|
Author
|
Topic: Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
Message 8 of 161 (521144)
08-26-2009 7:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Holyfire23
08-26-2009 12:00 AM
|
|
Unjust Wrath
quote:
Numbers 25:16-18 "The LORD said to Moses, 'Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.' " At the time of Moses the Hebrew nation took its orders directly from God. God was the Ruler; Moses was the messanger. The Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Jesus came to die for the sins of man (John 3:16). In the Old Testament, however, Jesus had not come to earth yet and man still had to pay the price. Numbers chapter 31 is an example of God's just wrath--not of his immorality. The Midianites sinned and were therefore punished. According the Law of God. Justice cannot be counted as immorality. They are opposite.
Anger is only justified when one has purposely wronged you. God is justified in his anger towards Israel, but not the Midianites. From the text, the Midianites were being hospitable. The Israelites came to them, they didn't go find the Israelites.
Numbers 25
While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. and the Lord's anger burned against them. As I understand it, it was a common practice in that time to worship the god of the place one is visiting or passing through. God's anger towards the Midianites was not justified and revenge is not justice.
Numbers 31
The Lord said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. Even though in their time what the Israelites did was allowed, from today's perspective it was wrong and unjust; just as it is wrong and unjust today.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Holyfire23, posted 08-26-2009 12:00 AM | | Holyfire23 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Holyfire23, posted 08-26-2009 1:06 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 11 of 161 (521231)
08-26-2009 2:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Holyfire23
08-26-2009 1:06 PM
|
|
Re: Unjust Wrath
quote:
The Midianites had conspired with Balak. They were attempting to curse the Israelites. God took vengeance on the Midianites for this reason.
Actually he didn't. You did read the rest of the story didn't you? From your Message 7 Numbers 25:16-18 "The LORD said to Moses, 'Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.' " I assume Chapter 31 is related to that incident although written by the Priestly writer.
quote:
You, sir, call God immoral for deciding the fate of the Midianites. Yet you yourself claim that the Midianites should not have been harmed. You call God immoral for judging the actions of the Midianites and yet you do the same thing! God judged the acts of the Midianites to be guilty of wrongdoing and you judged the Midianites to be innocent.
Actually, I didn't call God immoral. I said his anger was not justified. I am judging what the author wrote. As the story is written, God was not justified in his anger towards the Midianites for the reason given. His anger was justified towards the Israelites. As I said, revenge is not justice. My comments do not imply that God was immoral for judging the Midianites. My comments would lead to the conclusion that God's orders concerning the Midianites were unjust and immoral by today's standards. Although I'm sure the people who were killed or taken as prisoners who didn't do anything, would not consider the God of the Hebrews to be moral and just. What wrong did the Midianites commit? They invited the Israelites to worship with them. How is that different than a Christian inviting a person of another religion to worship with them? If it is against their religion to worship other gods then they shouldn't have accepted the invitation. The Israelites knew the rules and it is their responsibility to follow them. They suffered a plague because they broke God's rules. The rules they agreed to follow.
quote:
What makes it ok for you to judge the Midianites but not God? Explain this contradiction.
You judged them both, why can't I? I didn't say God couldn't judge the Midianites. Of course if he isn't their god, it really isn't his place to judge their actions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Holyfire23, posted 08-26-2009 1:06 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 40 of 161 (521349)
08-27-2009 6:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by anglagard
08-26-2009 8:21 PM
|
|
Re: The Stats so Far
I am definitely against rape under any circumstances.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by anglagard, posted 08-26-2009 8:21 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
quote:
So if morality is decided subjectively and according to one's social surroundings, than that means right and wrong do not exist.
