The ten commandements revisited:

[timsmith]

OK; I assume the by the OP we are talking just the ten commandments, so name one that could be classed as being for male farmers with slaves.?

And, lets take just one example. "Thou shalt not kill." Why is that so "unnecessary?" What would you replace it with; and by what "authority?"

(btw, I am enjoying your responses and challenges...it's keepn me on my toes for sure)

Two commandements which suggests it was written for bronze age Palestinian farmers:

"You shall not covet your neighbour's house, you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant, or maidservant, his ox or his donkey.

"Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh is the sabbath of the lord your god; you shall not do any work - you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock...."

You're bound to notice the references to slaves and livestock in both of those. Moreover, commandement ten lumps the wife in with the rest of the chattel, suggesting they were part of the property, and proving that this wasn't written for women to read.
What can be gathered from this? they are addressed to a nomadic people whose main economy is primitive agriculture and whose wealth is sometimes counted in people as well as animals.

Thou shall not kill, certainly not the easiest example to reform. But do note that mere human systems have done better in distinguishing different moral scales of homocide. And certainly with this moral scale's enforcement in the last century, crime and homocide is infinitely less common than it was when the commandements were first written.

I have no authority in the church's laws, nor do i need devine authority for the laws i follow. However the Catholic church's dogma claiming papal infalibility would mean that he has the power to ammend such things.

[Castaway]

Thou shall not kill, certainly not the easiest example to reform. But do note that mere human systems have done better in distinguishing different moral scales of homocide.

LOL, oh yes. I forgot. Some types of killing are OK! Some "improvement!!"

[timsmith]

LOL, oh yes. I forgot. Some types of killing are OK! Some "improvement!!"

Haha, oh yes, i forgot. God did tell moses to commit genocide on the Almalekites and the Midianites. That type of killing is okay!

I suppose the witch burnings were okay also

And the crusades

And almost every war for centuries.

[timsmith]

Also, N.B: I never said there wasn't merit in some of the laws. In fact most of them are okay. My main point, which I'm becoming tiresome of repeating, is that we can reform the ones which are no longer relevent in a modern context.

[Jack]

LOL, oh yes. I forgot. Some types of killing are OK! Some "improvement!!"

Probably not much of an improvement but certainly a concession to reality. I often see theologians attempt to reinterpret "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder" even though the word murder was common enough in ancient times that it seems logical that had the author of Exodus meant murder he would have used that word. It stands to reason that the word kill was translated as that from the source texts for the KJV because the original word implied kill more than murder.

When Christians fail to object to any form of socially justified homicide (killing in war, capital punishment, self-defense or even the killing of abortion doctors) they are in essence ignoring the commandment to not kill. In order to justify killing in certain circumstances they have to reinterpret the commandment as it appears in the most common version of the Bible used by protestants, the King James. It's the same thing they do when ignoring the chapters of Leviticus that prohibit wearing a garment of two different fabrics ("Christ has delivered us from the law") while at the same time condemning homosexuality using other verses from the same book of the Bible.

[Castaway]

Haha, oh yes, i forgot. God did tell moses to commit genocide on the Almalekites and the Midianites. That type of killing is okay!

I suppose the witch burnings were okay also

And the crusades

And almost every war for centuries.

LOL; I loved your stated reason for editing your above post!! "Not enough gloating..." That's got to be in the top 2 or 3 I have seen anywhere, yet this year...GOOD ONE.

I'll reply to this in a bit when time permits.

[Castaway]

Very good reply..wish I had time to get into it more, but tomorrow is another day. I'll be back.

[timsmith]

It's the same thing they do when ignoring the chapters of Leviticus that prohibit wearing a garment of two different fabrics ("Christ has delivered us from the law") while at the same time condemning homosexuality using other verses from the same book of the Bible.

Though Paul writes of deliverence from the law in Romans 10:4, Jesus himself says in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law.......Whoever breaks the least of these commandements, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".
This is not so much Jesus ending the law, but Jesus maginifying the law, perhaps in fulfilment of Isaiahs prophecy which reads: "The lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will MAGNIFY the law, and make it honourable."
This being the case, can we really say that Jesus has nulified the old laws? Paul directly contradicts Jesus' teachings on this topic, and single-handedly overrules god without any authority to do so (I hardly need say that in the heirarchy of devine law making the son of god overrules us of the 'mobile vulgarus')

[Zeebadee]

No, not at all. It wasn't Moses who ordered the attack, it was god.

And you know this how???

[timsmith]

And you know this how???

Numbers 31:1 "The lord spoke to Moses saying 'avenge the Isrealites on the Midianites'"
It goes on to say "they did war against Midian as the lord commanded Moses, and killed every male"
And to add to the list of disobeyed laws, they then steal their livestock: "And they took their cattle, their flock, and all their goods as booty" (Numb. 31:9)

And commit infanticide:"Kill every male among the little ones (of the children prisoners from the war)" (Numb. 31:17)

And rape their women: "but all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numb. 31:18)

Hope this cleared up any confusion.

[Zeebadee]

Numbers 31:1 "The lord spoke to Moses saying 'avenge the Isrealites on the Midianites'"
It goes on to say "they did war against Midian as the lord commanded Moses, and killed every male"
And to add to the list of disobeyed laws, they then steal their livestock: "And they took their cattle, their flock, and all their goods as booty" (Numb. 31:9)

And commit infanticide:"Kill every male among the little ones (of the children prisoners from the war)" (Numb. 31:17)

And rape their women: "but all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numb. 31:18)

Hope this cleared up any confusion.

But if you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, you have no way of knowing if these verses are true or not. Are you a literalist?

[timsmith]

But if you don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, you have no way of knowing if these verses are true or not. Are you a literalist?

I am an atheist, so whether i believe these are true or not is irrelevent.

But for the purposes of humouring lets look at both possible outlooks:
Say hypothetically that I belive these stories literally happened. If this is the case then god seems to be malevolent. It would mean that god is hypocritical and therefore not infalible, and this would question the relevence and moral integrity of his laws.

If we say hypothetically that I do not believe these events literally happened, then we should have no problem in reforming the laws written by a man instead of god.