|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical atrocities... ???? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: Doctrbill,Thanks for responding. First off, I have no ax to grind. I am simply offerring a perspective on an often troubling passage. I apologize if my input has caused you or anyone offense, or leads them to feel defensive. That was not my intent. Second, if I were attempting to mislead anyone I would not have cited my source for the definition possibilities of fulfil/fulfill. It is somewhat disappointing that you, or anyone else, would decide to read the post that way. Third, I never said that "THE" primary definition was anything; I said "A" primary definition was: to satisfy. This usage actually makes the most sense in the orthodox reading of the verse, anyway, as Christ's life was to satisfy the Law (to allow for redemptive sacrifice) and the prophets (to establish His place as the Messiah). The Law obviously could be "carried out" in many ways, such as by a judge, etc., but satisfied in only one way, and in one person. Fourth, "sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter. You may not agree with my take on the subject. I accept that many will not. But please try and consider the offering in the spirit in which it's given. Thanks,-Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: Doctrbill,If the discussion concerned application of the Law in occupied Israel/Palestine, then I would see the value of this contribution. As it is, though, it is not relevant at all: 1. The passage deals with adultery, not rape or the other free v. slave questions you bring up; 2. The very people bringing the accused were the lawyers of their day, so it is reasonable to assume that they had a finer handle on the appropriateness of the charge than either you or I might today; 3. I did not suggest that Jesus had "jurisdiction" or any thing like it, rather that he should have supported the Mosaic/Levitical punishment for adultery; 4. Jesus is not quoted as having said either "God's Law over man's law! Damn the Roman oppressers!" or "Well, yes, the Law does say that, but, uh, there are these Romans, see, and if I stand up for God's Law then you'll tell the authorities and I'll get in trouble." (He is famous for not denying God in order to avoid conflict!)So the question of jurisdiction does not appear to be a part of the consideration of principle players. Neither should it be for us in determining the lesson in the story; 5. You raise several possible defenses which Jesus did not feel compelled to raise, so they seem even more of a non-issue in the matter. Having said all this, your response posts really miss the central point I am making. Jesus was not in line with the Judaism of the OT as expressed by the Pharasee/scribe cabal which was entrusted (or self-commissioned!) to protect and enforce the very Law which defines that Judaism. Thanks for you feedback,-Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003] [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: And so I am not totally alone in this? It is somewhat comforting. "Christians" should not all be painted with the same broad brush. Many of us are capable of abstract thought.-Shiloh [This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
I can agree with you guys here, that the Israelites did not understand the nature of God. God seems to be slowly revealing himself over time, up until the point where he had given them enough to know that no matter what they did they could not live up to God's holiness.
Then he sent Jesus to show us his grace and mercy. ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Davies Inactive Member |
From Funkmasterfreaky:
quote: Then what purpose did the flood serve for then? Why kill the first born in Egypt to punish those children for their parent's sins? The more things are explained in this fashion, ie, "God's ways are not our ways", "God is mysterious so we should worship Him", and the like, I find it even harder to accept your God. Can you then say that God was wrong? No? Even God himself regretted His actions in the flood, seriously underminding any claims that He is omnipotent.
quote: Okay, if the Isrealites were not much better than many of their contemporaries, why did God even bother with them? It would seem God would have been able to trach a more advanced society, the Greeks, the Persians, even the Chinese all of whom were more civilized? The Chinese should have been the first choice! I know, God works in mysterious ways and His ways are not our ways which is fine as I don't kill my children. ------------------When all else fails, check the manual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NeoPagan Inactive Member |
I totally agree. Christians are always saying that because Christ died & took our punishment, the price was paid "in full." How could it be paid in full, if our sentence was supposedly an "eternity" in hell? Jesus spends three days there & then gets whisked back to the comforts of heaven. Big deal! Anyone can suffer anything for a little while if they know they're going back to heaven shortly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
quote: I have used this line of reasoning to defend my rejection of Hell as eternal torment. Having said that, the Christ "took our punishment" model is only one and it is just that - a model. It is a mistake IMO to speak of it as an absolute and objective truth. My take: No webpage found at provided URL: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/believe.htm Mr Davies - the slaying of the firstborn, as a deliberate act of God to free the Israelites is not something I believe in. It is a reflection of the tribal understanding of God at the time the books were written. I am agnostic about the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan - I note that Hebrew is most closely related to Canaanite - if the Genesis and Exodus accounts were historical I would expect it to be more closely related to Babylonian and to have a considerable number of loan words from Egyptian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
quote: History is the lie agreed upon by the winners,-Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2795 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: quote: The definitions you selected are not primary. Look up the word primary.
