Originally posted by Rajk999
Why is there the need to decide whether or not the principles of OT laws are wrong or otherwise? Is that of some benefit to you or anyone?

Thank you!

Twhitehead latched on to a statement i made in passing and is now determined to thrash it to death.

Originally posted by CalJust
Thank you!

Twhitehead latched on to a statement i made in passing and is now determined to thrash it to death.

I responded briefly to Rajk999's question. What do you think of my answer?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
So the Jews didn't take their laws from god?

God gave his laws to fit in with the culture of the day.

It's all clear now.

Almost as if Man created god in his own image.

Thank you for this comment, Wolfgang (although I can see you grinning).

It is interesting to note that when Jesus challenged the way the laws were applied in his day - for example, the law governing divorce, where all a man had to do was give his wife a letter, and say goodbye - he did not say: "This is the law of God", but he said: "MOSES told you to do this, and he only did it because he knew how depraved you were! " (Literally: your hardness of heart.)

Hence my comment re cultural context.

Now this may open up an entirely new can of worms, but let's stay with the OP.

Originally posted by CalJust
The punishments were a totally different matter altogether, and they must be seen in the cultural contexts of the day. But into this discussion I will not let myself be drawn.

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
Why was God beholden to, affected or restricted, in any way, by the "cultural contexts of the day"?

Bump for CalJust. [Apologies if you have responded and I just missed it.]

Originally posted by twhitehead
So would you concede that the principles of many of the OT laws were wrong and still are?

No, i concede nothing of the kind at all.

On the understanding of my own definition of PRINCIPLES, as explained elsewhere in this thread, and not as defined by Zahlanzi, e.g. Guilty unless proven innocent, etc.

I have not expressed an opinion on that matter, although it is quite possible that these, on closer examination, would also prove to have been just.

Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki
If it helps understand the attitude towards things like justice, morality and authority of the person you're having the discussion with, then it could be of benefit, sure, in terms of people communicating clearly about such matters.

Yes, that could be a reason.

Originally posted by CalJust
It was and is my opinion that the Intention of the Mosaic law was to protect individual rights and to regulate interaction between a very close nit community in a hostile world.

I think Zahlanzi has made a good argument that this is not the case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think Zahlanzi has made a good argument that this is not the case.

Good for him!

(Or her...)

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems obvious to me that some of them are morally wrong. I find it interesting that many Christians will try to defend them - apparently simply because they are in the Bible.
But the issue originally came up because Jesus never once stated that the OT laws were morally wrong. If the OT laws are in fact obviously morally wrong, then this suggests Jesus ...[text shortened]... rticularly moral person, or he deliberately chose not to speak about them for political reasons.

by dismissing them and saying "no no, this is how you are supposed to behave, ya douchebags" he is implicitly condemning them.

Originally posted by CalJust
Of course, the original intention of ANY law should always be obvious.

Just pick any law, say the limitation of fishing catches. The INTENTION, (what I called Principle, or Spirit, but see now that that word could be misunderstood) in this case would be the protection of fishing resources, or job creation, or whatever. But it is that INTENTION that is th ...[text shortened]... ehaviour relating to strangers and slaves, and these were also often merciful and compassionate.

"was to protect individual rights"
but only for the jews. and much more for men than for women. and barely any rights for slaves (which isn't that surprising)
so how successful was that intent?


"between a very close nit community in a hostile world."
they were a nomad "nation" invading another country. people tend to get hostile to that. however even after the establishment of the country, israel was kind of intolerant to other religions and other nations.

if you have a neighbour that is so intolerant, you tend to have strained relations.


"merciful and compassionate."
compared to what other cultures?

Originally posted by CalJust
Thank you!

Twhitehead latched on to a statement i made in passing and is now determined to thrash it to death.

we aren't really picking on you now. we are discussing the principles of OT law (or lack of them) without attacking you. just state your opinion now on what we argue, or on the subject of the thread, and we will argue your current points.

i know that i at least do not care what you mentioned in other threads.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
by dismissing them and saying "no no, this is how you are supposed to behave, ya douchebags" he is implicitly condemning them.

Implicit, but not explicit. This suggests he had political reasons for not being explicit.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"was to protect individual rights"
but only for the jews. and much more for men than for women. and barely any rights for slaves (which isn't that surprising)
so how successful was that intent?

The laws governing slaves were actually far more compassionate than even the practice in, say, the US up to the end.

For example, in the Year of Jubilee all slaves were released and all debts cancelled.

Also, elaborate rules for allowing slaves who were granted their freedom by their owners to voluntarily chose to remain their slaves for ever. To even make provision for such an eventuality shows that the treatment of slaves could not have been all that subhuman.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
So the Jews didn't take their laws from god?

God gave his laws to fit in with the culture of the day.

It's all clear now.

Almost as if Man created god in his own image.

You think?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems obvious to me that some of them are morally wrong. I find it interesting that many Christians will try to defend them - apparently simply because they are in the Bible.
But the issue originally came up because Jesus never once stated that the OT laws were morally wrong. If the OT laws are in fact obviously morally wrong, then this suggests Jesus ...[text shortened]... rticularly moral person, or he deliberately chose not to speak about them for political reasons.

The purpose of the OT Law was to bring revelation of sin and it's deadly consequences.

It seems obvious to me that some of them are morally wrong.

What do you use to judge whether something is morally wrong or not. Let's not forget, we live in the 21st century and 'our' laws have changed significantly since the Jewish Law of the OT. Different culture, different time... we cannot super impose what we do today on something from the past, it just doesn't work.

I find it interesting that many Christians will try to defend them - apparently simply because they are in the Bible.

What's interesting? The Law was given by God and should be treated with respect. The 'problem' with OT Law as I see it with some posters is a lack of understanding of the times of the OT Law and the culture. We try to look at the past through our 21st century glasses, can't do that.

If the OT laws are in fact obviously morally wrong, then this suggests Jesus was either not a particularly moral person, or he deliberately chose not to speak about them for political reasons.

Why would the OT Law be morally wrong, because you say so? Jesus is the most moral man that waked the earth, he was/is sinless. He is the most compassionate man to have walked the earth, he was/is sinless! He is the Word and he is God, you make too many assumptions. Jesus was/is not about man's petty politics, it is something much greater.