Your Message 7 shows subjective morality. You essential said it is wrong now, but it was justified at the time of Moses. The view changed with the social surroundings. In Deuteronomy we find laws concerning rape in the community. Very different from ours in the US today.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. History of Sexual Violence Origin of rape
The English word "rape" is derived from the Latin "rapere" which means to steal, seize or carry away. This was a very old means by which a man "seized" or "stole" a wife in ancient western societies. In reality it constituted enforced marriage, since a man simply took whatever woman he wanted, raped her, and brought her into his tribe or nation. Rape was thus conducted under the guise of respectable behavior, rewarding the rapists for the misuse and abuse of women. To a certain extent, this attitude has not changed. This law in Deuteronomy supports this idea.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Today rape in time of war is considered a war crime.
Rape during times of war In most times and places, rape has been a weapon of war, or the prerogative of the victorious soldiers over a conquered people. Indeed. the city of Rome was founded and created with the rape of Sabine women. During the sack of Troy, women were raped by the victors. At other times in western history the massive use of rape occurred during war. In 1453, when Constantinople fell, the city's women and young girls were raped by Ottoman troops. During the Indian massacres by whites of this country, troops committed atrocities against Indian women. In 1864, at the Sand Creek massacre, Indian women were raped and sexually mutilated. In 1937, when Nanking fell to Japanese troops, the women of the city were raped. During the Viet Nam war, the rape of Vietnamese women by U.S. troops was common. Today, rape is a criminal act of war under the international war laws. Despite this, [rape] continues to be an act of war. In ancient cultures stealing women was acceptable. It may have been better than the alternative, but we can still look back and say it was wrong and still is wrong. It is contradictory to look back and say God was justified in commanding vengence. You still haven't shown me what the Midianites did wrong. Message 11
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Holyfire23, posted 08-26-2009 11:07 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
quote:
If morality is defined by one's society, then morality can only be judged within that particular society. ...But if one holds to the belief that morality is subjective to one's society, they cannot judge what is moral within a different society.
Don't confused judging ( to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises) and judgment (a formal decision given by a court or a divine sentence or decision). I can form and give an opinion on any society I want. Only those with authority over the society can make judgments concerning laws and individual actions.
quote:
This poses a question, what makes our standards better than another societies standards?
Exactly! What makes the Hebrew standards better than the Midian standards? What makes Jewish standards better than Christian standards? What makes my standards better than my neighbors? There are many levels of standards. National, local, religious, individual. Even within a society an individual may not agree with the national viewpoint.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 1:14 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
quote:
Since we are on the subject of morality, let us look at the options here. Assume you are a Jewish man in the times of Moses. You have just defeated an army of men and have arrived at their village to find a village full of women and children. You have three options. 1) Kill them all. 2) Leave the women to take care of their children without the help of any men who would otherwise hunt and plant crops and provide for their families. 3) Take the women and any children. Make the woman your wife and provide for her and her children. Which one of these choices is the most moral to you?
Well that's a rather sanitized version of probable scenarios. Let's look at the messy reality. Assume you're a Hebrew at the time of Moses and you and your tribesmen have just killed all the men of Midian for no other reason than your god's vengence. (Odds are all the men weren't in the battle, just like all the Hebrews weren't in the battle. Older men tend to stay behind.) What are you going to do next? Next on the list of things to do is plunder and lay waste the conquered city, even though you already know your god has promised you land on the other side of the Jordan. So you proceed to burn all the towns where the Midianites had settled as well as all their camps. You take all their herds, flocks and goods as plunder. (BTW, if you hadn't plundered their food and livestock and wasted their homes, the women and children probably would have managed just fine.) Now you feel sorry for the poor women and take them and their children back to camp with you. Now you are ordered to kill all the boys and women who are not virgins. This means there are no mothers left to tend their children. (Yep, they were much safer with you than in the barren village.) There is nothing moral about this situation. Since women tended to be married off young, odds are the Hebrews were left with girls under 18 years of age. Only those with menses would be taken as wives. That could be as young as 13 years of age. (No trauma there!  ) The most moral thing to do is to not attack people without provocation. When one has to fight, don't plunder and destroy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Holyfire23, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
God Easily Provoked
quote:
Please give me an example of when God has ever killed someone without provocation? Also, when has God ever condoned rape?
