Morality of the Old Testament

[DavidSMoore]

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

In science it's okay to make mistakes and to be wrong. Albert Einstein was famously wrong when, in 1915, he included a special term known as the "cosmological constant" in his equations for General Relativity. He didn't want a universe that was either expanding or contracting, and yet he knew that his equations (modeled on principles developed by Isaac Newton) couldn't prevent either expansion or contraction. So he added the cosmological constant to prevent both. But just a few years after publication of his ideas it was discovered (by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble) that the universe is indeed expanding. Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake. In science, there's nothing wrong with being wrong. It's all part of a thing called "learning."

A cell phone is proof that the core of modern science is essentially correct. A cell phone is an electromagnetic device since it is capable of sending and receiving signals in the form of radio waves. If the scientific theory of electricity and magnetism were fundamentally wrong in some way then cell phones simply wouldn't work. But they do work, so the theory of electricity and magnetism is correct. A cell phone is a quantum mechanical device in that it employs semi-conductance, a quantum mechanical principle. Again, cell phones do in fact work, so the scientific theory of quantum mechanics is essentially correct. A cell phone is a relativistic device in that it is able to access the Global Positioning Satellite System. The designers of that system realized that they would have to take relativistic phenomena into account. They discovered that if they didn't consider the relativistic time dilation due to the Earth's gravitational field, for example, the GPS system would be off by about a half a kilometer. It's not off by that much-- in fact it's pretty much dead on. So the theory of relativity is essentially correct. Those 3 scientific theories-- electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, and relativity-- are the foundation on which is built all of modern science. And none of the principles of any of those great theories is mentioned in any ancient religious text.

 

[jimb]

In science it's okay to make mistakes and to be wrong. Albert Einstein was famously wrong when, in 1915, he included a special term known as the "cosmological constant" in his equations for General Relativity. He didn't want a universe that was either expanding or contracting, and yet he knew that his equations (modeled on principles developed by Isaac Newton) couldn't prevent either expansion or contraction. So he added the cosmological constant to prevent both. But just a few years after publication of his ideas it was discovered (by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble) that the universe is indeed expanding. Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake. In science, there's nothing wrong with being wrong. It's all part of a thing called "learning."

A cell phone is proof that the core of modern science is essentially correct. A cell phone is an electromagnetic device since it is capable of sending and receiving signals in the form of radio waves. If the scientific theory of electricity and magnetism were fundamentally wrong in some way then cell phones simply wouldn't work. But they do work, so the theory of electricity and magnetism is correct. A cell phone is a quantum mechanical device in that it employs semi-conductance, a quantum mechanical principle. Again, cell phones do in fact work, so the scientific theory of quantum mechanics is essentially correct. A cell phone is a relativistic device in that it is able to access the Global Positioning Satellite System. The designers of that system realized that they would have to take relativistic phenomena into account. They discovered that if they didn't consider the relativistic time dilation due to the Earth's gravitational field, for example, the GPS system would be off by about a half a kilometer. It's not off by that much-- in fact it's pretty much dead on. So the theory of relativity is essentially correct. Those 3 scientific theories-- electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, and relativity-- are the foundation on which is built all of modern science. And none of the principles of any of those great theories is mentioned in any ancient religious text.

And no items of faith, eternal life, resurrection of the dead, the supremacy of God the Father, His son, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit to His adopted children, etc. are mentioned in any scientific text. Anybody who chooses the science over these Divine truths should have their head examined.

 

[DavidSMoore]

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:

Yes, I saw the movie A Civil Action many years ago. I certainly would never argue that human written and administered laws are perfect. I've been (re-)reading Peter Irons's masterful A People's History Of The Supreme Court, a book which I heartily recommend. It is replete with examples in which the Supreme Court reversed itself-- over and over. So no, human jurisprudence isn't perfect.

But I also think it's fair to say that any law system that advocates slavery is just plain wrong and has no place in a modern society. As for animal sacrifice, I don't think the vast majority of Christians or Jews globally believe that the sacrifice of an animal is the proper way to forgive a sin. Certainly the teachings of Jesus don't support that notion.

