Using Old Testament for moral norms

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAdvocate

Guest
Why is it that we reject certain teachings such as stoning people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (in Numbers 15), the death penalty for cursing your parents (Lev. 20), excommunication for having sex during a woman’s menstrual period (Lev. 20), but when we try to uphold teachings against homosexuality, we quickly cite such Old Testament texts as authoratative, saying, “see, here’s the biblical truth”, even though we repudiate laws that are only a few sentences away. (And by the way, in each of these passages, we have God commanding such killings. I just don’t get that, and it causes me to doubt my faith sometimes).

Same thing for arguments against contraception or masturbation. We quote the story of Onan in the Old Testament. I mean, to what extent do we have to follow Old Testament laws if we are just going to cherry pick which ones we use. When it comes to passages that are less savory, then we say “cultural context” or something. But when it jives with our Catholic beliefs, we say, “the word of the Lord.”

Moreover, why is it that we have to abide by the 10 Commandments, given in the Old Testament, but not so many other laws that are there (and thank God we don’t!)?

I am not being flip here—I am really searching for the truth here. I posted the same question in the morality section since it covers both the bible and morality.

I would really appreciate your responses, or any direction for additional reading. Thanks!
 
Hi Advo,

The Hebrews did not have separate codes of civil law or criminal law, as we do. Everything was incorporated into the bible. This means that in reading the prescriptions of the Old Testament, we must distinguish between what pertains to the moral law and what pertains to Hebrew civil and criminal law. This is why we observe the ten commandments, but not the “commandment” to stone adulterers. Furthermore, Jesus and the apostles rejected the food laws and purity laws of the ancient cult, since the New Alliance replaces the Old Alliance and we now have a new cult centered on the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

As St. Paul says, the knowledge of the moral law is attainable by reason and the ten commandments are binding on all humans whether they have read the Bible or not. The Church is the ultimate guide on the interprretation of the Bible as well as what constitutes obligations under the moral law.

Does this address your concerns?

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Advo,

The Hebrews did not have separate codes of civil law or criminal law, as we do. Everything was incorporated into the bible. This means that in reading the prescriptions of the Old Testament, we must distinguish between what pertains to the moral law and what pertains to Hebrew civil and criminal law. This is why we observe the ten commandments, but not the “commandment” to stone adulterers. Furthermore, Jesus and the apostles rejected the food laws and purity laws of the ancient cult, since the New Alliance replaces the Old Alliance and we now have a new cult centered on the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

As St. Paul says, the knowledge of the moral law is attainable by reason and the ten commandments are binding on all humans whether they have read the Bible or not. The Church is the ultimate guide on the interprretation of the Bible as well as what constitutes obligations under the moral law.

Does this address your concerns?

Verbum
Click to expand...
Jesus rejected the food laws? No he didn’t. The whole notion of the new alliance replacing the old alliance and Christians being “a new cult centered on the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross” was made up by Paul. Jesus and the disciples kept the food laws during Jesus’ lifetime. It was only after the first Jerusalem council that they decided that it was OK to eat with Gentiles, but obviously this was still controversial as Peter ate with the Gentiles until other church leaders from Jerusalem joined him and then started eating according to the Jewish laws again…Paul scolds Peter for this in Galatians.
 
I would go a step further and not only reject such ‘laws’ as are found in Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut 22-23. I would also reject much of the ‘history’ we find in the Old Testament.

There are many illustrations but let me cite three that try to make God into a monster.
  1. Noah and the Flood. What kind of god would make humankind in his image, declare it good, then regret that he had made it, order Noah to build an ark, take in seven other adults and two of every animal for 150 days, and drown everything else, even children and babies in the womb? Ridiculous fable.
Code: 
2. Joshua at Jericho. What kind of god would direct Joshua to murder every surviving civilian inhabitant of Jericho and Ai and other communities as the ancient Hebrews invaded other countries and seized the land belonging to other tribes?

 3.King Saul and the Amalekites. What kind of god would command Saul to murder every last Amalekite and get angry when he permitted some livestock to survive?

