What an argument you two have going! Reminds me how dark my world was before the light of science shined upon me.
Rather than getting involved in the details and rehashing the ignorance and superstition of my past life, I have decided to simply drop in this favorite saying, which I have never heard from anyone but myself:
"If God created Nature, then the Laws of Nature are the Laws of God."
That's about as profound as my theology gets these days.
------------------ Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University Major - Biology; Minor - Religion Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine Embryology - La Sierra University Biblical languages - Pacific Union College Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College
To preserve Israel. Or perchance even to save the "victim" from something worse that might happen to him down the line.
To preserve Isreal? Why? What makes them so special. As for killing someone to prevent them from doing something worse, well God seems to be a lazy guy as it would have been easier if He would have appeared to them and save, "Look my child....." and teach them. There is no need for an omnipotent God to resort to killing somebody.
I know, freewill, but tell me, what freewill does a dead man have? What choices would a godless man have if they have never seen or heard of the Truth? If God only cares to preserve His children of Isreal to the determent of all of His other children, why should His other Children give a rats ass for that kind of a parent?
No. He just slaughtered them.
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.
Well, something tells me that you don't see the word of God as being inerrant in so far as humans are writing it down. That's fine. Still it is true, if the flood was true, that God slaughtered infants whose only crime was that God felt their mothers were guilty of something.
------------------ When all else fails, check the manual
quote:Originally posted by shilohproject: I have often thought that we fool ourselves when we speak of the so-called "Judeo-Christion" tradition. There is no such thing, except for that which we've created in order to justify certain inconsistant application of the OT, usually to rule over certain people or conduct deemed unsuitable by the majority.
I am very happy, suprised but happy, to find someone in agreement with me on this.
quote:Christianity is a competing belief system to Judeism, not a complimentary one.
Yes indeed. Christianity was a Jewish cult and a type of rebellion. Anyone doubting that can check the Talmud. It was not a smooth, happy transition as most christians portray it.
quote:In this instance, grace/forgiveness prevails over punishment/justice; this is a new thing brought to the region by a new speaker, speaking a new messege.
Quite right. It is a NEW concept-- new to the religion/region at least.
quote:Another way to view this may be "out with the old, in with the new." If so, it would explain many of the obvious problems between the story of the OT and the gospel of the NT.
I agree. Your interpretation is possible, though I happen to think the phrase is propaganda inserted to help woo Jews to the faith.
quote:To preserve Isreal? Why? What makes them so special.
I don't think anybody really knows all the reasons why it was Israel but some group had to lay the foundation stones for Christianity. Plus, once it was promised to Abraham it had to stay in his family.
quote:As for killing someone to prevent them from doing something worse, well God seems to be a lazy guy as it would have been easier if He would have appeared to them and save
Well you know the canned answer and you gave it below, but I want to point out that actually beholding God could be worse. It is my belief (and I contend that when you are debating me you are debating my own peculiar beliefs, or else you are constructing strawmen) that if somebody saw God and then fell away that person would be *worse* off than somebody that didn't see God and fell away. Non- theists often say "Knowing there is a God doesn't mean I'll worship him". Most Christians hold that something similar happened in the War of Heaven. I would think the angels that fell pretty much knew there was a God...
quote:what freewill does a dead man have? What choices would a godless man have if they have never seen or heard of the Truth?
I am responding to these together because I feel they are related. It depends on your view of the afterlife. If you interpret afterlife as an immediate trip to the judgement bar before possibly being flung into the bunroaster I suppose your argument is valid. If there is a possibility of being taught and converted, or rejecting the gospel in the afterlife, then this goes away. I believe that people who were not exposed to the Gospel message in life will have a chance in the afterlife for conversion. I also believe that there is a significant difference in the penalty for sin in ignorance and people who knowingly sin.
quote:If God only cares to preserve His children of Isreal to the determent of all of His other children, why should His other Children give a rats ass for that kind of a parent?
I don't think it was to the detriment of all other children (except in a literal Global flood, of course) most of the time only people in Mesopotamia and surrounding areas get smited.
Of course in the Christian worldview it seems like Gentiles are getting the better end of the stick. Jesus died for everyone, and belief and obedience gets an eternal reward. It isn't that that eternal reward is only for the Jews. The way I see it, most any culture that could have been chosen to be the covenant people would have been about the same way. There would be cultural differences but there would also be wars and dissensions and the occasional pestilence.
quote:Still it is true, if the flood was true, that God slaughtered infants whose only crime was that God felt their mothers were guilty of something.
Anytime innocents die is it is unfortunate. The only answer I can make to this is that it is my belief that infants and young children are not informed enough to have truly free will and so are not truly capable of sin. Therefore it is my opinion that they are covered by the resurrection and judgment for what happened in life is very lenient, although theoretically I believe they are granted full faculty after resurrection and *could* choose to fall away in the post-mortal existance and still be condemned. It is the parents whose eternal welfare I am concerned the most about.
By the way all of your points are sound and well-constructed.
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 don't know for sure why God chose the Israelites. However it seems to me that God would not choose the most civil or moral society, he would choose the most corupt and immoral to prove his power.
God seems to work this way even today. When he asks us to do something he always asks the impossible, so that we know in the end that it was God who accomplished the task through us, not us on our own power.