|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I am.
And your moral equilibrator has a serious glitch in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aussie Member Posts: 275 From: FL USA Joined: |
You are calling smashing babies against the rocks '"Justice." Yes I am. This part of my post is not so much to Faith as to others possibly reading. I am truly at a loss for words here. These quotes from Faith are the embodiment of the evil, grinding slaughterhouse that is the Bible. Under the outstretched arms offering handshakes, underneath the pews, just on the other side of the pulpit lurks the insatiable craving for blood. In the cluttered and haunted basement of the Church lie ten thousand broken skeletons. The walls drip in the blood of the innocent. Even now, behind their satisfied smiles is the threat that if we don't join them in their putrid edifice, and join them in mindless worship of their bloodthirsty deity there is nothing but eternal, exquisite, crazed torture. Faith. You are supporting the smashing of babies against rocks until they die.I despise the brutal and primitive religion that broke you. I hope you find help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Aussie dear, you are having a massive failure of the ability to distinguish levels of discourse. In short you've lost your marbles. Attributing any particular emotional or moral attitude to me on any of this is already an egregious failure on your part. I am judging it all quite objectively. Yes it is Justice when the punishment fits the crime. That's the definition of justice. An eye for an eye. Jesus gave us a different standard as individuals in our dealings with individuals but that doesn't change the fact that justice is the punishment fitting the crime. We are talking about a time roughly 3500 years ago when justice was effected in a tribal context by primitive means. Yet the definition of justice does not change and has not changed.
Were I to have to witness any of it I'd probably throw up or faint dead away or have a heart attack -- so much for your assessment of my emotional position in this. I AM a modern person with no experience of such things, but am nevertheless able to think rationally about circumstances other than my own. Which I suspect can't be said of you. Yes, I am quite capable of judging things objectively apart from my own feelings, cultural context and so on, and all the situations you have brought up as moral indictments of God and of me are your own subjectivity being self-righteously applied against a frame of reference you have no ability to judge properly. I am not "broken" and you are way way out of line to make such a personal judgment in a debate. There is no "craving for blood" in the pulpit or on God's part, it's all quite objectively determined by the nature of reality, -- The Bible reveals reality to us, nobody makes it up -- and is in fact not at all desired by God or man, quite the opposite, it is regretted and lamented, and you have no right to judge anyone personally. Some people ARE capable of objective assessment. Clearly you aren't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
That's the definition of justice. An eye for an eye That's 'a' definition of justice. It is a particular definition that most decent folks recognize as repugnant. If you want justice, you apply punishment to the perpetrators and not on their innocent children. Most Christians have no problem identifying that things like massacres of babies and having bears maul children for making fun of beards are difficult and problematic. I've seen many possible explanations for why such things happened, but very few of them as sick as what I read here. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
NoNukes writes: Most Christians have no problem identifying that things like...having bears maul children for making fun of beards are difficult and problematic. My intuitive favorite explanation suggests it was a teaching tale, like Aesop's Fables, and so popular the Editor put it in. Scary tales for kids...
I've seen many possible explanations for why such things happened, but very few of them as sick as what I read here. Every doctrine of inerrancy leads to the same chamber of horrors no matter where you start, Kansas evangelical or Afghan Taliban. Those were the days, justice was hard and clean; us and them were clear, there was blood without quibble. Now all humanity is degenerate drek, especially Afghanistan from Kansas, and vice versa. And once you accept those grim prospects, who wouldn't want the world to end? Isn't that the hardest and cleanest justice of all? So the human arc is to be from bloody horror to fervent Apocalypse... Personally, I'd like to think the world will get better, like things already have for communities of people who refuse to take bloody tribal myths as gospel. "If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
NoNukes writes: Most Christians have no problem identifying that things like massacres of babies and having bears maul children for making fun of beards are difficult and problematic. I've seen many possible explanations for why such things happened, but very few of them as sick as what I read here. Of course that is the truth. Despite Faith's protestations most Christians have not simply assumed that God was in those actions. We can learn from those stories as they are simply a demonstration of the evil that men can do, and how the name of their god can be used as an instrument of terror for power and control. Again though, it is Christianity, and we are to be followers of Jesus Christ who renounced that behaviour in no uncertain terms. Jesus lived in a country that was being brutally controlled by the Romans. He denounced the revolutionaries. He said that in dealing with the Romans that they were to respond with love, go the extra mile and bravely turn the other cheek. The point was that the enemy was not really the Romans, but evil itself, and if you respond to evil with more evil then evil will win every time. It takes courage and determination to respond to evil in a Christ-like manner, but that is what Christians are called to do. Fundamentalists are simply looking for easy pat answers by following a inerrant Bible instead of following Jesus. It is tragic that the life and message of Jesus Christ has been so distorted that it has been turned 180 degrees from the message He brought as the embodiment or incarnation of the Word of God.