Although you don't seem to like addressing my posts, the Midianite story is a very good example. Message 71 Here are some others. God is provoked by name calling, curiosity, restraint, and a helping hand. These are not incidents that should provoke anyone to kill, least of all a loving and just god.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)
And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1Samuel 6:19-20)
Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36)
They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7) Then we have the first born in Egypt before the Hebrews left. Pharaoh may have provoked the Hebrew god, but not every first born in Egypt could have provoked him. The Hebrew God's responses are definitely overkill. Explain to me how God was intentionally provoked in these situations by the people killed.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:07 PM | | Holyfire23 has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Not Loving or Just
quote:
Again, if you had read the verse in context you would know that Amalek and his tribe had acted maliciously towards the Israelites.
When did the Amalek act maliciously towards the Israelites? In Exodus 17, the Israelites won. Why wait so long to go back and destroy? In Numbers 14, God told them not to go to the hill country. He would not be with them in that battle and they would lose. Again, why wait so long to go back and destroy? Since the verse says the Israelites were waylaid as they came up from Egypt, there seems to be a great amount of time between the encounter and the revenge. If I have missed the incident the verse is referring to please provide the verse.
quote:
You all forget that there is a second half to the Bible know as the New Testament. When Jesus came he fulfilled all the rerquirements of the Jewish Law. All the rules which said, "All the sinful nations must be destroyed."...they are all fulfilled. God no longer demands that man pay for his sins on this earth. Jesus came and did it all for us. If Jesus had not come, God would still demand that man pay for his sins and alot of what went on in the OT would still be happening. But God does not want any of His children to parish.
Please provide the law that says all the sinful nations must be destroyed. Fulfilling the law and not destroying it means interpreting the law correctly, as opposed to not interpreting the law correctly. The issue here is your position that God's morality never changes and yet there is a difference between what is in the OT and what is in the NT. Of course the OT is more nation oriented and the NT is more individual oriented.
quote:
I can tell you with great confidence that God did not want all the people in the OT to die.
No you can't. The writings in the Bible show otherwise. Show me that God was saddened by all these deaths.
quote:
But He is a just God. That is the only reason those people were punished. For that reason He sent Jesus to be punished for all of us. Is this not loving? Would you give up your son or daughter to be tortured so that the very people who tortured him or her could have a chance at being saved?
No it is not loving and God is not always just, as shown in the OT. I would not ask my child to suffer for a useless action that serves no purpose. God didn't, and still doesn't, need a sacrifice to forgive people. God didn't, and still doesn't, need any ransom paid. I'm not sure what other dogma you have dancing around in your head, but these cover the most common ones.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 1:25 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 161 (521692)
08-28-2009 2:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Rahvin
08-28-2009 2:05 PM
|
|
Re: God Easily Provoked
quote:
Addendum - Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go...several times. God specifically "hardened his heart" and made him change his mind. God punished all of Egypt for what God forced Pharaoh to to. It doesn't even make any sense. That's like me forcing my son's hand into a cookie jar, and then spanking his sister for it.
Exactly! That also puts a kink in the whole free will issue. God does tamper with people as it serves his purpose. So there really is no reason he couldn't just take all the evil out of humanity and save everyone a lot of bloodshed and grief.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2009 2:05 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: God Easily Provoked
quote:
I told you the answer to this already. Balaam the king of Moab paid the Midianites to hire a man to curse Isreal. This maliciousness is what provoked God to kill the Midianites.
And I showed you in Message 11 that that was not the reason God gave for the vengeance. Numbers 25:16-18, which you quoted, said specifically why and it had nothing to do with king trying to curse the Israelites.
quote:
As for all your other examples, they are simply following Jewish law. Disobedience to the LORD is a sin. The wages of sin is death. Therefore, disobedience to the LORD is death. Before Jesus came to earth, man was held accountable for his sins. When Jesus came he fulfilled that requirement.
