Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 5:52 AM
34 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 121 of 161 (522864)
09-05-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Holyfire23
09-05-2009 6:34 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Holyfire23, posted 09-05-2009 6:34 PM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Holyfire23, posted 09-05-2009 9:24 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 161 (522866)
09-05-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by purpledawn
09-05-2009 8:44 PM


Re: Know Your Bible
purpledawn writes:

Show me that there was a plan to destroy Israel from within.

Numbers 25:18 writes:

For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.

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.

purpledawn writes:

Holyfire23 writes:

Ok. I define morality using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes the definition of sin.

And still you provide nothing.
Since you seem to know the Bible so well, why don't you provide the definition of morality according to the Gospel?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by purpledawn, posted 09-05-2009 8:44 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Bailey, posted 09-05-2009 10:59 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 4:29 AM Holyfire23 has responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 123 of 161 (522872)
09-05-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Holyfire23
09-05-2009 9:24 PM


Re: Know Your Bible
Thanks for the exchange.
Hope things are well ...

brutha holyfire23 writes:

sista dawn writes:

brutha holyfire23 writes:

Ok. I define morality using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That includes the definition of sin.


And still you provide nothing.

Since you seem to know the Bible so well, why don't you provide the definition of morality according to the Gospel?

A seemingly weak evasion tactic; the onus is on you brutha holy. Perhaps I can assist you though: according to the witness provided within the synoptic gospels, Anointed morals do not allow for self-defense in any capacity. Ever. Do you agree with brother Joshua's peculiar stance in these regards?

One Love

Edited by Bailey, : sp.


I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Holyfire23, posted 09-05-2009 9:24 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 124 of 161 (522887)
09-06-2009 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Holyfire23
09-05-2009 9:24 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Holyfire23, posted 09-05-2009 9:24 PM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Holyfire23, posted 09-06-2009 10:33 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 161 (522917)
09-06-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by purpledawn
09-06-2009 4:29 AM


Re: Know Your Bible
purpledawn writes:

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.

I define morality based on what the Gospel says. Matthew chapter 5 sums sin up pretty well.

Matthew 5 writes:

1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This chapter is called the "sermon on the mount". This is where Jesus introduced the new law. Before this the Jews still adhered by the law we in the Old Testament. This includes the laws that everybody here thinks are harsh. Jesus was not contradicitng these laws but fullfilling them. All of these laws were designed to protect the Isrealites for one reason--Jesus. Jesus was destined by God to be an Isrealite. The Isrealites had to survive if Jesus was going to descend from them. That is why in the Old Testament God is so strict with the Isrealites and other nations. The Isrealites were not to engage in other religions. God demands our full devotion to him. We cannot worship him and other things. If the Isrealites worshiped another god they were rejecting God. This was a threat to the existence of the Isrealites. Therefore, God put strict laws in place in order to keep the Isrealites from being corrupted. Anyone who broke those laws had to be dealt with i.e. punished so that the others would not be corrupted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 4:29 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 12:23 PM Holyfire23 has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 126 of 161 (522924)
09-06-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Holyfire23
09-06-2009 10:33 AM


Definition
Do you know what a definition is?

Definition
2 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 opposite—to cancel or nullify the Torah by misinterpreting it. Both of these idioms arise from the assigned task of every rabbi—to 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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Holyfire23, posted 09-06-2009 10:33 AM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Holyfire23, posted 09-06-2009 8:00 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 161 (522949)
09-06-2009 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by purpledawn
09-06-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Definition
purpledawn writes:

You still haven't provided a definition of sin.

Did Matthew 5 not define sin?

1 John 3:4 writes:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Sin is lawlessness. The law being referred to is God's law.

You must understand some things about Jesus. He came with a mission. His goal was to die for the sins of man. However, in doing that, he managed to accomplish much more. The Jewish law is very extensive. I won't explain it all for that reason. However, the first five books of the Bible are basically a history of the Jewish laws, the Jewish people, and the people God used to set the laws in place. However, to sum it all up, the Jewish laws were set in place for three reasons.

First, the Jewish laws were set in place for the purpose of forgivness of sins. Before Jesus, there were a multitude of rituals within the Jewish tradition. It ranged from purifying yourself, to making animal sacrifices, to the high preist going in once a year to make a sacrifice. These were done in obedience to God for He was the one who demanded them.

