Perhaps you misunderstood me? What I thought I was saying was that killing the mothers is already killing the babies. It was your accusation that I'm like ISIS that I was objecting to, comparing an event in the past with their current murderous outrages.
But Faith, it was as wrong then as it is now - all that's changed is that WE know better than the fictional god that both religions invented - and you still revere.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Your thinking and broken moral values are indistinguishable from ISIS.
Your past murderous outrages that YOU agree with versus their present murderous outrages that THEY agree with.
They are both murderous outrages entirely rejected by the modern secular society. I was going to say "Thank God" but He's planning my eternal torture in flames... Another moral outrage.
GDR, I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. My ancestors were Mennonite, and they saw things much the way that you do. The Sermon on the Mount was elevated above other biblical texts. My grandmother was convinced that the God of the OT was a different God than the God of the NT.
What is wrong with elevating the longest most complete sermon we have that Jesus gave. Remember it is called Christianity not Biblianity. It just proves my point. You worship the Bible ahead of Jesus.
It isn't that they are different gods, it is that the OT tells a narrative about how the Jews continued to grow in their understanding of the nature of God, from the hard nosed deity in Leviticus, to the suffering servant in Isaiah, to the verse from Micah that I use for a signature, and finally to its climax and full revelation in Jesus Christ.
kbertsche writes:
I agree that some of these OT passages are very difficult. Yet Abraham's faith in nearly sacrificing his son is praised throughout Scripture; this is presented as a good thing. And it is pertinent to this thread, in that it foreshadowed God's sacrifice of Jesus (the thread topic).
It occurs once in the NT in the book of Hebrews, and not at all in the Gospels. It is just as useful, and can be used just as meaningfully as a fore-shadowing if the account is metaphorical as opposed to being historical.
kbertsche writes:
I believe that much of the difference in reaction here can be summarized by "relationship to God". Those who have a close personal relationship to God know Him as good and tend to trust Him. Those who don't will distrust and question Him at every step. As an example, consider a good, healthy marriage relationship; spouses tend to trust one another implicitly. But consider a marriage where spouses continually distrust and question one another's judgment; this marriage won't last long.
You seem to think that you have a closer relationship with God than those who hold to a different understanding of the scriptures than you do. I trust Him completely to the point that I know He isn't guilty of genocide. You aren't trusting in God you are trusting in a completely non-critical reading of the Scripture.
There is the one verse in the Bible that says that scripture is God breathed and goes on to say it useful for training etc. That verse is simply saying that we can learn about God through the scriptures. The NT wasn't even thought about at that time, and the Jewish Scriptures being referred to aren't exactly the same as what we have today either.
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.
There is the one verse in the Bible that says that scripture is God breathed and goes on to say it useful for training etc.
Plus, scripture and a Bible are not synonymous and of course the very concept of a Bible did not even exist at that time. In fact it seems that Jesus considered some writings that did not make it into the Western Canon as scriptural. And when you add in the fact that "scripture" simply means inspired writings the passage becomes almost redundant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Jesus doesn't refer to what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures as being from God
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In brief, the doctrine of "biblical inerrancy" is not directly taught in Scripture. But it is a direct, necessary consequence to the biblical doctrine of "verbal, plenary inspiration" of Scripture, the doctrine that every word of the entirety of Scripture was inspired by God. I believe that this is taught pretty clearly in Scripture, with the NT testifying that Moses and the OT prophets were inspired by God, Peter testifying that Paul's words were inspired by God, etc.
It would take us far off-topic to get into inspiration and inerrancy in this thread, and I'm sure they have been beaten to death in other threads. You can find more information in prior threads or on Bible.org | Where the World Comes to Study the Bible, one of my favorite theological websites.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
Jesus doesn't refer to what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures as being from God. He says simply that "you have heard it said". Jesus did not follow in an inerrant scripture.
This thread isn't about Biblical inerrancy, and as kb just said it would be best if we avoided it, but I've been listening on and off to a conference on that subject and one of the talks was rather entertaining as well as a good answer to your claim:
The whole talk is about Jesus' treating the scriptures as inerrant. He makes the assertion clearest at 23:33.
Your source? You've consulted the annals of the ancient empires and heathen tribes?
Woah! If some ancient tribe somewhere thought it ok to murder all its children randomly that would be ok by you and your god?
And how do the supposed values of this imaginary heathen tribe apply here? It's your god's own actions we're talking about.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I was answering the claim that it was wrong then too. I have the impression that it was a normal part of war. I'm not talking about "values" I'm talking about practice.
Perhaps you didn't read the quote in my Message 315 which also isn't about taking an eye for an eye; the principle is about the punishment fitting the crime which is perfectly expressed as eye for eye.
Following the sub-thread back to Message 303, you said:
quote:Yes it is Justice when the punishment fits the crime. That's the definition of justice. An eye for an eye.
Our justice systems don't make the punishment fit the crime. They make the punishment (if any) fit the criminal. Repeat offenders get harsher treatment, underage offenders get more lenient treatment, etc.
I was answering the claim that it was wrong then too.
Murdering children is always wrong Faith - that's pretty basic, even for a 'christian'.
I have the impression that it was a normal part of war. I'm not talking about "values" I'm talking about practice.
So when I said 'wrong' you thought I meant a poor war strategy?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
So when I said 'wrong' you thought I meant a poor war strategy?
No, I thought you didn't know what you were talking about when you said it was "always" wrong because I figured you had no idea whether babies were normally killed in war or not in the ancient world.
Can't wait to see what other way you'll manage to twist my meaning.
Can't wait to see what other way you'll manage to twist my meaning.
No need to, your own words say it.
Faith writes:
As for "what the babies did" to deserve punishment, there is a concept of corporate guilt involved which means many of the tribe may not have "done" anything in particular to deserve the punishment. And I'll mention again that if you kill all the mothers and not the babies you might as well have killed them anyway.
You're defending the indefenisble.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Since you don't believe in any of this your words are pretty weak and irrelevant anyway, but I do believe in God and I believe just what the scripture tells us, that He decreed judgment against certain peoples for their disobedience by wiping out the whole tribe. That was decreed, what, two or three times some 3500 years ago, wasn't even faithfully carried out, and that's the last we hear of it in the Bible but for some reason I'm supposed to think God has no right to do as He pleases in His own creation. I defend God's right to enact judgment according to His own analysis of the situation and you make a big moral issue of it, very popular these days, but very silly. I'm happy to be one of a great company of Bible believers who don't judge God, knowing that we'll be judged on terms of such silly human self-righteousness but that in the end you'll meet God for yourself anyway. Not a happy prospect I would think.
but for some reason I'm supposed to think God has no right to do as He pleases in His own creation.
Yes, if you have any sense of morality, then you do. Granted he shows no sense of proportion or priorities in making 'thou shalt not kill' only his 6th commandment, but it's there on the list.
we hear of it in the Bible but for some reason I'm supposed to think God has no right to do as He pleases in His own creation. I defend God's right to enact judgment according to His own analysis of the situation and you make a big moral issue of it,
Yes, I'm weird like that, I regard the mass killing of innocent women and children a big moral issue. You apparently don't.
Not a happy prospect I would think.
Not a happy prospect at all Faith, no. Should the kind of god you believe in actually exist, he's a random, malicious pychopath and if you think you're safe by bowing down and worshipping him you're in for a bigger surprise than I am.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
(1)