 You get the point. I also have trouble admiring King David who added Bathsheba to his harem, then made sure that her husband was killed in battle. And I have trouble with Solomon, declared the world's wisest man in scripture, who had 1000 wives and 600 concubines. 

  This dealing with the Old Testament as sacrosanct and/or as divinely inspired has given me pause over the years. There is simply too much immorality in it to make it worthy of such admiration.
 
Roy5 said:
I would go a step further and not only reject such ‘laws’ as are found in Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut 22-23. I would also reject much of the ‘history’ we find in the Old Testament.

There are many illustrations but let me cite three that try to make God into a monster.
  1. Noah and the Flood. What kind of god would make humankind in his image, declare it good, then regret that he had made it, order Noah to build an ark, take in seven other adults and two of every animal for 150 days, and drown everything else, even children and babies in the womb? Ridiculous fable.
Code: 
2. Joshua at Jericho. What kind of god would direct Joshua to murder every surviving civilian inhabitant of Jericho and Ai and other communities as the ancient Hebrews invaded other countries and seized the land belonging to other tribes?

 3.King Saul and the Amalekites. What kind of god would command Saul to murder every last Amalekite and get angry when he permitted some livestock to survive?

 You get the point. I also have trouble admiring King David who added Bathsheba to his harem, then made sure that her husband was killed in battle. And I have trouble with Solomon, declared the world's wisest man in scripture, who had 1000 wives and 600 concubines. 

  This dealing with the Old Testament as sacrosanct and/or as divinely inspired has given me pause over the years. There is simply too much immorality in it to make it worthy of such admiration.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Although I believe in God, this quote from noted atheist Richard Dawkins makes a lot of sense.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Richard Dawkins

The quote is totally true. The God of the old testament was not like Jesus AT ALL. The God of the old testament would have thrown the first stone. The God of the old testament would have killed the tax collector. The God of the old testament hated sin and didn’t think twice about killing people for it. Yet Jesus was kind and loving? Come on now. It doesn’t make any sense.
 
Verbum said:
Hi Advo,

The Hebrews did not have separate codes of civil law or criminal law, as we do. Everything was incorporated into the bible. This means that in reading the prescriptions of the Old Testament, we must distinguish between what pertains to the moral law and what pertains to Hebrew civil and criminal law. This is why we observe the ten commandments, but not the “commandment” to stone adulterers. Furthermore, Jesus and the apostles rejected the food laws and purity laws of the ancient cult, since the New Alliance replaces the Old Alliance and we now have a new cult centered on the renewal of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

As St. Paul says, the knowledge of the moral law is attainable by reason and the ten commandments are binding on all humans whether they have read the Bible or not. The Church is the ultimate guide on the interprretation of the Bible as well as what constitutes obligations under the moral law.

Does this address your concerns?

Verbum
Click to expand...
Verbum, thanks for making the distinction. But still…what you call civil laws are laws that clearly in the Bible it says, “And God said to Moses…(insert stoning commandment here)…” Commanded by God, these now become divine laws, no?
 
Hi Advo,

Tks for disregarding the anti-Christian posts.

Well, for the stoning, that would have been part of their criminal law, which they linked to God to give it authority.

In the Old Testament, everything that happens to the Hebrews is attributed to God. God leads them into battle. God gives good crops. God gives bad crops. If they lose a battle, it is because they were unfaithful. The question of God ordering the Hebrews to apply the anathema to conquered cities, killing all in them that lives. etc. is ordered by God, Well, in this last case, we have documents that show that other Middle Eastern peoples, who claimed to be led into battle by their god, also applied the anathema. This is how things were done in those days.It is the good guy equivalent of “The devil made me do it.”

So we must analyze very carefullly instances of “God made me do it.” In some instances, the Hebrews used divination devices to tell them whether they should do this or that, and they attributed the “answer” to God. In other instances they took as a commmand from God their own ingrained customs.

