Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 8:26 AM
156 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, JonF, Percy (Admin), ProtoTypical, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 149 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,561 Year: 2,598/19,786 Month: 680/1,918 Week: 268/266 Day: 5/35 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Biblical atrocities... ????
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 65 (28113)
12-30-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kolyahu
12-30-2002 9:56 AM


(this is in response to Kolyahu in post #30)

I have no idea why you posted what you did.

If you're trying to justify the actions that has been attributed to God or his chosen with the errors that our glorious leader is doing today, well God's a god and Bush, well, I'm not impressed.

So, why did God allow slavery when He had made it loud and clear about what would happen if people committed other sins that God seemed to be more concerned with?

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

[This message has been edited by Mr. Davies, 12-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kolyahu, posted 12-30-2002 9:56 AM Kolyahu has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 32 of 65 (28264)
01-01-2003 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
12-19-2002 1:37 PM


quote:
I know what you mean. When you know you are going to come back, death kinda loses it kick.

Then why is it wrong for God to kill anyone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 12-19-2002 1:37 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-03-2003 6:30 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 38 by John, posted 01-04-2003 12:15 AM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 33 of 65 (28265)
01-01-2003 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
12-19-2002 1:37 PM


Duplicate.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 12-19-2002 1:37 PM John has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 34 of 65 (28266)
01-01-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
12-19-2002 10:59 AM


quote:
So your argument is that kidnapping, rape, slaughter, and slaving is OK because of the time in which they lived? Well, funk, if God's law is eternal, that makes it ok now too doesn't it?

We had this discussion already. It was about mixed fiber clothing and Levitical law. Do you remember? You know, higher law usurping Levitical law. That whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" kind of usurps the OT laws about enslavement, rape, and killing now doesn't it? It doesn't *necessarily* mean a law was repealed.

I see these as limitations aimed at incrementally improving the Israelites' rather sad history of human rights. If God gave Moses the US Bill of Rights and Constitution as it is today, do you think the Israelites would have been able to live it? No, they couldn't even keep to worshipping one God.

By the way, I want to see your Scriptural references to these OT laws being eternal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 12-19-2002 10:59 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-03-2003 6:42 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 39 by John, posted 01-04-2003 12:54 AM gene90 has responded

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 65 (28378)
01-03-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:07 PM


Why would God need to kill anyone? If God kills somebody, then it shows that God, the Omnipotent, Allpowerful, Omnipresent being that He is can't find a better way to handle one of His children?

From what I've seen, God has allowed people to be killed by his chosen for whatever reason, kill the first born as punishment with plagues and curses, or just drown them.

Question: Did God ever go to those that were about to be slaughtered and said, "Hey look here, you're making Me mad and I'd like to show you better ways to do your work, without hurting others! Oh, yeah and if you're going to worship something else that you think will help you, well, here's what I am doing for you, so if you want to worship somebody, worship Me as I AM the real deal."

Answer: No. He just slaughtered them.

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:07 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shilohproject, posted 01-03-2003 7:09 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded
 Message 56 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 6:54 PM Mr. Davies has responded

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 65 (28380)
01-03-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:18 PM


quote:
We had this discussion already. It was about mixed fiber clothing and Levitical law. Do you remember? You know, higher law usurping Levitical law.

Them Leviticus did not get his laws from God? These were not inspired laws but Laws of Men? What else in the Bible could be man made and not inspired by God?

quote:
That whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" kind of usurps the OT laws about enslavement, rape, and killing now doesn't it?

Slaves were not considered to be people or your neighbor. Still, God, the Omnipotent One, let it go on for so long.

quote:
It doesn't *necessarily* mean a law was repealed.

What does that mean?

quote:
I see these as limitations aimed at incrementally improving the Israelites' rather sad history of human rights.

Wait, they were God's chosen and instead of allowing another tribe to become His chosen, he stuck with them? What made them so special? Also, it was God that let them have the virgin concubines, unless of course that's another part of what men said and not really what God wanted.

quote:
If God gave Moses the US Bill of Rights and Constitution as it is today, do you think the Israelites would have been able to live it? No, they couldn't even keep to worshipping one God.

