Are OT laws barbaric?

[silence_dogood]

No terms and conditions come affixed to the laws

Actually, they do.

and Jesus himself explicitly stated that no jot or tittle of the law is to be done away with, that he didn't come to abolish the law

And would you like to quote the second half of what He said now?

that the law is to stay until the Heavens and Earth are gone. Since the Earth is still very much here... well, you can do the math.

The math? The math is easy:

Text - Context = Prooftext

 

[Belk]

Actually, they do.



And would you like to quote the second half of what He said now?



The math? The math is easy:

Text - Context = Prooftext

Text-Context= -Con

 

[rockaction]

Actually, they do.



And would you like to quote the second half of what He said now?



The math? The math is easy:

Text - Context = Prooftext

Here's the context:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then he goes on to say that "murder" is synonymous with "anger" in God's eyes, and that "adultery" is synonymous with "lust". Then the whole turn the other cheek thing.

All Jesus was doing here is putting some spin on the law, and frankly making it even harder to follow it. But nowhere does he say you should stop following any of the commandments.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, they do.

And would you like to quote the second half of what He said now?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Matthew 5:17-18

Jesus explicitly states that he was not there to destroy the law. He explicitly states that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law - till 'Heaven and Earth pass'.

Have Heaven and Earth passed?

 

[The Fourth Horseman]

I've heard that OT laws seem barbaric. How do we Christians make of this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that if one commits adultery they are to be put to death. This is only one example of a sin you can commit that carries the death penalty.

I mean, what the heck? If the OT laws existed today, people would have HUGE human rights concerns.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Of course they are. They are akin to Shar'iah (I probably mispelled it) Law.

 

[oldbetang]

What long term benefits are there that are not there that the boy can choose for himself when he grows up?

I'm not sure if there's any but that's irrelevant. My point is that there are long term benefits. If you want to talk about the short term benefits as well, we can.

 

[oldbetang]

Some literature says that circumcision leads to decreased sexual pleasure in intercourse. A lot of nerve endings are lost when you remove the foreskin. The literature is inconclusive, though.

More reliable literature says that circumcision leads to increased sexual pleasure in intercourse.

One would wonder why God would command that we mutilate his "perfect design".

I reject your description of it. It's not mutilation.

 

[oldbetang]

Even if there are any benefits to circumcision (the evidence is, at best, divided), the choice should stil be the individuals, and it should be made at a time when he can evaluate the state of his own genitals - he may be perfectly happy with

The family should not force a helpless infant to have its genitals mutilated for the sake of tradition and some mild benefit that in all probability doesn't even exist - at the very least, give the child the choice.

Again, we're not talking of mutilating anyone or anything. It's really an enhancement. A simple procedure that provides much benefit. The family should not be denied the right to choose it for their child. I'm very thankful that my parents chose it for me.

 

[silence_dogood]

Here's the context:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Then he goes on to say that "murder" is synonymous with "anger" in God's eyes, and that "adultery" is synonymous with "lust". Then the whole turn the other cheek thing.

All Jesus was doing here is putting some spin on the law, and frankly making it even harder to follow it. But nowhere does he say you should stop following any of the commandments.

Jesus doesn't say here that we are to stop following the law because He was talking to people who were still under the law. But that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't say elsewhere that we are no longer under the law.

Jesus explicitly states that he was not there to destroy the law. He explicitly states that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law - till 'Heaven and Earth pass'.

Have Heaven and Earth passed?

Nope. And that's why the law is still in effect for those who are under the law. But for those of us who are under grace, Christ has fulfilled the law.

And by the way, how did we even get on the subject of the law? Weren't we talking about punishment?

 

[rockaction]

Again, we're not talking of mutilating anyone or anything. It's really an enhancement. A simple procedure that provides much benefit. The family should not be denied the right to choose it for their child. I'm very thankful that my parents chose it for me.

Circumcision is NOT a slam-dunk "enhancement". A lot of the current research says that the pros and cons equal out, meaning it's up in the air. The pros are mostly pros for people who are sexually active, anyway. Circumcised people have a slightly reduced risk for a couple STDs, and that's about it. The trade-off is the potential sexual desensitization.

So if you're pro-abstinence, it's a no-brainer to not circumcise. You'll only be having sex with your wife, and it'll be awesome!

 

[rockaction]

Jesus doesn't say here that we are to stop following the law because He was talking to people who were still under the law. But that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't say elsewhere that we are no longer under the law.

Jesus is pro-law. Jesus' word >>>>>>>> Paul and those other guys' word

 

[silence_dogood]

Jesus is pro-law. Jesus' word >>>>>>>> Paul and those other guys' word

Actually, according to 2 Tim 3, all of scripture is Jesus' Word. Of course Jesus is pro-law. He is, after all, the One who instituted the law in the first place. However, He is also the same One who fulfilled the law and set us free from the law.

 

[rockaction]

Actually, according to 2 Tim 3, all of scripture is Jesus' Word. Of course Jesus is pro-law. He is, after all, the One who instituted the law in the first place. However, He is also the same One who fulfilled the law and set us free from the law.

So Jesus contradicts himself, does he?

 

[silence_dogood]

So Jesus contradicts himself, does he?

Nope. Not at all.

Look, you're obviously not a Christian and so I'm not really sure why I should have to justify my religion to you and, second, you don't seem to know enough about Christianity to be able to hold a conversation about the two covenants or, God forbid, dispensationalism, so I'm not really sure what the point of having this conversation with you is.

So let me ask you this: do you want to learn about what our religion teaches or do you want to lecture me about what you think our religion teaches?