Show me the laws that pertained to those incidents in Message 83. Which law says death is the penalty for calling someone a name? If the man was bald, it was a true statement. Which law says they were not allowed to touch or look in the ark under penalty of death Which law says you will die if you refuse to stab someone for no good reason at the Lord's command? (I would call that an illegal order.) Now if the prophet had explained that he needed to appear injured to carry out a job for God, the man might have helped him; but was it worth death?
quote:
No one has answered my question yet. Would you send your son or daughter to be tortured and killed so that the very people who tortured and kill him/her could have a chance at salvation?
I have answered that in Message 86, which you probably haven't read yet. I would not ask my child to suffer for a useless action that serves no purpose. God didn't, and still doesn't, need a sacrifice to forgive people. God didn't, and still doesn't, need any ransom paid. I'm not sure what other dogma you have dancing around in your head, but these cover the most common ones. Those people already had a chance at salvation. The path for the Jews didn't change.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 2:53 PM | | Holyfire23 has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Changing People
quote:
What about the second part of the sentence in which you propose that God force people not to break the rules. That would take away our free will. God wants His children to choose Him of their own free will and love Him. Love is voluntary.
Punishing people for not following the rules is a way to force them to follow the rules. You figure it is more humane to kill those who don't choose God instead of correcting the programming? They'd never know. As Rahvin noted God has hardened hearts on purpose and people suffered for something they had no control over. God actually commanded his people to love him according to the Deuteronomist. He didn't really ask. God chose the Israelites. What passage gives you the impression God wants his people to choose to love him or that they have an option? Love me or die isn't really allowing the freedom to choose.
quote:
The third option was to find another way besides sacrificing your son to save all humanity. Unfortunately, that would fall in to place with your first suggestion. Death is the price that must be paid. The only thing that can repay sin is death. So this suggestion is not possible for the same reason as the first.
Wrong. Don't get confused in the whole wages-of-sin-is-death issue. Paul said the wages of sin is death, not God. Paul is not God and does not claim to speak for God. God did give laws that had death consequences. Not all laws had death as a consequence. So your statement that death is the price that must be paid is incorrect. Aside from the hardcore stuff repentance and restitution also "repay" sin.
quote:
Throughout the OT the wrath of God is displayed many times. In every case, the people who are punished are punished because they did not follow God's commands. This is true for the Isrealites and the Gentiles alike. The reason we are in disagreement with one another is because my definition of sin is different from all of yours. So the real argument lies in the definition of sin. Before any more assertions about the Bible are made, let us first establish a common starting point.
The Gentiles were only under God's laws when Israel was a nation in power and the Gentiles lived within their borders. The same as when we go to other countries or states. We fall under their respective laws.
Definition of Chata'-Translated Sin - Verb 1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness Why do you think our definition of sin is different than yours and why didn't you go ahead and provide your definition?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 5:10 PM | | Holyfire23 has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Know Your Bible
quote:
I provided my definition of morality. To be clear however, I define sin using the Gospel.
The definition of morality is not the same definition of sin and still you don't give your definition of sin.
quote:
If you knew the Bible you would know that God is an infinite, all-knowing being. He knows what is good for us and makes the rules accordingly.
If you read the Bible, you would know that God is not all knowing and his infinite status is Catholic Dogma. If you disagree, then show verses that clearly prove otherwise.
Genesis 18:20-21
And the LORD said Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grievous I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me and if not I will know. God knows what is good for us today or for the ancients? According to the Bible authors God hasn't added any new rules since he supposedly talked to Moses.
quote:
Immorality and life are incompatible. Immorality not only leads to death for the immoral, but can potentially affect and/or corrupt the moral. (This is true even if you take God out of the equation.) The problem is, true morality is impossible without an infinite, all-knowing being.