Nice stretch. They did not need either. The prohibition on slavery, rape, etc., should have been direct with punishments of death for those who defied God's law. After all, what's wrong with God killing anybody right?

quote:
By the way, I want to see your Scriptural references to these OT laws being eternal.

God, the Immortal One, the One Who Is, the Omniscient One, changes his mind?

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:18 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 7:11 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 65 (28381)
01-03-2003 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mr. Davies
01-03-2003 6:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
Why would God need to kill anyone? If God kills somebody, then it shows that God, the Omnipotent, Allpowerful, Omnipresent being that He is can't find a better way to handle one of His children?

From what I've seen, God has allowed people to be killed by his chosen for whatever reason, kill the first born as punishment with plagues and curses, or just drown them.

Question: Did God ever go to those that were about to be slaughtered and said, "Hey look here, you're making Me mad and I'd like to show you better ways to do your work, without hurting others! Oh, yeah and if you're going to worship something else that you think will help you, well, here's what I am doing for you, so if you want to worship somebody, worship Me as I AM the real deal."

Answer: No. He just slaughtered them.



_______________________________________________________________

Mr. Davies,
There are actually several Biblical examples of just what you're asking about. Check out the OT book of Jonah. (It's not just about that Vacation Bible School whale!)

Your point does, however, bring up another interesting observation: the acts of forgiveness I am aware of were episodes which did not involve the arms of men to impliment. This brings us to several questions:
1. Did the historians simply use the name of God to justify their campaigns? (Winners do most of the post-war writing, especially compared to the dead.)
2. Were the vanquished vilified to justify an otherwise unnecessary slaughter?
3. Some would argue that there is no God, so "of course He couldn't dole out punishment without the hand of man to execute it."
4. How might we, today, twist the nature of God around in order to fit within our personal plans?

Just some thoughts,
-Shiloh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-03-2003 6:30 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 65 (28389)
01-04-2003 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
I know what you mean. When you know you are going to come back, death kinda loses it kick.

Then why is it wrong for God to kill anyone?


Kinda missed that we were talking about Jesus didn't yah? Christ dies and then gets to be God. How many slaughtered pagans do you think get that deal? How many slaughtered believers, for that matter, get that deal?

Lets put it in perspective Gene. If I knew for certain that I'd be walking three days later, I'd be quite happy to jump in front of a train, especially if I knew that it was to save the rest of humanity from a horrible fate. That isn't much of a sacrifice really. That is the point at issue back in post #8, as far as this comment goes.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 01-04-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:07 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 7:20 PM John has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 65 (28391)
01-04-2003 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We had this discussion already. It was about mixed fiber clothing and Levitical law. Do you remember? You know, higher law usurping Levitical law. That whole "Love thy neighbor as thyself" kind of usurps the OT laws about enslavement, rape, and killing now doesn't it? It doesn't *necessarily* mean a law was repealed.

Interesting that a law can be 'usurped' but still not 'repealed.' God sounds a bit schizophrenic.

quote:
I see these as limitations aimed at incrementally improving the Israelites' rather sad history of human rights.

Right. If I am not mistaken, God was in charge from Day one. God makes the world and people and is advising from Adam right on down the line. This just doesn't make sense. You seem to imply that God just stepped in to fix the mess, when in fact he was part and parcel to making the mess. Just read the OT. God did a lot of talking in the OT.

quote:
If God gave Moses the US Bill of Rights and Constitution as it is today, do you think the Israelites would have been able to live it? No, they couldn't even keep to worshipping one God.

Why not? The Bill of Rights and Constitution are icons of simplicity compared to Leviticus. What is so complicated that people couldn't follow it? People may not have thought of it, but what is so difficult to follow? Nothing. Especially when the might of almighty God is enforcing the laws.

quote:
By the way, I want to see your Scriptural references to these OT laws being eternal.

There is no indication that they were intended otherwise, until a disgruntled sect decided to rewrite things.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:18 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-04-2003 3:28 AM John has responded
 Message 60 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 7:27 PM John has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 65 (28396)
01-04-2003 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
01-04-2003 12:54 AM


The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 01-04-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 01-04-2003 12:54 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 4:18 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded
 Message 42 by John, posted 01-04-2003 11:49 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 65 (28397)
01-04-2003 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky
01-04-2003 3:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.