At any rate, God is not subject to judgment. God is the Supreme Good. He cannot be “cruel” or “unjust”, as if we could apply human qualifications to Him. Everything he does is justified because he has made all things and is master of all things.

Verbum
 
Verbum said:
Hi Advo,

Tks for disregarding the anti-Christian posts.

Well, for the stoning, that would have been part of their criminal law, which they linked to God to give it authority.

In the Old Testament, everything that happens to the Hebrews is attributed to God. God leads them into battle. God gives good crops. God gives bad crops. If they lose a battle, it is because they were unfaithful. The question of God ordering the Hebrews to apply the anathema to conquered cities, killing all in them that lives. etc. is ordered by God, Well, in this last case, we have documents that show that other Middle Eastern peoples, who claimed to be led into battle by their god, also applied the anathema. This is how things were done in those days.It is the good guy equivalent of “The devil made me do it.”

So we must analyze very carefullly instances of “God made me do it.” In some instances, the Hebrews used divination devices to tell them whether they should do this or that, and they attributed the “answer” to God. In other instances they took as a commmand from God their own ingrained customs.

At any rate, God is not subject to judgment. God is the Supreme Good. He cannot be “cruel” or “unjust”, as if we could apply human qualifications to Him. Everything he does is justified because he has made all things and is master of all things.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Verbum, thanks for your post.

But…

For many (no offense to your answer) this might seem like a cop-out. Every time we see something cruel in the Old T., we can say, "oh, yeah, well, the Hebrews just attributed their action to God, but when it’s something we agree with, we say "right on!–it’s God’s will expressed in the Holy Book.

Some might say that it calls the other areas of the Bible into question.
 
Hi Advo,

Apologetics do not convince. As Dale Carnegie said, “No one ever wins an argument.” You might shut his mouth, but you have not convinced him…Apologetics serve to give witness to our faith, and they are an occasion to treat people with respect and kindness, qualities that are more convincing than anything else.

Verbum
 
An extensive document addressing some of the issues of the OP is here, at the EWTN website, document library:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM "the Jewish People and their Scriptures, by the pontifical biblical commission.

and, do a search for my new thread “Modern Judaizers” in the scripture forum.
 
Verbum said:
Hi Advo,

Apologetics do not convince. As Dale Carnegie said, “No one ever wins an argument.” You might shut his mouth, but you have not convinced him…Apologetics serve to give witness to our faith, and they are an occasion to treat people with respect and kindness, qualities that are more convincing than anything else.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Great posts Verbum - I"m in full agreement (and appreciate the way you articluated them as well).

I’d also point out that there since we are told in the NT that the Mosaic law was a “shadow of things to come” having their **greater fullfillment **in the New Covenant - we would expect to see “patterns” in the Old remain in the New. There are many examples of this (The phyiscal temple, replaced by Jesus body as our temple; the Levitical priesthood replaced by Christ’s priesthood in the order of Melchezedek; the manna from heaven replaced by the Eucharist, the bread of life). Simililarly, the “moral law” Verbum referred to in the 10 commandments were written in “stone tablets” and it is the “moral law” that is now written “in our hearts” - Our hearts of “stone” (as noted in the OT) are replaced with a "heart of “flesh” - Our “hearts” become circumsized by God’s Law (moral law - 10 commandments, in our hearts).

There are teachings in the mosaic law which are illustrative of the “moral law” which continues and thus continue to have application to us - and there are civil laws and ceremonial laws which do not.

As to God changing from Old T to New T - that is an ancient heresy (marcionism) rejected by the Church. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forevever (Hebrews) - God is multidimensional and is loving, mercificul but also Holy and a judge.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Verbum said:
Hi Advo,

Apologetics do not convince. As Dale Carnegie said, “No one ever wins an argument.” You might shut his mouth, but you have not convinced him…Apologetics serve to give witness to our faith, and they are an occasion to treat people with respect and kindness, qualities that are more convincing than anything else.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Verbum, forgive me, but I do not understand this post. I never mentioned apologetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top