Moses of the laws he received directly from God-- a narration that begins in Deuteronomy 5. So the provision for the manslayer is simply another one of the many laws that God gave directly to Moses at Mount Sinai. And that makes it every bit as much a part of the divine law as are the Ten Commandments.

In our present day legal system we don’t use cities of refuge. We have law enforcement agencies that are empowered to arrest suspects. We have hearings at which suspects are allowed to enter a plea of either innocent or guilty. We have a bail system that allows suspects to post bond to await trail outside of jail. And we have trials in a court of law in which the defendant is permitted to be represented by counsel. There is nothing in the Old Testament about any of that. Do present day Christians (or Jews or Muslims) think we should dispense with our modern system and implement cities of refuge as specified by the Bible? I have never heard any religious leader demand such a thing.

Leviticus Chapter Four describes what are known as “Sin Offerings.” There are four types of such offerings that are based on the person’s position in Hebrew society. But generally the person applying for forgiveness of a sin must provide a perfect animal of a type that depends on the person’s station in society to the priests of the Hebrew Temple. The priests, if they accept the animal, will then perform a ritual sacrifice at the Temple that is very specific-- right down to the number of drops of the animal’s blood that the priests must sprinkle on the horns of the altar. If all goes well, then the person’s sin will be forgiven.

The first words of Leviticus Chapter Four are:



That is, the rules concerning Sin Offerings were given to Moses directly by God. That could have happened at only one time and one place-- at Mount Sinai, when God gave the entire system of laws to Moses. Does anyone actually believe that we should revive this method of forgiving sins? I have never heard any Christian leader argue for doing so.

Exodus 21:1 - 11 states the laws given by God concerning slavery. Those laws recognize slavery as a perfectly valid institution. So clearly the God of the Bible approves of slavery. Does that mean we should make slavery legal again? Again, no modern religious leaders are calling for that.

And there are a great many conditions of modern life that the Old Testament laws have said nothing whatsoever about: labor unions, voting rights, car insurance, chemical pollution, trading in derivatives, the ozone hole, global climate change-- to name but a few.

The laws of the Old Testament were supposedly given to Moses by God. If that were true, then certainly all human societies would have an obligation to obey them. But there are many aspects of that ancient code that are superficial, incomplete, or just plain out of step with present day realities. No one believes that slavery is a necessary institution for a modern society. No one believes that cities of refuge, or sin offerings as described in the Old Testament should be revived. No one believes that our present system of law enforcement, bail bonds, and a human operated judicial system should be disbanded in favor of judgment by city elders. No one thinks that we should repeal all of our laws regarding voting rights, consumer fraud, civil rights, or investment scams. It is time to regard the morality of the Old Testament as just one step in humanity’s long struggle for justice. It is not a final end point, it is not perfect, and it decidedly is not divinely inspired.

I will take up the morality of the New Testament in a future posting.

The Law of Moses is Not Really Plausible for the Natural Man given the "Literal Wording" of the Bible.


Comparing the Law of Moses with the US Law Courts, is there any Truth in a US Court of Law? The movie A Civil Action asserts that you won't find the Truth in a Court of Law:

A Civil Action Trailer

As for Reviving the Ancient Ritual Practice of Animal Sacrifice, so-called Jews are working towards bringing this back Openly. Human and Animal Ritual Sacrifice has been practiced for thousands of years in every society throughout the generations Secretly and Openly.


Ancient Animal Sacrifice Ritual Makes a Modern Comeback

Jews recreate biblical Passover sacrifice

 

[Audie]

Okay, so deny faith. Much of the world's population disagrees with you.

Most of the world's population is ignorant and superstitious.

" Faith" as per religion, holds this up as a virtue.

How well you illustrate the fallacy of " as populum"