Second, the Jewish laws were put in place to protect the Isrealites. Like I said earlier, God had a plan for the Isrealites. They were His chosen people. The anscestors of His Son. They could not become corrupted by other nations and religions. That is why God set such strict laws in place. Sin could not be tolerated because sin corrupts. The consequences for sin had to be great. If there are no consequences for sin then people will never learn that sin is wrong.

Third, the laws were put in place to show man that he was not infallibe, inerrant, and fundamentaly moral. God made these laws to show man that he was not perfect and that he needed a Saviour. Man cannot forgive his own sins. The only person who has the power to pardon man from his sins is God. And God wanted man to know that--if man wanted to be pure he had to abide by God's rules and nobody else's.

Jesus did not abolish the laws that God had set in place in the Old Testament. He did ,however, make all the rituals in Jewish tradition obsolete. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Because He died for us, we no longer have to purify ourselves, or make animal sacrifices, or have a high priest make an annual sacrifice for the sins of us all. Jesus was the Ultimate High Priest if you will. He went to the cross to once and for all pay the price for our sins so that we would never have to. The punishment of sin is still death. But God does not demand it right away. God gives us our whole lives to repent for our sins. If we repent for our sins, God forgives them--no matter how terrible the sin. What mercy! If God was not merciful, many of us would have been stoned long ago. This was a huge part of Jesus' message.

Jesus' message was was basically this: God is a loving God. He wishes to have a personal relationship with you. God is merciful. This was a differnt perspective of God compared to how most Jews saw God. To most people, God was a God who was to be respected and feared. If you didn't fear and respect Him, you would be punished. Jesus came to say that God was not all about stoning you.

John 14:20-24 writes:

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

God is still to be feared and respected in the sense that everyone should know that they will one day be judged by God for their sins and punished. However, God has taken all the rituals and traditions that one had to do to attain salavtion and replaced it with one simple rule.

John 3:16 writes:


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Today all we must do is confess that we are sinners and believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That is it. That is a radical differnece compared to all the rituals that the ancient Jewish law commanded of us.

In conclusion, Jesus did not abolish or change the laws that God had set in place i.e. Ten commandments, but he did do away with all the rituals.

All that being said, I will restate my definition of morality.: I define right and wrong using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What Jesus said was a sin, I call a sin. What Jesus called righteousness, I call righteousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 12:23 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2009 3:15 AM Holyfire23 has responded
 Message 129 by purpledawn, posted 09-07-2009 9:57 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 128 of 161 (522965)
09-07-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Holyfire23
09-06-2009 8:00 PM


Re: Definition
Uh, sorry, but you are still ducking out on the question. Plus, you are still supporting my own statement:
dwise1; Msg 109 writes:

I would disagree that fundamentalists are inherently immoral. Rather, I would say that they are amoral. They have no sense of morality. They have virtually no capacity for moral reasoning. They are, as you say, authoritatian. Whatever their god says, or rather what their religious leaders tell them that their god says, is what goes. And, of course, if they believe that their god is speaking to them, then whatever they believe their god is telling them to do, goes. Including murder. Including sacrificing the lives of their own children.

You "responded" in Msg 112, but have, so far as I can tell, refused to respond to any of the five responses to that message. In particular, there's the one particular moral issue of taking a young woman, a virgin, captive by force and holding her captive and raping her for the rest of her life, albeit under the auspices of "marriage" (in both cases). As I responded in Msg 118, to which you have so far refused to respond:

holyfire23 writes:

I heard on the news just last night that a 29 year old girl called the local police. She had been kidnapped in 1991 and had been kept in a cage as a sex slave ever since. Her kidnappers were a husband and wife team. If man can reason morally, how do people get like this?

Thank you for raising that point again. But when you raised it in Msg #69, you were praising such an action as being good morality, yet now you are condemning it. Why is such rape a good thing in one case and utterly contemptible in another?

The only difference is that your god was behind the one case. So any act, regardless of how contemptible, is worthy of the highest praise if your god did it. How much more relativistic could it possibly get?

So, your only moral sense is, "Yeah, what He said!"? Any act, no matter how horrifically immoral, is deemed moral if your god had ordered it? Sin is disobeying God, so it is not a sin if God commands you to go out and take a young virgin captive by force and rape her repeatedly for the rest of her life? That is your defense of the offense against the virgins of the Midianites (we're not even going to review the issue of the gross immorality of genocide, which is similar to the rape issue only in spades to the n-th degree).

As I have stated, you are amoral. You have abrogated your moral reasoning to your sectarian misinterpretation of the particular parts of Scripture that you have selectively chosen to use.

Quote all the Scripture you want to; all you are doing is further demonstrating your amoraility, your inability to engage in moral reasoning.