quote: (sic) means - Spelling Incorrect. That is all it means. You spend a lot of time in mental gymnastics. Try spending more time with your dictionary. BTW, despite your protest, you do have an axe to grind. I hope you will come to see what it is. db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Shilohproject:
[B][QUOTE] quote: Originall posted by Doctrbill: (sic) means - Spelling Incorrect. That is all it means. You spend a lot of time in mental gymnastics. Try spending more time with your dictionary. BTW, despite your protest, you do have an axe to grind. I hope you will come to see what it is. db[/B][/QUOTE] ----------------------------------------------------------------Doctrbill, I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to respond to your last post. It seems arguementative and petty, hardly in the spirit of reasonable debate. I have already bothered to explain the earlier usage possibilities of "fulfill," and why they should be considered. Same is true for the use of the word "sic." I'm sorry that your definition/dictionary is incomplete, but that is sadly an unavoidable fact. If you don't like Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition, you may check out American Heritage Dictionary online.(It is ironic, however, that you are completely comfortable using the secondary spelling of "ax" while trying to correct someone on the proper use of vocabulary, all the while missing or avoiding the point of the post.) As to any ax to grind, I don't have one at all, but am interested in what you might think is there. Curious. You can email me your address at shilohproject@hotmail.com and I'll be happy to mail you a more comprehensive dictionary. Thanks,-Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: To preserve Israel. Or perchance even to save the "victim" from something worse that might happen to him down the line.
quote: How do you know? Do you hold the Bible as inerrant and containing every single relevant piece of information about the dealings of God? If you do, you're more Fundy than me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: If Jesus were "infinitely" just then it would be payed in full.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I did not say that. I suggested that the laws of God could be superceded by other laws. Especially Mosaic law. It would be nice if you did not deliberately misrepresent me in the future.
quote: You're ignoring my past point about the possibility of God gradually reforming the Israelite society over time, rather than in one jump. Please stay with the issues.
quote: It means that the OT limitations on taking captives to wife is irrelevant if it breaks another law ("love thy neighbor") to force one to marry in the first place.
quote: Because it was promised. I believe it is in Isaiah (I may be mistaken) where it is said that Israel was written upon God's hand.
quote: That could be a possibility.
quote: And if the people were not ready for that, and they rebelled, and all had to be killed?
quote: Changing a law is not the same as changing one's mind. Say if a chronic wasting disease outbreak occurs and all the game is destroyed under an edict of law. The outbreak subsides and the law is repealed. Who changed their mind? Now, for my own edification, why don't you hand over those Biblical references?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: How many pagans and believers are worthy of that deal?
quote: That's nice. Would you be willing to take upon yourself every human frailty, suffering, and weakness that ever was felt or will be felt by future generations? Forgive me if I don't believe you'd make it past the first day of the Holocaust before giving in. Even if you did make it even that far (and that would be amazing) you haven't lived a sinless life therefore you are incapable of making that kind of sacrifice because (as I recall) you are not sinless and you are not infinitely just and I seriously doubt that you are a Son of God in the flesh. And by the way, who was it that said that Jesus "became God" after he was crucified?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3853 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I'm not necessarily saying that a law cannot be repealed. I'm waiting (with interest) for the references that say every law is eternal. I am however pointing out other possibilities even if that is correct.
quote: How was God part of making the mess? Through inaction? That would be a violation of free will now wouldn't it? And even if God stepped in would people have listened? Or would they all have disobeyed? (And therefore been removed even further from God?)
quote: That He did. But how much listening was done in the OT? As soon as Moses walked up the mountain they were making golden calves. The fact is that they could barely follow the basic laws they got. They would have had no hope at following modern laws because their society was not ready for them. Now John, tell me. If everybody gets resurrected what's wrong with God occasionally killing people? Especially when it is necessary for some future good?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024