 

[Umaro]

Again, we're not talking of mutilating anyone or anything. It's really an enhancement. A simple procedure that provides much benefit. The family should not be denied the right to choose it for their child. I'm very thankful that my parents chose it for me.

Why do you deny the right of the child to choose? I'm really angry that my parents chose it for me, but I can't exactly go back and fix it now can I? The choice should be left up to the individual possessing the foreskin.

 

[rockaction]

Nope. Not at all.

Look, you're obviously not a Christian and so I'm not really sure why I should have to justify my religion to you and, second, you don't seem to know enough about Christianity to be able to hold a conversation about the two covenants or, God forbid, dispensationalism, so I'm not really sure what the point of having this conversation with you is.

So let me ask you this: do you want to learn about what our religion teaches or do you want to lecture me about what you think our religion teaches?

Blah blah blah all you're doing here is pulling out a red herring with your self-proclaimed theological superiority. I can use big words too.

You can rationalize it all you want, but your Old Testament is still a very brutal book by modern standards.

Let me ask you once more. If the government of the United States reported that it had a "revelation from God" and reinstated the Old Covenant, would you agree with the policy to execute homosexuals?

And don't give me this "we're under a new covenant now!" junk. Dispensationalism is just one of many things people have made up to make the Bible make more sense.

 

[AMarx]

Let me ask you once more. If the government of the United States reported that it had a "revelation from God" and reinstated the Old Covenant, would you agree with the policy to execute homosexuals?

I wouldn't call it "old covenant" myself but I would fight this proposal.

 

[sk8Joyful]

OT laws seem barbaric. How do we Christians make of this?
Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I've heard that if one commits adultery they are to be put to death.
This is only one example of a sin you can commit that carries the death penalty.

I mean, what the heck?
If the OT laws existed today, people would have had HUGE human rights concerns.
Anyone have any thoughts?
[/quote=]
too many of Western medical practices are even more barbaric:
1.
Don't want this baby? - no sweat, we'll KILL it, even AS it is born...
2.
Don't (from a zillion chronicities) know how to heal? -
Don't worry: 'symptom-Control, & disease-Management' is the craze...
3.
Don't know how to help people, exit a coma? - no sweat, we'll KILL those folks too.
4.
Don't know how to help people,
from emotional-agonies, guide them to freedom? - no sweat,
we'll keep them dumbed-down, doped-up, & best of all
we'll ZAP them with electricity 'til there's nothing left of them anyway.
5.
Don't know how to help people, stop their aging...
miseries? - don't worry, there's Hospice to bury you.

I mean, what the heck?
If people live GOD's laws today, people would have HUGE human rights concerns.

But today, with most populations lulled to sleep, most people never bat an eye.

Fortunately a few, a very FEW of us Christians continue living the *N*T as God/Jesus us counsels
including Galatians 5:19-21, Luke 10:25-27 & Revelations.

God also tells us, our mind&body is a TEMPLE,
that we should never let others defile, including with foreign substances.
.

 

[rockaction]

You think those things are worse than killing children for disobedience and killing homosexuals for no particular reason?

1.
Don't want this baby? - no sweat, we'll KILL it, even AS it is born...

Partial birth abortion is banned in the US. Therapeutic abortions need to remain legal, because that option needs to be available to women. And abortions in the case of rape and incest should be legal as well. We can agree on that middle ground, right?

2.
Don't (from a zillion chronicities) know how to heal? -
Don't worry: Symptom-control, & disease-Management is the craze

Would you rather have unmanaged disease? Stuff like chemotherapy is awful and tortures the body, but if you want the chance to live, oftentimes it is the only answer.

3.
Don't know how to help people, exit a coma? - no sweat, we'll KILL those folks too

Last time I checked, only human vegetables got this treatment. If the brain is dead the person is dead.

4.
Don't know how to help people,
from emotional-agonies, guide them to freedom? - no sweat,
we'll keep them dumbed-down, doped-up, & best of all
we'll ZAP them with electricity 'til there's nothing left of them anyway.

Because electroshock therapy is really common.

5.
Don't know how to help people, stop their aging...
miseries? - don't worry, there's Hospice to bury you.

I'm actually really offended by this. I actually just visited a hospice, and those people that work there do their best to serve people who are on their last leg. You claim that you're a medical professional, but if you have a giant bias against hospice I doubt it.

Fortunately a few, a very FEW of us Christians continue living the *N*T as God/Jesus us counsels
including Galatians 5:19-21, Luke 10:25-27 & Revelations. -
God also tells us, our mind&body is a TEMPLE,
that we should never let others defile, including with foreign substances.
.

Foreign substances? Like pharmaceuticals? What are you going to tell the kid diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus?

 

[Nooj]

Then look at how such societies actually ran, not how some take verses and think society could have run.

Ask a Jew and read the Talmud.

There is a verse that allows parents to take their child to the gates of the city and make a declaration that the kid is unmanagable and kill them. Rather disturbing, right? Then I asked a Jew about it and he replied there is no recorded case of this ever actually happening. I was surprised at never, I would not have been surprised to find it was very rare. If you can work out why it would be very rare you will begin to understand. (Hint read exactly what they are supposed to say and think about what is implied).

There is no recorded case because there are very few (almost none actually) legal texts from ancient Israel. The Bible tells you what to do, but we don't know if they did it or how they did it. That's unfortunate, since legal documents from other ancient Near Eastern civilisation do survive, for example in thousands of clay tablets on just court cases and legal transactions alone. You won't find it surprising that many of the laws found in the Bible are similar to those practiced elsewhere, like putting adulterers to death.

And by the way, modern Judaism (or even Second Temple Judaism) =/= ancient Israel. The Talmud (which was written centuries removed from Biblical Israel) isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of how the Biblical laws were put into practice, if they ever were.