 

[McBell]

And no items of faith, eternal life, resurrection of the dead, the supremacy of God the Father, His son, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit to His adopted children, etc. are mentioned in any scientific text. Anybody who chooses the science over these Divine truths should have their head examined.

they have.

Are the brains of atheists different to those of religious people? Scientists are trying to find out

Atheists may think more analytically than religious people, but it is far from proven.

theconversation.com

 

[Audie]

The best you got is to attack a typo as though attacking a typo somehow helps you?
Wow.


Looks more like you put them on ignore because you the best you got is to attack a typo...

Its sad when someone so poorly represents
what is in fact a noble faith

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do Christians actually believe in the morality of the Old Testament?

Historically the answer to this moves about like a loose animal. Some 'Christians' do attempt to live by the literal commands. Some 'Christians' do not at all seem to have anything remotely similar. More importantly 'Believe in' has different meanings at different times and to different groups.

The beginning is unclear: since we do not have any close detailed records of the beginnings Christ, of churches except for some letters, some traditions, a few scattered legal documents; and since we have controversial records of how the churches begin. There is a historical group called the Ebionites that accuse Paul of evil. There is a 200 year gap in church history followed by exclusion from the synogogues. There are undeniable schizms and struggles for leadership. There are artificially created Roman competing mystery religions with freakish similarities to Christianity. The beginning of Christianity is unclear.

But we do all believe that the Tanach contains moral words.

Let’s consider the Fourth Commandment:

Honoring parents? First we have to look at how Jews have been reading it. Its not just their immediate parents but the entire line of parents all the way back to their primordial ones; and its not genetic but adoptive. In fact it is not the genes which actually matter, because the Torah says that the life is in the blood, and the blood gets life from words of life in air. Therefore it is how you are reared which determines whether you are Jewish in your mind. As for your legal status and land ownership that has to be determined through other means; but if you don't live like a Jew then nobody is going to think that you're properly Jewish. Your parents are those who have passed on to you your Jewish mind which is your golden inheritance, and you a Jew are expected to obey them.

Where Christians come into that is we have a different sort of line. Our Jesus says that the spirit goes where it wills and that we have only 1 Father in heaven -- unlike Jews who have an entire line of fathers going back to 'Abraham' or older -- all of whom they are expected to obey. They receive the spirit through the line of their fathers. We don't.

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.

A Christian just knows what we are supposed to do, because we inherit the spirit directly. Even so it is required that we study the written law. Don't ask me to explain that, but we can still get things out of it. Look, its pretty obvious isn't it? No? Ok, sometimes it isn't so obvious like when I'm exceedingly angry with someone who is particularly cruel or is themselves a murderer. That is the kind of thing the NT authors discuss. For example James says to quickly get rid of any anger.

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.

The offerings would be functional were they to come back into use; however they would operate differently than most people think.

 

[Elihoenai]

Yes, I saw the movie A Civil Action many years ago. I certainly would never argue that human written and administered laws are perfect. I've been (re-)reading Peter Irons's masterful A People's History Of The Supreme Court, a book which I heartily recommend. It is replete with examples in which the Supreme Court reversed itself-- over and over. So no, human jurisprudence isn't perfect.

Deuteronomy 16:19

19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.


The movie "A Civil Action" teaches that it's all about what you make the Jury Believe to Win the Case and not about the Truth. And that success in a case depends on the Lawyers that you have the Power and/or Money to obtain to Convince a Jury.

Furthermore, in a similar way the US Churches Integrity to Elohim/God is Compromised given Dependence on Government Tax Exemption and Tithes and Offerings from their Congregations. These are like accepting Bribes to not preach anything in opposition to Government policy and that does not offend the Congregation. There is no Real Separation between Church and State. It's the same with All the World Churches.