PS
You keep being up "sin". Sin only has to do with disobeying God's commands. Whatever is that supposed to have to do with morality? As we have already seen, many of God's commands directly contradicted morality, in which case moral conduct would have been the "sin".

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : PS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Holyfire23, posted 09-06-2009 8:00 PM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 2:30 PM dwise1 has responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 129 of 161 (522983)
09-07-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Holyfire23
09-06-2009 8:00 PM


Re: Definition
quote:
Did Matthew 5 not define sin?
No, it didn't. It gives teachings on some behaviors.

quote:
Sin is lawlessness. The law being referred to is God's law.
So your definition is not any different than what I provided in Message 101, which is the meaning of the word used in the OT.

Definition of Chata'-Translated Sin - Verb
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness

Here's the NT definition for the word translated as sin.

hamartanō.
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin

quote:
First, the Jewish laws were set in place for the purpose of forgivness of sins. Before Jesus, there were a multitude of rituals within the Jewish tradition. It ranged from purifying yourself, to making animal sacrifices, to the high preist going in once a year to make a sacrifice. These were done in obedience to God for He was the one who demanded them.
The Jewish laws were set in place to govern a people. God did not demand sacrifices. See the thread: Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins. Sacrifices weren't necessary for forgiveness.

Ezekiel 18:21-22
“But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.”

Yes, the Priestly portion of the Mosaic Law gives instructions if one brings a sacrifice. Notice there is no penalty, that I've seen, in Leviticus for not bringing a sacrifice.

quote:
Second, the Jewish laws were put in place to protect the Isrealites. Like I said earlier, God had a plan for the Isrealites. They were His chosen people. The anscestors of His Son. They could not become corrupted by other nations and religions. That is why God set such strict laws in place. Sin could not be tolerated because sin corrupts. The consequences for sin had to be great. If there are no consequences for sin then people will never learn that sin is wrong.
Again the laws were put into place for the same reason any other civilization puts laws in place. Many laws are for protection, but the Jewish laws weren't put in place for a future master plan. Not all sin corrupts. People who break the speed limit aren't automatically corrupt.

quote:
Third, the laws were put in place to show man that he was not infallibe, inerrant, and fundamentaly moral. God made these laws to show man that he was not perfect and that he needed a Saviour. Man cannot forgive his own sins. The only person who has the power to pardon man from his sins is God. And God wanted man to know that--if man wanted to be pure he had to abide by God's rules and nobody else's.
No it wasn't. Laws were a part of life for mankind. It had nothing to do with showing people they were fallible or immoral. It had to do with managing a civilization.

quote:
Jesus did not abolish the laws that God had set in place in the Old Testament. He did ,however, make all the rituals in Jewish tradition obsolete. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Because He died for us, we no longer have to purify ourselves, or make animal sacrifices, or have a high priest make an annual sacrifice for the sins of us all. Jesus was the Ultimate High Priest if you will. He went to the cross to once and for all pay the price for our sins so that we would never have to. The punishment of sin is still death. But God does not demand it right away. God gives us our whole lives to repent for our sins. If we repent for our sins, God forgives them--no matter how terrible the sin. What mercy! If God was not merciful, many of us would have been stoned long ago. This was a huge part of Jesus' message.
Jesus did not make the Jewish rituals obsolete. The Jewish followers of Jesus continued these Jewish rituals. Gentiles in the first century weren't bound by Jewish Law. The punishment for sin is not physical death. The penalties fit the crime, just like today. If you are speaking of spiritual death or an afterlife deal, then please be specific. The Jewish laws and penalties are applied in real life.

That's Paul's message to the Gentiles, not the message Jesus brought to the Jews. People in the OT also had their whole lives to repent and once they repented their offenses were forgotten.

quote:
In conclusion, Jesus did not abolish or change the laws that God had set in place i.e. Ten commandments, but he did do away with all the rituals.
How do you come up with just 10 laws and the Jews have 613 commandments from the OT?

Jesus didn't do away with the rituals. Jewish reformists were trying to do away with the rituals long before Jesus was born. The sacrificial system was very expensive to maintain. (175BCE) The destruction of the temple did away with the sacrificial system. (70CE)

quote:
Jesus' message was was basically this: God is a loving God. He wishes to have a personal relationship with you. God is merciful. This was a differnt perspective of God compared to how most Jews saw God. To most people, God was a God who was to be respected and feared. If you didn't fear and respect Him, you would be punished. Jesus came to say that God was not all about stoning you.
But that isn't the picture painted in the OT, which is the point of this thread. What you present is not logically consistent.