Reality check. Immorality and life are not incompatible. Right and wrong are part of life. Immorality does not automatically lead to death. Yes the immoral can corrupt those whose morals are weak. Now if you are referring to spiritual death, then you need to be clear what you mean by death. The scenarios presented in this thread deal with reality. Physical death, rape, etc. We aren't dealing with spiritual death.
quote:
You are making moral judgements on the Bible based upon a morality invented by finite, fallible human beings i.e. Neitzche, Kant, Keikergard. Some of your view is consistent with that of the Christian religion (murder, rape, blah blah blah= wrong) some of it is not (the veiw that morality is relative.)
I'm not familiar with the people you mentioned. Actually my morality is very Bible based. Murder is wrong. Murder, the killing of innocent people. In the Midianite story innocent people were murdered by God's direction. He broke his own rule. Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20,
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Stealing is wrong. In the Midianite story God allowed the Hebrews to plunder (steal) all that belonged to the Midianites. He broke his own rule. Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, Deuteronomy 5:19, Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, Ephesians 4:28 Even Paul considers the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do leadership to be inconsistent with God's will.
Romans 2
17. Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
18. if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
19. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
20. an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--
21. you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself ? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
22. You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23. You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the l24. As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." Do we expect less from God? Revenge is wrong. Leviticus 19:18
" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. Now you could say they weren't allowed to seek revenge on their own people, but other nations were open game. That's relative morality. I agree my views are not consistent with Christian Dogma, but then Christian Dogma is not the word of God is it?
quote:
The reason God unleashed His wrath onto so many people in the Bible is because they were corrupting Isreal. The Isrealites were His people. They were the people he picked to be the forefathers of the His Son. When God punished a nation, it was because they were getting in the way of His plan--which was to save humanity, by sending His Son to die for the sins of man.
In the Midianite story the people were simply practicing their religion. So you feel it was right for all men, young boys, old women, and married women to die because some Israelites were weak? Oddly enough, even though they supposedly killed all the Midianites except virgins, the Midianites are again a thorn in the Israelites side. A thorn put there by God.
Judges 6
Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and for seven years he gave them into the hands of the Midianites. ... So God used the Midianites to harass the Israelites and then turns on the Midianites. Again, messing with the free will issue by having the Midianites in the camp turn on each other.
Judges 7:22
When the three hundred trumpets sounded, the Lord caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords.... If he can do that, why not just make all mankind behave and save humanity without all the bloodshed games? When you say that God planned all this bloodshed to save humanity, you demonstrate Christian hypocrisy. These are war stories that really illustrate that morality is relative.
quote:
You might ask, "Why is God's plan so important that he would kill others in order to achieve it?" Because if he sat back and did not punish people for their actions then the whole world would resort to lawlessness and reject Him. This would lead to the human race dieing out and His plan to have a people that He could spend eternity with would have failed. It wouldn't have failed because of a mistake God made, but because of the corruption that man had brought on himself. The Bible does not teach that men are to define morality. That is a responsibility that only God is capable of holding. That is atheisms real beef with God. Atheists want to be able to define their own morality. As a result, they attack the Bible using their own versions of morality.
Now you're making up your own stories. Please provide Biblical support for what you're saying. Show me from outside sources that nations not under the Hebrew God were lawless. If you knew your Bible, you would realize that we are capable of defining morality (what is good and what is wrong).
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." We know what is good and what is evil, just like God does. Mankind does define their own morality. Civilizations with laws/rules existed and still exist without the guidance of the Hebrew God. The Bible is not God. It is the work of men. The sooner people learn that the sooner people can glean the good information and learn from the mistakes of the past instead of making the same mistakes.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Know Your Bible
quote:
Ok. I define morality using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes the definition of sin.
And still you provide nothing.
