Mosaic Law

[pugzrule]

I rec’d this reply from an atheist and quite frankly now i’m stumped.She does have a point and i don’t want to answer it unless i’m sure of where we’re going with this.Need help.
Here’s what she wrote;"

my point is that the laws of Moses were, according to the Bible, given to him by God. So the laws of Moses are the laws of God. With that being said, read all the laws and you will find that a lot of them are just plain illogical. The laws about women on their periods basically treat them as if they had cooties every month. God’s law says to banish a couple who purposely have sex during her period. God also forbids the eating of pork and shellfish. Where’s the logic?

And no, these laws were not a step up in that time. Women in Egypt had more rights than women in Israel. There’s nothing impressive about Mosaic law. If it had been used to do away with slavery, then it would have been impressive."
I first posted this in the ask an apologist section but i’m not sure how this works,where the question goes,if it gets answered and this comment is still standing.I need to reply to her asap.

 

[The_Exodus]

my point is that the laws of Moses were, according to the Bible, given to him by God. So the laws of Moses are the laws of God. With that being said, read all the laws and you will find that a lot of them are just plain illogical. The laws about women on their periods basically treat them as if they had cooties every month. God’s law says to banish a couple who purposely have sex during her period. God also forbids the eating of pork and shellfish. Where’s the logic?

God has the sovereign right to command his creation. There is nothing “illogical” about that.
pugz:

And no, these laws were not a step up in that time. Women in Egypt had more rights than women in Israel. There’s nothing impressive about Mosaic law. If it had been used to do away with slavery, then it would have been impressive."

The law is not meant to “impress.” It is meant to be followed. God wanted to establish a certain type of people, who followed certain rules. He has every right to do so. There is nothing “illogical” about this.

The error going on with your friend here is that she is judging the higher principle: God. It is heaven that judges earth, not vice versa.

 

[Windfish]

You know, I have always found it helpful when it comes to the OT to ask Jews or former Jews. There used to be a few former Jews who are now Catholic. I hope they’ll notice your thread and give you some info.

 

[fermat]

The fundamental problem with their argument is that there is no consideration for context. No, the laws don’t make sense to the asker. But was this person a Hebrew several thousand years ago? Probably not…

The chosen people of God where given the kind of laws and logic they could follow at the time. There is a development that needed to happen with the Jews and the Mosaic law was part of that development. I won’t pretend to understand the logic behind the laws, but I was not a Hebrew back then, so I lack the proper context to understand.

My advice is to redirect the conversation to Jesus. If you want to have a better understanding of these laws, this person should have a better understanding of Christ. Christ is the ultimate point of these laws, so don’t try and describe the tree by the roots. Start with the top and work your way down. Christ is the ultimate context of the law. Try to understand Him before you try to understand the law.

Hope this helps…

 

[_Locke]

God has the sovereign right to command his creation. There is nothing “illogical” about that.

No, it’s the rules which are illogical.

The law is not meant to “impress.” It is meant to be followed. God wanted to establish a certain type of people, who followed certain rules. He has every right to do so. There is nothing “illogical” about this.

Once again, it’s the laws which are claimed to be illogical. You’re misunderstanding the OP.
The Exodus:

The error going on with your friend here is that she is judging the higher principle: God. It is heaven that judges earth, not vice versa.

Ah yes, the good 'ole suppression of intellect. A mainstay of the old-fashioned apologetic.

If you’re going to refute the argument you should at least address it.

 

[_Locke]

The fundamental problem with their argument is that there is no consideration for context. No, the laws don’t make sense to the asker. But was this person a Hebrew several thousand years ago? Probably not…

The chosen people of God where given the kind of laws and logic they could follow at the time. There is a development that needed to happen with the Jews and the Mosaic law was part of that development. I won’t pretend to understand the logic behind the laws, but I was not a Hebrew back then, so I lack the proper context to understand.

Well seeing as there are no three-thousand year old Hebrews walking around, is your solution to just ignore the Mosaic Law? While we’re at it, might as well ignore all the uncomfortable and weird parts of the OT. I’d say we can at least attempt to examine it from the correct historical perspective. The aim of the argument is to point out that the laws are exactly what we’d expect from an ancient, ignorant, superstitious, desert tribe, not something divine and enlightened.

 

[pugzrule]

everything that God does makes sense to me.Everything the Church teaches makes sense to me. It’s the beauty,goodness,truth and integrity of God’s laws and His Church that keep us grounded (especially in this day and age.
However,my frustration with this one is that I know that there is not a God of the OT and one of the NT. God IS God.I know what Jesus said about the law.He told the Pharisees that Moses permitted divorce because of the stubbornness of the people. That tells me that some of the Mosaic Law(Torah,rabbinical laws)were more secular than divine. Jesus also said(ie dietary laws, purification laws such as washing hands)did not make a person unclean.It’s what comes from man’s heart.So that again tells me that maybe some of the Mosiac law was as much cultural as Divine.
This atheist is going to say that Scripture was written by God.I know very well though that scripture wasn’t dictation.They didn’t take notes.
It’s INSPIRED by God and written by men.Meaning it’s truth because it’s divinely inspired.So in all of this there must be an answer. There has to be a historical context. I know there’s an answer but i’m really struggling with it. Something tells me this has to be a read in an historical context.I think though the one answer is spot on.You begin with Jesus because we look at the OT in light of Jesus.That to me makes the most sense;unless someone has anything more to add that would be helpful.

 

[fermat]

Well seeing as there are no three-thousand year old Hebrews walking around, is your solution to just ignore the Mosaic Law? While we’re at it, might as well ignore all the uncomfortable and weird parts of the OT.

That is not at all what I was saying. My point is that the law needs to understood in the context of Jesus, just like everything in scripture. The law also needs to be understood in the context of what the Jews of that time knew.

I’d say we can at least attempt to examine it from the correct historical perspective. The aim of the argument is to point out that the laws are exactly what we’d expect from an ancient, ignorant, superstitious, desert tribe, not something divine and enlightened.

How do you know that they were an ignorant and superstitious? Were you there when the Moses came down with the tablets? Were you there when the pillar of fire and smoke led the Hebrews through the desert? Sounds awfully divine to me.

You shouldn’t write off a civilization as ignorant just because what they did then doesn’t make sense to you. A thousand years from now I would imagine we will all seem primitive.

 

[The_Exodus]

No, it’s the rules which are illogical.

Howso?

locke:

If you’re going to refute the argument you should at least address it.

Interesting sentence coming from one who posted two unsubstantiated assertions and two meaningless ad hominems.