Killing thousands for the mistakes of the leadership is not an example of a loving and merciful god.

quote:
God is still to be feared and respected in the sense that everyone should know that they will one day be judged by God for their sins and punished. However, God has taken all the rituals and traditions that one had to do to attain salavtion and replaced it with one simple rule.
What's the point in punishing a person after they are physically dead?

quote:
All that being said, I will restate my definition of morality.: I define right and wrong using the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What Jesus said was a sin, I call a sin. What Jesus called righteousness, I call righteousness.
Unfortunately that's not a definition. The scary part is that we don't even know what Jesus actually said and what is attributed to Jesus is basically Jewish Law which contains more than just the 10 or even the 613.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Holyfire23, posted 09-06-2009 8:00 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 161 (523001)
09-07-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by dwise1
09-07-2009 3:15 AM


Re: Definition
dwise1 writes:

As I have stated, you are amoral. You have abrogated your moral reasoning to your sectarian misinterpretation of the particular parts of Scripture that you have selectively chosen to use.

So I have no moral capacity because I define right and wrong based on what God says? And yet, you hold that morality is determined by society and upbringing. You are trading one god for another. What makes society a better base for morality than God? Look at all the societies that have existed. All of them had there own definition of morality. Some of them were similiar to ours; some of them were radically different. How can you say that rape is wrong in all circumstances and then hold something as fickle as society to be your basis for morality? As I stated earlier, if there is no such thing as an infinite and all-knowing being to define morality, there must be a finite and fallible being to to take its place. Do you agree?

dwise1 writes:

Any act, no matter how horrifically immoral, is deemed moral if your god had ordered it? Sin is disobeying God, so it is not a sin if God commands you to go out and take a young virgin captive by force and rape her repeatedly for the rest of her life?

Again, you are twisting the context. Back then a woman had no status as a human unless she was married to a man. This was true outside of the Isrealite nation also. The average marriage age back then was 13. As soon as you were able to become pregnant, you were considered marriage material. Again, this was true outside of the Isrealite nation.

In the case of the Midianites, the virgins were spared because it was safe to say that they had not participated in any sexual immorality. They were "taken" by the Isrealites, because they had nowhere else to go. They either left the girls out in the wilderness to die, or they took them back to their camps where the girls led the same life they would have had they not been attacked. You accuse the Isrealites of being immoral but you conveniently leave out the context of the times they were living in. Marriages back then were always arranged. Girls were forced to marry whomever their father told them to. This was true of the Isrealites, Midianites, and all the other "ites". It wasn't rape.

The act of forcing a woman to have sex has always been considered sinful in the Bible. Marriage age has changed since then. But there is nowhere in the Bible where God said it was ok to force a woman to have sex with someone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2009 3:15 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by purpledawn, posted 09-07-2009 4:33 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 7:17 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 133 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2009 7:43 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1534 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 131 of 161 (523012)
09-07-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Holyfire23
09-07-2009 2:30 PM


Midianites
quote:
How can you say that rape is wrong in all circumstances and then hold something as fickle as society to be your basis for morality? As I stated earlier, if there is no such thing as an infinite and all-knowing being to define morality, there must be a finite and fallible being to to take its place. Do you agree?
You must be a man.

Actually the infinite and all knowing being was created by the finite and fallible being. In some cultures it adds authority to the morals practiced by fallible being. If God said it, it must be right. The same outlook you profess. You have no way of knowing if God actually said it or the fallible being just wrote it that way.

quote:
In the case of the Midianites, the virgins were spared because it was safe to say that they had not participated in any sexual immorality. They were "taken" by the Isrealites, because they had nowhere else to go. They either left the girls out in the wilderness to die, or they took them back to their camps where the girls led the same life they would have had they not been attacked. You accuse the Isrealites of being immoral but you conveniently leave out the context of the times they were living in. Marriages back then were always arranged. Girls were forced to marry whomever their father told them to. This was true of the Isrealites, Midianites, and all the other "ites". It wasn't rape.
Read my Message 43 & Message 71. Stop rationalizing.

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! )

Just because women were forced into these situations due to their culture, doesn't mean it was right. We have no idea how many women/girls might have committed suicide due to the trauma.

It is logically inconsistent to present a loving God who contributed to the suffering of others and claim he never changes.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 2:30 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 132 of 161 (523028)
09-07-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Holyfire23
09-07-2009 2:30 PM


Re: Definition
In the case of the Midianites, the virgins were spared because it was safe to say that they had not participated in any sexual immorality.