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course that is the truth. Despite Faith's protestations most Christians have not simply assumed that God was in those actions. God is not said to have been behind the dashing of babies against stones; it is said merely to be just retribution for what the Babylonians did to the Israelite babies. God IS said to have commanded the total annihilation of the Amalekites and it's a very strange excuse for a "Christian" who pretends He didn't say it. Since you all prefer your personal feelings to objective fact there's no point in continuing this discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aussie Member Posts: 275 From: FL USA Joined: |
Faith should be reminded of her barbaric words in this thread every single time she goes on one of her rants about the Inquisition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2398 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
I have empathy for those under God's judgment In your theology, aren't we all under god's judgment? You seem to make a distinction to justify the killing of babies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2398 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
The moral bankruptcy here is that of those who fail to recognize the horrific deeds God was punishing in those incidents you decry. What did the babies do that was so horrific Faith? Allowed to be born by your god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please refrain from making the discussion personal, for instance, with accusations that anyone here is evil or crazy. If you think a specific position is evil or crazy then it is only necessary to quote it and explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
As I've pointed out before, you misunderstand the principle of an eye for an eye:
That's the definition of justice. An eye for an eye.quote:It says thou shalt give an eye for an eye, not take an eye for an eye. It goes on to clarify:
quote:It's about compensation, not retribution. And Jesus said:
quote:So there is no basis in scripture for your claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: God IS said to have commanded the total annihilation of the Amalekites and it's a very strange excuse for a "Christian" who pretends He didn't say it. Since you all prefer your personal feelings to objective fact there's no point in continuing this discussion. Hi Faith But I go again to the fact that the Bible says that Yahweh commanded the Israelites to their total annihilation. If Yahweh wanted them all destroyed why didn't He just do it Himself? Why have His people do it. In the first place it won't happen without some of His own people being killed. Secondly we know full well how much damage it would do to someone psychologically to go out and slaughter men, women and children including infants. Just answer this question. If Yahweh wanted them all dead why didn't He just do it Himself as in Sodom and Gomorrah. This would have saved His people the deaths they would have suffered, the psychological damage that they would have endured and the job would have been done more completely. Nobody here is talking with objective fact. Yes you can objectively quote the Bible but it is your personal feeling, or subjective view, about how the Bible is to be understood just as it is mine and everyone else here.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Funny the question why God didn't do it Himself was brought up on one of the Bible discussions I was just reading recently but I was looking for something else and now don't remember where I saw it.I think the answer was something along the lines of God's using His people as His instrument. In the days of Sodom He didn't yet have a "people." God's people were to be like His right arm.
What I mean by objective fact is that what I'm referring to is in the Bible. The stuff that's being subjectively imposed on the issue is not in the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I answered you before ringo. You are wrong. Eye for an eye was intended as the standard of perfect justice, as I keep saying, not a literal exchange but a principle for deciding what the perfectly equitable legal decision should be, as HERE:
Answer: The concept of an eye for eye, sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, [The English word talion (from the Latin talio) means a retaliation authorized by law, in which the punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the injury.] is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (Exodus 21:23—25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided. We have no indication that the law of an eye for an eye was followed literally; there is never a biblical account of an Israelite being maimed as a result of this law. Also, before this particular law was given, God had already established a judicial system to hear cases and determine penalties (Exodus 18:13—26)a system that would be unnecessary if God had intended a literal eye for an eye penalty. Although capital crimes were repaid with execution in ancient Israel, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), most other crimes were repaid with payment in goodsif you injured a man’s hand so that he could not work, you compensated that man for his lost wages. Besides Exodus 21, the law of an eye for an eye is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. An eye for an eye was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally. It could be penal or compensatory. According to that article the Pharisees were turning that principle into a rule for personal vigilante justice, whereas in the OT it was clearly intended as a judicial principle to be applied by the judicial system. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024