Johnny Skeptic

Please state what you said in simpler terms.

If the God of the Bible is immoral, a good case can be made that he does not exist since the Bible indicates that he is moral.

arnoldo

Agreed. The Mosaic Laws was very helpful to the Jews in many aspects including ensuring that their culture would survive basically intact for thousands of years and not be assimiliated into the surrounding cultures. The Mosaic Law also ensured that when the Jews went out into the various diasporas throughout their history they would not be assimiliated into these foreign cultures as well. As far as the surrounding cultures who frequently went to war against Israel; then their enslavement after losing a battle should come as no stunning revelation.

Johnny Skeptic

Which proves nothing about the existence of the God of the Bible, the morality of the God of the Bible, the morality of all Old Testament laws, and the morality of ancient Hebrews compared to all other groups of people in the world.

Sheshbazzar

Certainly the Mosaic was helpful to the Hebrews and the Jewish nation, and has proven effective in insuring their distinctive culture and national identity.
But what has been good for the Jews, has not always been so good for the rest of the worlds populations and nations.

Firstly, because the religion of Judaism operating under the restrictions of the so called "Mosaic Laws" is by its very nature exclusionary;
That is The Law is filled with "statutes" and clauses that are intended to keep the Jews separate from all other peoples,
and all other peoples separated from the Jews. assuring that the -separate- and -unequal- treatment provided under those Laws would be permanent.
The Mosaic Laws were written for the benefit of the Hebrew/Jewish peoples, as such they never to be applied to non-Hebrew, non-Jewish peoples except in a restrictive and exclusionary fashion, "A stranger shall NOT..."
And were by the limitations set forth in that Law restricted to Hebrew/Jewish usage, not as a grab-bag for gentile outsider strangers to pick and choose amongst.

"thou shalt keep ALL these commandments to DO them, which I command thee this day, to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in ALL his ways, and to cleave unto him;"

("For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of ALL. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, "There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing:" Now if thou commit no adultery, yet eat you of the holy thing, you become a transgressor of the law;
You shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof you shalt surely die.

You say; that -thing- which you do eat, Did you you indeed receive it from YHWH Elohi Israel? Is it indeed a holy -thing-to the Holy One of Israel?
You defy The Law in your eating of the holy -thing- of which it is commanded "no stranger shall eat thereof",
Or defy The Law which says, whoso shall, eat of the holy-thing- let him be also circumcised, "and KEEP ALL of these Laws to DO them"?
Or did recieved you it from your gentile god, from the god of your own nation and imagination, a demon, wherefore it is a -thing- profane, wherewith in the eating thereof you do profane yourself?
Answer this not to Sheshbazzar, but unto your own god.

Secondly, you say; "the surrounding cultures who frequently went to war against Israel" yet you do not consider that these were the peoples and nations and cultures had been in the land of old, generation to generation, even from times immemorial.
Scripture sets out that the Nation of Israel were the new strangers and invaders upon these lands, commanded and intent upon warfare to the dispossession of these peoples and nations of their native lands, of their wealth, of their power and of their political independence, to the end that all of the land laid out within those borders that were established within The Law, would either be forced into becoming Israel's vassals and slaves, or be put to the edge of the sword and utterly destroyed from off the land.

Your assessment neglects whom was the agressing party in these wars.

Even when the "others" did initiate an attack on Israel, it was in situations that had been "set up" and provoked as responses to the advancing Israeli invasion and takeover. The Book of Joshua tells of how brutally Israel warred against the native inhabitants of the land, as they were -commanded- to do by the Law of Moses.
That other nations would resist and fight was only right and natural, as the only options provided under the Jews Law, was for them to;

A. either surrender and submit to this Jewish domination, delivering their nation and their posterity into a permanent state of servitude, slavery, and second-class status subordinate to Israeli rule.

B. or convert to the Jewish religion completely, in so doing forsaking and losing all of their own traditions, rights, and cultural and national identities, becoming full Israeli citizens, subject to the observing and keeping ALL of the statutes and commandments.
- Which of course would include the obeying of Joshua's commands to "Israel", and a willingness to participate in the Israeli slaughters of their former countrymen and family members, men, women, children, infants in arms, and the unborn in their mothers wombs.

C. or to engage in a permanent fight to the death against domination by these Israeli invaders and their Laws,
For the sake of the pursuit of justice, and of equality of treatment under the law.
For freedom of conscience and of thought, and
For freedom of speech, and of expression, and
For freedom from any legal oppression founded upon race,
culture, or religious convictions.

For the right to inhabit and enjoy the land without fear,
For the right to enjoy the fruits of ones own labor,
Free from forced extortion to support the domination
of a despotic alien government.

For the freedom to choose ones own political and religious leaders,
to empower them, or to dismiss them from power.
For the freedom to refuse to submit to any nepotistic, dynastic rule
(read "Levitical", "sons of Aaron" and "according to the..." Deut 17:8-11)
being by Law unequal treatment, and unjust, yet without recourse.

For the freedom for each individual to pursue their vision of happiness,
restrained only by what is detrimental to others peace and happiness,
as determined by the consent of those so governed.

bacht

I think you're ignoring passages like this:


Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19

"You shall not abhor an E'domite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.
Deut 23:7

"`Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.' And all the people shall say, `Amen.'
Deut 27:19


The "stranger in a strange land" idea was important in the Torah. Rules about purity and cult are not the same as general legal restrictions for resident aliens.

I think you're overstating the level of outright xenophobia endorsed in scripture. It's true that the Hasmoneans enforced conversion on conquered territories, but I think this was considered excessive by Jewish standards.

