The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That being the case then, why do Christians still insist on the bible being the OT plus the NT? Isn't it time to cast out that which nobody follows any more?

There are, in fact, Christian groups who say exactly that - tear out the OT and keep just the NT.

That would, IMO, be a major mistake. In spite of all the criticism, even in this thread so far, (much of it legitimate, at least on the surface) there are invaluable literary passages in the OT, e.g. the Psalms, Proverbs and even the Song of Solomon, a beautiful description of erotic love.

So, my personal advice (and practice) is to read the OT with understanding and discretion, taking into account when it was written and to whom.

Originally posted by CalJust
These are tough questions but legitimate ones.

Firstly, let me make it quite clear that I do not pretend to be either a historian or an expert in Hebrew history. Just a layman trying to make sense of stuff.

What I said before about culture definitely applies here. We are talking about 4000 to 5000 years ago, for goodness sake! How on earth can you try ...[text shortened]... ty has only gained during the last century, and that only in certain (more civilised) countries.

If you said 'the principles of the OT law were not wrong', then you imposed the burden - of defending milennia-old laws - on yourself.

It would be far more sensible to say (as you seem to have, in this recent post) that the laws were not all valid morally, but represented some progress, given the barbaric nature of the times. If you had phrased it that way, I doubt this thread would even have been started.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If you said 'the principles of the OT law were not wrong', then you imposed the burden - of defending milennia-old laws - on yourself.

It would be far more sensible to say (as you seem to have, in this recent post) that the laws were not all valid morally, but represented some progress, given the barbaric nature of the times. If you had phrased it that way, I doubt this thread would even have been started.

I would not go so far as to say "not valid morally", although the term "morally" is a subjective term, deeply intertwined in culture.

The main part of this thread seems to have concerned the definition of words. When I said PRINCIPLES, it was shown by Zahlanzi that I actually meant INTENTION.

I stand by my contention that IMO the INTENTION of what a particular law was supposed to achieve was beneficial for society, seen in the context of the culture of the day.

If I did not phrase it in those exact words the first time, it was because (as I said earlier) it was just a passing remark in a discussion on another matter, which was then highlighted by twhitehead and I was challenged to defend it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How would separating them make you any less wrong about your claim that I 'latched on to' the first?

[b]The former was for the ball snatch, while the latter was for the woman playing the whore who gets stoned.
Ouch. A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?
Ta ...[text shortened]... ou have made, or admit that your claim that understanding is required prior to making criticism.[/b]

Ouch. A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so)...
This is precisely why I have you tagged as a shallow mind.
You criticize something you literally know nothing of (ancient societal norms and standards).
Your critique is further burdened by refusal to even read the text in your own language.

I suppose you could be forgiven for not undertaking the arduous task of learning the original languages of the Old and New Testaments, despite the fact that you wish to delve into them in order to prove their absurdity.

However, what is unforgivable--- shiite: laughable is your assignment of error when you can't even get it straight yourself.

Read the text again and see if you can find your blunder as it relates the methods used to determine the veracity of a woman's virginity.

You have not understood the arguments I have made in this thread...
I have quoted your argument twice.
Pretty sure I get it.
Have you amended your argument or...?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is precisely why I have you tagged as a shallow mind.
You criticize something you literally know nothing of (ancient societal norms and standards).

Actually it is clearly you that does not understand them.

Your critique is further burdened by refusal to even read the text in your own language.
I went and read the verse you referred to and it was blatantly clear that you had not read it (or you are just not very good at reading - which seems likely given your errors so far).

I suppose you could be forgiven for not undertaking the arduous task of learning the original languages of the Old and New Testaments, despite the fact that you wish to delve into them in order to prove their absurdity.
Once again, you just demonstrate that you have no idea what my motivations are.

However, what is unforgivable--- shiite: laughable is your assignment of error when you can't even get it straight yourself.
Says the person who claimed I 'latched on to' a verse that I never once referenced in any way shape or form. Ha ha, I'm laughing.

I have quoted your argument twice.
The ability to quote does not demonstrate understanding. (Grampy demonstrates this with nearly every thread he starts). In fact, in this case it demonstrates your lack of understanding given that you don't even bother to check who posted what.

Pretty sure I get it.
Pretty sure you don't. But then I don't have to prove you don't, I merely have to state that you don't just as you never proved I didn't understand, you just assumed it.

Have you amended your argument or...?
Have you amended the Bible or ....?

PS: if there is anything in this post that you do not understand, then you may not criticize it without exposing your shallow mindedness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you have to ask, you didn't understand.