How exactly were the Israelites supposed to know who engaged in righteous sex (i.e. married) versus those who hadn't participated in any sexual immorality?

They were "taken" by the Isrealites, because they had nowhere else to go. They either left the girls out in the wilderness to die, or they took them back to their camps where the girls led the same life they would have had they not been attacked.

Oh, please. Show me where in the story that they took them because they cared about the welfare of the virgins.

They just massacred their families, but decided to let them live because they weren't sexually immoral, like, you know, King David, and saved them because they were virgins. Well, why then didn't they spare the young boys who were also virgins?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's because they wanted to sexually plunder the young virgin girls. Since females had no rights, they couldn't object to not being married to whomever decided they wanted to marry them. Good thing those Israelites were such upstanding men who first got married before they raped their war prize. Wouldn't want to be, you know, sexually immoral.

You accuse the Isrealites of being immoral but you conveniently leave out the context of the times they were living in. Marriages back then were always arranged. Girls were forced to marry whomever their father told them to. This was true of the Isrealites, Midianites, and all the other "ites". It wasn't rape.

Absolutely irrelevant if God's morals never change, which they saurely do, just read the entire bible, not just touchy-feely versus regurgitated in sermons all around the world.

That means that even today if your father wants to marry off your sister to a convincted rapist, it won't technically be considered rape when she rebuffs his sexual advances.

I realize that culture changes. Where you go wrong is trying to defend the actions of God who's moral's are supposed to be absolute. You are then bound by those principles. Any waivering or deviation from the standard refutes the entire thing.

The act of forcing a woman to have sex has always been considered sinful in the Bible.

Marriage age has changed since then. But there is nowhere in the Bible where God said it was ok to force a woman to have sex with someone.

Tsk, tsk.... So VERY wrong you are.

quote:
"Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes." - Judges 21:20-24

Kidnapping women against their will is okay though. I'm assuming that you'll say they were kidnapped to save the young girls. Such gentlemen those Israelites were. Chivalry is not dead.

quote:
"When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." - Deuternomy 20:12-14

Gosh, he's such a giving God, ya know?

quote:
"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 22:28-29

Pay attention guys, if you ever want to rape a chick, just be sure to pay her father off so that you can rape her legally whenever you want!

quote:
"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." - Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Listen up ladies, if ever you're raped, be sure to scream "rape" at the top of your lungs, because if you don't you'll be stoned because you were raped. Hey, if you didn't scream rape then you must have enjoyed it. Sorry, sugar-tush, rules of the game.

quote:
"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." - 2nd Samuel 12:11-14


God here takes men's wives and has his neighbors rape them in front of their face (don't worry people, for some reason it's not sexually immoral, nor is it actually rape because Holyfire said so) Nathan absolves David of his whoredom, but insists that the bastard, rape baby die. A week later he gets his wish.

Should I keep going, because there's plenty more where this came from.

Still maintain that God's morality never changes or that God doesn't condone rape?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 2:30 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 133 of 161 (523032)
09-07-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Holyfire23
09-07-2009 2:30 PM


Re: Definition
OK, let's see if I have this straight. Your position is for absolute morality and against relative morality, correct? Well, if that is the case, then why do you repeatedly argue for morality being relative and not absolute?

The scenario is a young teenage girl being abducted by force and against the wishes of both her and her family and held captive for years and forced to have sex with her captor and even bearing him children.

But while you denounce a recently reported case of this as immoral, with which we all agree, you not only condone but praise as moral an ancient case of this being perpetrated against an entire people, along with the wholesale slaughter of those not taken captive for a life-time of rape. Just because it is written that your god had commanded it.

So we have the first instance of you effectively arguing that morality is relative in that if God commanded it, even though it violated another law in the Bible, then it is moral.

Then you argued that they were doing the moral thing by taking in those poor war orphans and caring for them. Such an argument just boggles the mind, since they were responsible for those war orphans' plight. It's like that old sick joke about the teenager who murders both his parents in a most brutal manner and then at his trial he implores the court to take pity on him since he has so recently and suddenly become orphaned.

And why did the Israelites not take care of the other war orphans? Or the other surviving Midianites? Had they been acting in the moral and caring manner that you claim, then they would have. But, no, only the female virgins of rapable age were taken. And now, just to be funny, you threw in:

the virgins were spared because it was safe to say that they had not participated in any sexual immorality.

