It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The shedding of blood is so serious that it requires the exchange of “life for life”.
I find the idea of a God who created such a wondrous thing as an intelligent, living planet so far removed from someone sitting down, cogitating, and then insisting on the laws you specify above -
Of are we in truth looking at a list of laws, a group of men decided to impose on their group of people to ensure safety and civilised behaviour;
I find the idea of a God who created such a wondrous thing as an intelligent, living planet so far removed from someone sitting down, cogitating, and then insisting on the laws you specify above - it literally is too bizarre to be believed by people today unless they are indoctrinated into religious dogma during their formative years.
I have trouble with the concept of the God of the Old Testament. God is supposed to be a wondrous, brilliant creator far above the lowly passions of bad temperedness and jealousy - these are man's traits.
The last thing concerning murder is that God gave man the law 'Thou shalt not kill". Then goes on to arrange the training up of the Israelites into an army with the specific instruction to go on a killing spree to steal land from other people who are literally their neighbours. He has given such detailed instructions about not killing one's neighbour or a man by waiting in ambush with a weapon in order to kill him or worse to compound the sin of killing to stealing from his his goods, wives and land. So how does mere man settle in his mind the act of war, which is not only in the literal sense against God's instructions but also against the spirit of the moral code God appears to have considered so carefully. Urging warfare is somewhat out of kilter, especially so when people insist in taking the Testaments literally.
Of are we in truth looking at a list of laws, a group of men decided to impose on their group of people to ensure safety and civilised behaviour; in fact behaviour of people living together safely and honourably in large groups and which has simply grown and grown down through the generations? It seems to me to come from the period before kings were set up to govern when there would have been no 'laws or police equivalent/enforccement', just families and groups travelling and living together, when a code of behaviour became necessary in order to literally sleep peacefully in one's bed.
Have we come to the stage where books from prehistory and the Dark Ages have served their purpose and are becoming a danger to the public especially from religious zealots.
But if the shedding of blood pollutes the land, an effect which can be expiated only by another shedding of blood, why is the accidental killer allowed to return on the death of the High Priest?
The implication is that when the killer takes refuge with the Levites, and the High Priest takes him under his protective wing, there is a sense in which the High Priest identifies himself with the killer.
Therefore the death of the High Priest is enough in itself to supply the exchange of “life for life” which the law demands.
In effect, his death takes the place of the killer’s death.
Once again, we find in the law the figure of one who can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.