PurpleDawn writes: If you read the Bible, you would know that God is not all knowing and his infinite status is Catholic Dogma. If you disagree, then show verses that clearly prove otherwise. Revelation 22:13 doesn't mention all knowing and Jesus is talking concerning the alpha and omega, not God. Psalm 139 is a song. It doesn't show that God is all knowing. In Genesis 18:20-21 God's actions show that he is not all knowing. Message 113 quote:
Have you read the Old Testament? Let me put this story into context. As I already said, the Midianites conspired with the Balak to destroy the Isrealites. This just sets the backround. God was already angry with the Midianites. (Numbers 22:1-7)... Lastly, why where the Midianites punished for what seemed like ignorance? It wasn't ignorace. This was a deliberate ploy that was concieved to destroy Isreal from within. Remember that in Numbers 22 the Moabites and the Midianites had joined forces to try and destroy Isreal. They knew that if Isreal rejected God and joined with them, they would not be destroyed. They were mistaken because God saw their plan. That is why they were punished. You cannot take the bible out of context. Otherwise, it can be twisted and bent to mean anything. I am not accusing you of doing this purposely, but you definately don't have all the facts. That is whay I asked you if you have read the whole Old Testament. Heck, if you just read the whole book of Numbers it would be more clear.
We shouldn't add to the story either. I showed you in Message 11 where God very specifically said why he was taking vengeance on the Midianites. Show me that there was a plan to destroy Israel from within. The plan to curse them (Numbers 22) was foiled by God. Show me the alternate plan.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Know Your Bible
quote:
The Midianites weren't dumb. They knew that if they intermarried with the Isrealites, had children with them, and converted them that the Isrealites would not destroy them. God punished the Midianites because they tempted Isreal into worshiping a false god. I'm not sure where you think I am adding to the story.
So you don't have any scripture that shows a master plan to corrupt the Israelites. This has nothing to do with the intelligence of the Midianites. It has to do with what the text actually says. I've seen no evidence of an underlying Midianite plan to corrupt Israel from within. Just men and women doing what they do naturally. If the affair of Peor refers to Numbers 25:1-5, the women mentioned were Moabite women who invited them to the sacrifices. (I missed this, M words all look the same.  ) Cozbi was a Midianite, but not the women who supposedly did the enticing. (Numbers 25:2 doesn't imply enticement.) That puts a crimp in the idea that the Midianites had a plan.
quote:
Since you seem to know the Bible so well, why don't you provide the definition of morality according to the Gospel?
I didn't ask you for your definition of morality. In Message 98 you stated: The reason we are in disagreement with one another is because my definition of sin is different from all of yours. So the real argument lies in the definition of sin. Before any more assertions about the Bible are made, let us first establish a common starting point. But you didn't provide your own definition of sin. I provided my definition of sin in that message. In Message 103 you stated: I provided my definition of morality. To be clear however, I define sin using the Gospel. But again you didn't provide any definition. In Message 120 you stated: Ok. I define morality using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes the definition of sin. But you didn't provide your definition. You have claimed that your definition of sin is different than those of your opponents. Please provide your definition of sin and how it is contrary to the definition I already provided.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Definition
Do you know what a definition is?
Definition2 a: a statement expressing the essential nature of something b: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol You still haven't provided a definition of sin.
quote:
This is where Jesus introduced the new law.
It is off topic here, but I invite you over to the Christian Laws thread and tell me what is new in this sermon. Message 89 quote:
Jesus was not contradicitng these laws but fullfilling them.
Fulfilling the law means that he interpreted them correctly, nothing more.
To fulfill a law could simply mean doing what it says. But when Jesus contrasts fulfilling with abolishing the law, you know he is employing a rabbinic idiom. In this case, to fulfill the Law means to properly interpret the Torah. In contrast, the phrase, abolish the Law means the oppositeto cancel or nullify the Torah by misinterpreting it. Both of these idioms arise from the assigned task of every rabbito interpret just how the Torah applies to daily life. When rabbis disagreed, they would accuse each other of nullifying the Torah. The sooner you actually provide a definition of sin, the sooner we can see if your definition is actually different than anyone else in this thread.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
™ Version 4.2