Woodeye

The way I see it:-)
After leaving 400 years of living under Egyptian government law, a couple of million Israelites began wandering lawlessly around in the Sinai wilderness.
God established Himself as their governor, and gave them a Law which completely defined every aspect of civil government and civil society.
Assuming that God is not the kind who wants His subjects to comply with nonsense rules just to stroke His ego, every last commandment within the law, had a practical civil purpose.
If the Israelites had naturally acted civily, there would have been no need for civil laws, and if uncivil Israelites had acted civily after being shown how to by the law, there would have been no need for legal penalties.
Civil society depends on the people following the rule of law, and that requires penalties.

Within any society, there are always those who operate more on reason than passion, and who recognize that keeping the law makes for a civil society. These reasonable people get into(accept) the spirit of why laws are necessary, and they keep the laws, not for fear of the penalties, but simply because they believe it is a good idea, and they want to do it.
These people have been reborn with a new spirit, and they do by nature, the things contained in the law. This new spirit is their salvation from all the bad things associated with the law, and they are no longer **under** the law, because the penalty of the law only applies to those who are inclined to break it.

Since God's law was for the purpose of maintaining a civil society, and the laws of any nation are also for that very purpose, then that tends to explain the reason why the apostle Paul said that since no government exists without God allowing it, then the civil law of every government is endorsed by God, and therefore keeping the law of whatever land one lives in, is God's legal requirement for His people.

Bill Snedden

...this really doesn't seem to fit in the Philosophy forum, so I'm moving it to General Religious Discussions...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Woodeye

Bill Snedden Re: "No offense, but...
...this really doesn't seem to fit in the Philosophy forum..."

Hi Bill:-)
No offense taken, however, you may have misinterpreted my post.
I would be interested to hear the reasons for your decision.

wordfailure

Woodeye,

This is nothing more than an argument for blind obedience, and a faulty argument at that.


There is a distinction you do not acknowledge here between recognizing that some kind of law ought to be kept and recognizing that whatever the law happens to be ought to be kept with the aim of a civil society. It is the distinction between accepting responsibility for ones actions and beliefs and attempting to slough responsibility off, IMO.



They are most certainly under the law. This is like saying I have the right to choose a wife for myself or let the authorities choose a wife for me as long as I don't abuse the right by trying to choose a wife for myself, and further that only those who try to choose a wife for themselves are under the law-- the rest are totally free. It's complete nonsense.



By this reasoning would'nt we have to say that since nothing at all exists without God allowing it, then everything is endorsed by God, therefore accepting everything that exists is God's requirement for His people?

Woodeye

Hi Wordfailure:-)
LOL...No, I'm not arguing for blind obedience:-) I'm simply offering my opinion of the practical, and natural, principles involved in "The Law".
Society doesn't care why we are civil, just as long as we are, so while everyone is obliged to keep civil laws, law keepers can be divided into two categories; (1) Those who keep the laws but would rather not, and (2) those who keep the laws because they want to.
Those who keep the laws but would rather not, are "under the law", in the sense that keeping the law is a "burden" to them. Keeping the law is a "sacrifice" to them because they would rather not do it. Being able to keep the law even though they would rather not, is a source of pride in a society which values civility, and these law keepers become "self-righteousness".
On the other hand, those who keep the laws because they want to, find it neither a burden, nor a sacrifice. Their righteousness comes naturally so they take no self-righteous pride in it, and they "fulfill the spirit of the law", which is to show people how to be civil.
This may sound philosophical rather than religious, and that is why I started this thread in the philosophy forum, but it probably belongs in this forum as well.
Religion and philosophy probably have a 99% overlap, but those who have studied philosophy, tend to think that real philosophy is only those philosophical theories that can be completely defined by simply mentioning the author's name:-)
I will be looking forward to your comments:-)

Paul5204

Woodeye:

One quick point since I do not have much time today. You posted that:

"God established Himself as their governor, and gave them a Law which completely defined every aspect of civil government and civil society."

Are you sure about the "every?" I ask that because while some will say that Deuteronomy 24 allows for divorce, there is absolutely no provision in the Torah that concerns just who gets custody of any child[ren] of the marriage upon divorce. I will let you search the internet to determine for yourself just often divorcing parents contest custody of their children, but as a practicing family law attorney, I can tell you that the number of such persons is rather large. So it would seem that God left out a rather crucial provision from the code that you claim "completely defined every aspect of civil government and society."

The alternative view is simply to recognize that while in Egypt [and even before], the Hebrews did indeed have their own culture and, accordingly, there were certain cultural practices that were generally accepted and followed. It is a pity that most English-speaking persons familiar with the Torah refer to the Torah as "the law." It would probably be better translated into English as "the teaching." If that is the perspective that is taken, then one could argue fairly convincingly that the relevant portion of Deuteronomy 24 is simply God's teaching with respect to the existing social practice of divorce. With the teaching here being that divorce is wrong.

Not that you necessarily want my explanation as to why I believe that is so, but since it may be of some interest to others, here goes. First, Deut. 24 does not state that divorce is acceptable; it merely states that a woman cannot remarry the husband that divorced her if she has in the interim been married to another man. The stated reason is that she has been defiled. Two quick points. First, we must assume that any and all marriages were consummated, and second, we must also remember that unless the gal's father said, no way, that if you had sex with an unmarried gal, you married her [or at least were supposed to marry her]. With that in mind, we can rule out sex itself being the cause of the defilement. If it was, then the woman would have been defiled as a result of her initial [and consummated] marriage, so it would seem that any subsequent marriage would be wrong since the woman would have been defiled during the course of her first marriage. But the Torah does not explicity state anywhere, let alone at Deut. 24, that the woman is not free to remarry after being divorced.