But I also think it's fair to say that any law system that advocates slavery is just plain wrong and has no place in a modern society. As for animal sacrifice, I don't think the vast majority of Christians or Jews globally believe that the sacrifice of an animal is the proper way to forgive a sin. Certainly the teachings of Jesus don't support that notion.

Matthew 8:1-4

8 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.

2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Leviticus 14:4-5

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:


From my perspective, Everything that happens is the Will of Elohim/God and Ordained by Elohim/God. If you are a Slave, it's because this is the Will of Elohim/God. If you are Free, it's because this is the Will of Elohim/God. As an Atheist I don't expect you to understand that, apart from a Few hundred/thousand Elect, every person on the planet are Slaves to Sin.


As for the teachings of Jesus on Animal Sacrifice you may not have read Matthew 5:23-24 and Matthew 8:1-4.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Furthermore, in a similar way the US Churches Integrity to Elohim/God is Compromised given Dependence on Government Tax Exemption and Tithes and Offerings from their Congregations. These are like accepting Bribes to not preach anything in opposition to Government policy and that does not offend the Congregation. There is no Real Separation between Church and State. It's the same with All the World Churches.

I can think of many occasions when prominent Christian leaders opposed government policies. Martin Luther King Jr. is famous for having called for civil rights legislation-- and he led a movement that brought about the change he sought. There were a great many persons in and out of government at the time who bitterly opposed what he said and what he inspired his followers to seek. And yet he persisted. I just can't buy the idea that tax exempt status has caused every Christian leader to tout government policies and positions.

 

[DavidSMoore]

From my perspective, Everything that happens is the Will of Elohim/God and Ordained by Elohim/God. If you are a Slave, it's because this is the Will of Elohim/God. If you are Free, it's because this is the Will of Elohim/God. As an Atheist I don't expect you to understand that, apart from a Few hundred/thousand Elect, every person on the planet are Slaves to Sin.

Do you understand how thoroughly depressing that sounds? Let's say that there are about 10,000 numbered in the elect. There have been over 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet. The chance that any individual has of being one of the elect would therefore be about 0.00001%. That's not a very inspiring message.

You:

As an Atheist I don't expect you to understand that...

Did I mention that I was raised as a Presbyterian, that we lived about half a block from the church and that we went to church every Sunday? Or that I slept through... uh, I mean... I sat very attentively through hundreds of sermons? That I sang (badly) in the youth choir, attended many church family events and study groups?

I'm certainly not advocating that everyone should be a murderer or a thief, or that no one should worship God in their own way. I'm not even trying to convert everyone-- or even anyone-- to atheism. I'm just trying to show that the Bible says a lot of things that not even its most ardent apologists actually believe.

 

[metis]

And no items of faith, eternal life, resurrection of the dead, the supremacy of God the Father, His son, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit to His adopted children, etc. are mentioned in any scientific text. Anybody who chooses the science over these Divine truths should have their head examined.

What a nasty and highly judgmental post that is mostly absent within the scientific community.

 

[libre]

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

On the other hand, God is unchanging and the source of all truth.

Guess which one I choose!

Next time you need serious medical attention go to your local parish to pray - who needs doctors?

 

[Audie]

I can think of many occasions when prominent Christian leaders opposed government policies. Martin Luther King Jr. is famous for having called for civil rights legislation-- and he led a movement that brought about the change he sought. There were a great many persons in and out of government at the time who bitterly opposed what he said and what he inspired his followers to seek. And yet he persisted. I just can't buy the idea that tax exempt status has caused every Christian leader to tout government policies and positions.

Of course there's a few. You can name them.

Vastly outnumbered by those who've just
worked in collusion or cooperation with
" secular" authority.

 

[Audie]

What a nasty and highly judgmental post that is mostly absent within the scientific community.

Do not take the lords name in vain
is not about cussing.

It's about putting on the lords cloak of righteousness
for the sakd of your vanity.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Of course there's a few. You can name them.

Vastly outnumbered by those who've just
worked in collusion or cooperation with
" secular" authority.