Oh? So the infants and small children who were slaughtered had participated in sexual immorality? Who would'a thunk that?

But now you have also added another argument for morality being relative:

You accuse the Isrealites of being immoral but you conveniently leave out the context of the times they were living in. Marriages back then were always arranged. Girls were forced to marry whomever their father told them to. This was true of the Isrealites, Midianites, and all the other "ites". It wasn't rape.

Yes, arranged marriages were indeed a fact and are still a fact in parts of the world. But what happened to the hapless survivors of the Midianite genocide was not the same thing. Arranged marriages are brokered with the bride's family, during which some kind of compensation for her family is negotiated, at the end of which an agreement is arrived at and the family gives its consent. How was the "arranged marriages" of the Midianite girls negotiated? And with whom? After all, their entire families had been slaughtered. There was no family left to give their consent. No consent, abduction by force and captivity. Calling that a marriage befitting the custom of arranged marriage is just a sick joke.

But, now we also see you arguing ardantly that different moral systems are in operation at different times and in different societies. You are arguing for morality being relative. How, by any stretch of the imagination, could you think that you're actually arguing for absolute morality here?

dwise1 writes:

As I have stated, you are amoral. You have abrogated your moral reasoning to your sectarian misinterpretation of the particular parts of Scripture that you have selectively chosen to use.

So I have no moral capacity because I define right and wrong based on what God says?

Insomuch as that causes you to neglect to employ moral reasoning, then, yes, that is correct. It's like doing mathematical calculations in your head; if you don't use it, you lose it. Furthermore, insomuch as that has you tossing out morality in favor of dogma and whatever new doctrine your church has cooked up this week, then of course that would lead you to amorality.

And yet, you hold that morality is determined by society and upbringing. You are trading one god for another.

No, no gods are involved. And, yes, morality is developed collectively within a society, not by individual whim as you have suggested in your new topic.

What makes society a better base for morality than God? Look at all the societies that have existed. All of them had there own definition of morality. Some of them were similiar to ours; some of them were radically different. How can you say that rape is wrong in all circumstances and then hold something as fickle as society to be your basis for morality?

Yes, by George! He's got it! Morality exists in every society and is most often different in various ways in each society. Morality is relative, not absolute ... but then you keep arguing for that anyway.

And, yes, our condemning rape is indeed our projecting our own morality onto a different society, judging by our standards instead of by theirs ... but you wouldn't be familiar with that practice, now would you?

However, even though most moral codes do differ from each other in many details and attitudes, there are a number constants that keep cropping up. After all, they all concern themselves with groups of humans having to live together and to get along with each other and to function as a society; that is after all why morality even exists. They will all need to address common issues; it's just how they address those issues that they will differ.

As I stated earlier, if there is no such thing as an infinite and all-knowing being to define morality, there must be a finite and fallible being to to take its place. Do you agree?

No, I do not agree, because it's a ridiculous claim.

First of all, morality exists. Even if your "infinite and all-knowing being" doesn't exist, morality does still exist. You are constructing a ridiculous and contrived false dilemma here.

Second, there's certainly no need to place an individual person into a role replacing God, especially not when it comes to morality. Only your God could be expected to get away with make all those arbitrary rules, but not human could. Instead, morality develops by social consensus over many generations, such that the parts that work are kept and the parts that don't work are dropped or modified until they do finally work.

Now, it is true that many societies have also constructed mythologies to explain where their moral code came from. The Code of Hammurabi was attributed Bel and Anu. And the Jews attributed their Torah to Moses and YHWH. That's right, your "absolute morality" is just the relative morality of an ancient, foreign society.

Which is why it's so important to develop moral reasoning instead of just following arbitrary rules from an ancient, foreign society. Thinking those rules through. Trying to understand why they were needed at that ancient time. Thinking about how they fit into our own society. Thinking about the consequences of following those rules. Thinking about how our actions affect ourselves and others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Holyfire23, posted 09-07-2009 2:30 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 8:04 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 134 of 161 (523034)
09-07-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by dwise1
09-07-2009 7:43 PM


Sniping hidden - Bad behaviour!
Oh? So the infants and small children who were slaughtered had participated in sexual immorality? Who would'a thunk that?

Those damn whorebabies. Will those little rascals ever learn?

{Irrelevant sniping hidden - Behave yourself - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by dwise1, posted 09-07-2009 7:43 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 161 (523041)
09-07-2009 10:35 PM


Can you, in your own words, define what God's law is?
Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2009 1:18 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 137 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2009 7:16 AM Holyfire23 has responded

  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019