So where does the defilement come? The woman was defiled when she had sexual relations with a man other than her first husband. Which explains why she can not only remarry her first husband, but also why she was not defiled with respect to her "ability" to marry another man after having been divorced from her first husband.

Another way of reaching the same conclusion is simply to ask the question of just how the poor woman became defiled if every thing was okay, i.e., if the initial divorce was okay, and if the subsequent marriage to another man was okay, just how did this poor woman become defiled. I know that the Tanahkh reports that God's ways are not ours, but I will nevertheless assume that like me, my God has a problem with an "it's okay" and an "it's okay," adding up to she's somehow been defiled.

I have not relied on anything in the New Testament to support my view, since the same is not necessary, but my Lord is reported to have said something about it only being as a result of the hardness of their hearts that Moshe' [God's stand-in, as it were] allowed them to divorce their wives [which is another way of saying that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that God allowed the existing social practice respecting divorce to continue]. But, again, both my Lord and I have a rather clear understanding that ha-Torah is simply that the existing social practice respecting divorce was and is wrong.

In closing, let me end with the words of one of the prophets whose work appears in the Tanakh: The Lord hates divorce.
I will let those who support the position that divorce is a-okay argue with the prophet of the Lord.

Actually, as a true last thought, you might compare the words of God when the 10 commandments were given with God's words when he appeared to Moshe' after Moshe' asked God to show him God's ways. As you should notice, on 10 commandment day [as it were], God starts off with the I am a jealous God who visits the sins....but when God shows Moshe' his ways, he starts with those words about being compassion, merciful, forgiving, etc.

So, going back to a point made in my initial post, the 10 commandments expresses neither God's being nor his essence, as a matter of fact, as the Jewish Publication Society astutely observes, God's being and essence is precisely that part about YHWH, YHWH, a God compassionate and gracious....

Which is precisly why we have a saying in the English language that mercy is the heart of the law.

Anyway, I'm outta here for now.

Woodeye

Hi Paul5204:-)
"Every aspect", that a Judge, who is familiar with the individual circumstances of an infraction, needs, to make a reasonable judgement based on the spirit of the law.
The rules that were given to the Israelites, in "The Teaching", defined the basic setup of a system of government based on the rule of law, but how the individual rules apply to individual people, as social and cultural circumstances change over time, has traditionally been re-defined by every generation, on a case by case basis.
This implies that only "A" set of civil rules was necessary, not "THE" set of specific rules that legalists take pride in keeping so accurately.
Considering only the "letter of the rules", does not take all the variable circumstances into consideration as the "spirit of the rules" must, and the spirit(purpose) of the rules is the maintenance of civil society, not the forcing of society into a legal mould.
The details that you presented are the type of things that are normally judged on a case by case basis, and cannot really be written in stone to apply to every case for thousands of years.
It is my opinion that after the fall of the Judean kingdom, the now redundant "Teaching" was carried on as a ritual come religion.
Looking forward to your comments Paul:-)

Radcliffe Emerson

There is no archaeological evidence of any kind to support an Exodus, and ancient Egyptian documents do not support it either.

Woodeye

Radcliffe Emerson wrote: "There is no archaeological evidence of any kind to support an Exodus, and ancient Egyptian documents do not support it either."


Hello Radcliffe:
Yes, I understand this to be true, but regardless, the twelve tribes of Israel probably were a nation with government by rule of law, and their nation(s) was probably destroyed by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, so the point of my post is still the same. That point being that the Law of Moses was simply a national, civil, law, the very same in principle, as the national, civil, law of any other nation at the time, and that when the Israelites came under the law of foreign rulers, their old law became redundant, and was then only kept as nationalist ritual which became religious ritual over time.
Taking it one step further, it is my opinion that Christianity began as a nationalist movement which was preparing for the overthrow of Rome and the restoration of the Judean kingdom, by reviving the lost spirit of Jewish nationalism, and adding supporters to the zealot, kingdom restoration movement.
After the fall of Jerusalem(70 AD), Christianity too was allowed to degenerate into a religion.
Looking forward to your comments Radcliffe:-)

Paul5204

Woodeye:

In response to your last, my first "difficulty" with your last would be that while it is indeed true that some matters need be judged on a "case by case" basis, the Torah gives absolutely no guidance whatsoever on just how we judge the matter of child custody on a case by case basis. Not only is there not a "bright line" rule of law, there is also not even so much as a statement of any factor[s] or factors that should be considered on a case by case basis.

As I reported earlier, I practice [in part] as a family law attorney. According to our Intermediate Court of Appeals, there is no "measuring rod" when it comes to custody, ie., evaluating the child's best interests. As I have mentioned to more than a few fellow attorneys who practice in the field, it would seem that without ANY measuring rod whatsover [even if not otherwise set in stone], we have in this respect become a state of men and not of law. Need I report how much contempt for the so-called "system" this creates?

Anyway, let me close by asking you a question. If the Torah is merely a legal code, then why all the history/story? Why not simply the code, just as with Hammurabi, and skip the life story of Jacob?

Actually, one last question, if "teaching" isn't the issue, then what are we to glean from the report that God (a) made the sea monsters great and all the souls of life with which the waters swarm and (b) then went on to bless them....but yet, it is also reported that excepting those sea creatures with fins and scales, all other sea creatures are to be considered by some an abomination? God blessed these abominable things? I otherwise cannot see why the code should be concerned with any such thing, but yet there it is.