During the Vietnam War there were many religious leaders openly opposed the government's policies. And that was a time of much anger and resentment throughout the country. There were many who felt that anyone who opposed the War-- for any reason-- was a traitor to the country. And they weren't the least bit hesitant about expressing their opinions.

William Sloane Coffin Jr., Rev. Daniel Berrigan, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel founded the group Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam. Daniel Berrigan and his brother were sent to federal prison for their actions.

Yes, there were plenty of other church leaders who supported the war. But I would argue that their numbers largely reflected the views of the general population. Only two U.S. Senators-- Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening-- voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Support for the war was very strong in the early years. But with the release of the Pentagon Papers and with the growing impression that the U.S. was not on any kind of path to victory, public support waned. And I would argue that the actions of those Church leaders who opposed the war made it easier for the general U.S. public to accept the idea of an end to the war.

 

[Audie]

During the Vietnam War there were many religious leaders openly opposed the government's policies. And that was a time of much anger and resentment throughout the country. There were many who felt that anyone who opposed the War-- for any reason-- was a traitor to the country. And they weren't the least bit hesitant about expressing their opinions.

William Sloane Coffin Jr., Rev. Daniel Berrigan, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel founded the group Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam. Daniel Berrigan and his brother were sent to federal prison for their actions.

Yes, there were plenty of other church leaders who supported the war. But I would argue that their numbers largely reflected the views of the general population. Only two U.S. Senators-- Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening-- voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Support for the war was very strong in the early years. But with the release of the Pentagon Papers and with the growing impression that the U.S. was not on any kind of path to victory, public support waned. And I would argue that the actions of those Church leaders who opposed the war made it easier for the general U.S. public to accept the idea of an end to the war.

It happens.

But if the numbers were to be seen,
and full attention to how the bible directs
people to obey, and, of course, the centuries
inwhich the grim spectre of heresy in any guise
was a disaster for any who partook-
I don't think church has been much use at
promoting govt morality.

 

[McBell]

William Sloane Coffin Jr., Rev. Daniel Berrigan, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel founded the group Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam. Daniel Berrigan and his brother were sent to federal prison for their actions.

Berrigan's protests against the Vietnam War earned him both scorn and admiration, especially regarding his association with the Catonsville Nine.[1][2] He was arrested multiple times, sentenced to prison for three years for destruction of government property, and was listed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "most wanted list" after flight to avoid imprisonment (the first-ever priest on the list)[3] and was sentenced to prison for destruction of government property.[4]​

​

Daniel Berrigan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Funny how people who break the law go to jail/prison...

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And no items of faith, eternal life, resurrection of the dead, the supremacy of God the Father, His son, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit to His adopted children, etc. are mentioned in any scientific text. Anybody who chooses the science over these Divine truths should have their head examined.

This is not true.

You should look at the literature in history and anthropology.

I find information about stuff like this. Not everything in your list, but some of it. I'm sure that it will vary from culture to culture, but science does study this stuff. (And no, I don't want to argue about whether history is an art or a science, when it would be much more fun to argue about whether math is an art or a science.)

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

In science it's okay to make mistakes and to be wrong.

This reminds me of an old Charlie King tune, called "Acceptable Risks".

Ooops!

Acceptable Risks by Charlie King about the 1957 Yucca Flats Big Smokey Atomic Test​

Acceptable Risks​

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Of course there's a few. You can name them.

Can you name them? I can name some of them, but certainly not all of them.

Here's a few:

Plowshares Movement History​

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you'll find that nuance is introduced from consideration of the entire cannon in its original language..

True, but it means a conclusion that you may not be comfortable with . . .

According to the story, as it's written, the laws given on Mt. Sinai are not incumbent on all human societies. The law was given to specific group. From where does this "certain obligation on all human societies" originate?

The Laws and mythology most likely evolved from Sumerian, Babylonian and Phoenician./Canaanite culture and writings, The Hebrews and their writings as a Canaanite tribe, and compiled after !600 BCE. Even the Hebrew YHWH God was originally a Canaanite God with a consort Ashrah,