[b]Within the first page of the thread you created, you've latched upon Deuteronomy 25:11 (no pun intended, of course), practically hyperventilating over how disproportionate the punishment is to the trespass... which, in turn, is intended to show exactly what you set upon to do in the first place:
the princ ...[text shortened]...
Maybe you should think twice before calling people 'shallow minded' for lack of understanding.

Maybe you should think twice before calling people 'shallow minded' for lack of understanding.

Word.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is clearly you that does not understand them.

[b]Your critique is further burdened by refusal to even read the text in your own language.
I went and read the verse you referred to and it was blatantly clear that you had not read it (or you are just not very good at reading - which seems likely given your errors so far).

I suppose ...[text shortened]... assumed it.

[b]Have you amended your argument or...?
Have you amended the Bible or ....?[/b]

[rubbing hands in evilReveal Hidden Content glee]

I went and read the verse you referred to and it was blatantly clear that you had not read it (or you are just not very good at reading - which seems likely given your errors so far).
Here's what you said (again).

A woman who may or may not have lost her virginity (and purely on her husbands say so) prior to marriage is 'playing the whore'?

Here's what the cited verses say.

But if this thing be true,
[and the tokens of] virginity
be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out
the damsel to the door of
her father's house, and the
men of her city shall stone
her with stones that she die:
because she hath wrought
folly in Israel, to play the
whore in her father's house:
so shalt thou put evil away
from among you.

Now, in your telling of the tale, a woman given to a man in marriage could be simply accused of not possessing her virginity by her betrothed and that was enough to sentence her to stoning.
But clearly in the text you are getting a small piece of your information, the rest of the information says something entirely different.
How does something like this happen, one wonders?

Once again, you just demonstrate that you have no idea what my motivations are.
Well, since my quote is your exact words, why don't you tell us what your motivations possibly could be, other than whay you've said.

...that you don't even bother to check who posted what.
That's rich coming from a person who completely mangled the source of contention in the first place!

Originally posted by LemonJello

Maybe you should think twice before calling people 'shallow minded' for lack of understanding.

Word.

I guess you haven't been following the same thread.

quote]Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't know how to argue for stoning a girl to death for failing to prove she is a virgin.

or cutting off the hand of a woman if , when defending her husband against an attacker, she grabs said attacker by the balls.


i am curious to see if anyone can.

or cutting off the hand of a woman if , when defending her husband against an attacker, she grabs said attacker by the balls.

Some Hebrew language scholars say that the passage does not refer to an amputation of a hand. They argue that it indicates an embarrassing public shaving of the offending woman's pubic area.

I don't know for sure.

The seriousness of the offense has to do with keeping inheritance within the theocratic nation. It effected the nation's ownership of the land. That was very seriouss. And a man made unable to reproduce was seen as not taking the sacred inheritance seriously.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[rubbing hands in evil[hidden]oh that's right: there's no such thing as evil[/hidden] glee]

[b]I went and read the verse you referred to and it was blatantly clear that you had not read it (or you are just not very good at reading - which seems likely given your errors so far).
Here's what you said (again).
[quote]A woman who may or may not have l ...[text shortened]... 's rich coming from a person who completely mangled the source of contention in the first place![/b]

I think he may be actually referring to Sharia Law of Islam.

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

Originally posted by sonship

or cutting off the hand of a woman if , when defending her husband against an attacker, she grabs said attacker by the balls.

Some Hebrew language scholars say that the passage does not refer to am amputation of a hand. They argue that it indicates an embarrassing public shaving of the offending woman's pubic area.

I don't know f ...[text shortened]... uss. And a man made unable to reproduce was seen as not taking the sacred inheritance seriously.

either way, its a pretty sick law.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I guess you haven't been following the same thread.

Then you're wrong again...what a shocker.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
either way, its a pretty sick law.

It is against the harshness of the OT condemnations that we must see , what it meant for the Son of God to be judged by God for the sins of all people.

A strong, strong backround of the awfulness of God's hatred for sins is therefore the backround, the "blackround" upon which the New Testament reveals that all sins were judged upon the one universal atoning redemptive act of the Son of God.

His attitude had not changed.

Originally posted by sonship
It is against the harshness of the OT condemnations that we must see , what it meant for the Son of God to be judged by God for the sins of [b]all people.

A strong, strong backround of the awfulness of God's hatred for sins is therefore the backround, the "blackround" upon which the New Testament reveals that all sins were judged upon the one universal atoning redemptive act of the Son of God.

His attitude had not changed.[/b]

then god is irrational.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Then you're wrong again...what a shocker.

Feel free to jump in and support the side you think most closely resembles reality, then.
Seriously.
By all means.

Or, just take the sniping potshots that pass as actual substance from your three snickering friends on the sidelines.