As far as "the rest of the world's populations and nations", when exactly did Jews have the opportunity to impose their laws on anybody other than the century of Maccabbean rule?

Sheshbazzar

The Law of Moses is exclusionary in nature, although a few provisions were included that required some degree of consideration be given to "outsiders", they were none the less excluded from treatment equal to that provided by Law to the Jews.
A Hebrew master could take up a rod and beat his gentile slave, one that had been born into Hebrew slavery, and through no fault of his own, had never been a free man.
Now what do you think the Levites, those nepotic sons of Aaron, would do to a gentile slave brought before them for taking up a rod, and beating his Hebrew master so severely that -he- a Jew, could not rise for "a day or two"?
Slavery is the question under consideration in this thread, not "purity and cult".
Was not a "slave" a fellow human being? Egyptian, E'domite, or other, ought not he to receive equal treatment under just, fair, moral, and equally applied laws?
As above, he was placed into the position of slavery by the acts, and the actions of Hebrew Laws and domination policy, a position in which he was born and held in, wherein he was denied both equal opportunity and equal treatment.
The very definition of the workings of an unjust and unequally applied law.

Exactly the point, "opportunity", the -ideal- and prophesied ends of the Jewish religion is their finally ruling over the entire gentile world, enforcing their peculiar form of religion and cultus upon all other nations and peoples.
Consider the words of-
Then there are Ezekiel's very strange ideas of a restored Jewish priesthood 44:10- and a resuming of offering animal sacrifices 45:17- in a temple that has never yet been built.

The Christian modification consists of an -ideal- were there will be ultimately One Jewish king over Israel and all of the nations,
with twelve hand-picked Jewish rulers sitting upon twelve "thrones" ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel, and all the Gentiles,
forcing everyone to worship the Jewish conception of god, and into the practice of the Jewish forms of worship and religion.
(albeit with certain modifications as decreed by the triumphant Jewish king)

So in the end, no matter how you slice it, the Bible is a propaganda plot and ploy towards, and a tool devised, for assisting in the fomenting of an eventual Jewish cultural/religious domination of everyone on earth, with an inherent -ideal- of suppressing and destroying all other religions and traditions, while substituting the Jewish Sabbaths and Festivals, and Jewish forms of worship by means of compulsion and force.

That is not to say that this will ever actually be carried out, after all, the entire reason for pointing it out is to make it apparent, to protest, and to resist as best as possible any moves by religious fundies and fanatics of all stripes, to push the world into war-games for the playing out their fantasy, to achieve such a vile outcome. As part and parcel of their religious beliefs they look forward to a time when they will finally get to rub their hands together and lick their chops, and gloat over all of the dead bodies that their (or their gods) machinations have culminated in.

premjan

The Hebrew law about slavery may not have been just in an abstract sense (there is a lot of inequality in nature after all) but it may still have, by attempting to accommodate the natural weaknesses and strengths of human nature and livelihood, had the effect of moderating the treatment of slaves. At least this is the sort of argument one could make about Islamic laws. Also IMO the Jewish culture maps well some of the tribal constants of human nature (consider that it is at least more civilized than the Hutu-Tutsi style tribalism) and that accounts for some of its durability.

Sheshbazzar

And as easily as a Law could say "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
A Law could also say "Thou shalt not permit slavery"
The question is not one of what is convenient to weaknesses or livelihood, but of the morality of a god who would with foreknowledge, set up a discriminatory and unequal system that deprived men of equal protections and treatment under the law.
No work has ever been done by slavery, that could not have also been done by paid, and free laborers.
I covered this way back, a prospective slave-owner always had a choice, he could pay for the labor, or he could pay for a slave;
The Law as given, favored him for the enslaving of his fellow man. The Law, and its maker(s) is therefore responsible and at fault for establishing and encouraging human bondage.
A just and moral god would not support unequal and unjust laws. I do not, therefore believe or accept that these Jewish laws were ever instituted by god.
They were devised solely by men, to serve the ambitions and greed of men.

storytime

Consider the confinement of Israelites in their tradition. What if the story was meant to be understood thusly:

And it shall come to pass that every one that is a son of Jacob-Israel that is left in all the nations of the world shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, YHWH Tzabboth, and keep the Feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whosoever will not come up of all the families of Israel living in all countries of the world, if they come not to Jerusalem to worship the King, YHWH Tzabboth, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the families of Jacob-Israel living in Egypt not go up to Jerusalem, there shall be the plague whereof YHWH will smite the son as a heathen because he does not fear me, to come up and keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

As this is a tribal god with a vengence on his own people, and calling them "nations" in defining their tribes, how would it include expectations of Gentile worship in the Feast of Tabernacles?

storytime

Laws for Israelites did not permit slavery of their own tribesmen. It looks like Solomon broke the rules when he conscribed[contracted out] his fellow Israelites to the King of Tyre. The burden of slavery Solomon put on his own people eventually caused the division in days of Jerobaom and Rehoboam when the ten tribes split from Judah and Benjamin. This division because Rehoboam, Solomon's son, refused to lessen the burden of slavery and recognize other tribesmen as equal to the Jews[Judah]. Solomon had been making a hefty penny, so to speak, in his day as the story says he collected 666 talents of gold in one year. A multi-millionaire no doubt. So he wanted to keep his wisdom going to make more money at the expense of lives[slavery] of his own people. Which was a thing prohibited by his god. It was ok to enslave non Israelites but a sin/offense to enslave his own people.

I think the book of Revelation reflects on the wisdom of Solomon as the man of sin, and his number as 666 talents of gold that identify him as the son of perdition.