Funky,
This is a point well taken, one which is often overlooked.

Far too often people over generalize and universally apply Biblical passages which were quite simply not intended to apply to their situation at all. We see this in many areas; it seems to me that this mistake leads to a lot of the ridicule that we "believers" bring on ourselves. It simply does not pass the reasonableness test.

It is roughly analogous to my telling my older son that he can stay out till 10 p.m., and then my 3 y.o. deciding that she too must be able to do the same. Silly, but we see it all the time.

-Shiloh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-04-2003 3:28 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 65 (28406)
01-04-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky
01-04-2003 3:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.


Then, as I have asked before, why not ditch the OT?

The tricky bit, as shilo points out, is that Christians very selectively apply the various laws. This practice makes a farce of the whole Bible.

Of course, the farce is necessary since Christ states that not one jot or tiddle shall pass from the law. It makes a very strange marriage

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-04-2003 3:28 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 1:36 PM John has responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 65 (28446)
01-05-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
01-04-2003 11:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
The law was only given to the Israelites. For the the Israelites.


Then, as I have asked before, why not ditch the OT?

The tricky bit, as shilo points out, is that Christians very selectively apply the various laws. This practice makes a farce of the whole Bible.

Of course, the farce is necessary since Christ states that not one jot or tiddle shall pass from the law. It makes a very strange marriage


-----------------------------------------------------------
I have often thought that we fool ourselves when we speak of the so-called "Judeo-Christion" tradition. There is no such thing, except for that which we've created in order to justify certain inconsistant application of the OT, usually to rule over certain people or conduct deemed unsuitable by the majority.

Christianity is a competing belief system to Judeism, not a complimentary one.

One obvious example of this is the story about the woman caught in adultry: Jesus clearly violates Mosaic law by not supporting the death penalty in this case, as is pretty much laid out in the Law. Furthermore, even if He were invoking some new standard for enacting the sentence ("whoever is without sin cast the first stone..."), then He should, by Law, have picked up the first stone and thrown it. Obviously He didn't. In this instance, grace/forgiveness prevails over punishment/justice; this is a new thing brought to the region by a new speaker, speaking a new messege.

As to the jot-and-tittle thing, Jesus is quoted as having said that He came to "fulfil"(sic, KJV), not to "destroy." A primary difinition of fulfill is "to satisfy." Another is "to bring to an end." (Webster's, 2nd College Edition)

Another way to view this may be "out with the old, in with the new." If so, it would explain many of the obvious problems between the story of the OT and the gospel of the NT.

-Shiloh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 01-04-2003 11:49 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 01-05-2003 6:13 PM shilohproject has responded
 Message 45 by doctrbill, posted 01-05-2003 6:32 PM shilohproject has responded
 Message 63 by John, posted 01-11-2003 1:45 PM shilohproject has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 65 (28451)
01-05-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by shilohproject
01-05-2003 1:36 PM


Originally posted by shilohproject:
quote:
Jesus is quoted as having said that He came to "fulfil"(sic, KJV), not to "destroy." A primary difinition of fulfill is "to satisfy." Another is "to bring to an end." (Webster's, 2nd College Edition)

I hope you were quoting someone else here. Have you looked this up for yourself?

These definitions are not primary! -They are not even secondary!!
- They are Tertiary!!! - and Quarternary!!!!

You wouldn't purposely mislead your readers in order to grind that axe - would you?

a. - "fulfil" is not an incorrect spelling, it's an archaic one.

b. - You have quoted what my Thorndike Barnhart advanced dictionary gives as the 3rd and 4th usages of fulfill.

The first usage is - carry out (a promise, prophecy, etc.) cause to happen or take place; accomplish; realize.

The second is - perform or do (a duty); obey (a command, law, etc.); execute; discharge.

Your choice of usage is questionable and calling them primary is just plain wrong, according to my dictionary.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 1:36 PM shilohproject has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 7:01 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 45 of 65 (28452)
01-05-2003 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by shilohproject
01-05-2003 1:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
... the story about the woman caught in adultry: Jesus clearly violates Mosaic law by not supporting the death penalty in this case,

Not necessarily. Questions remain: Is she a free woman or a slave? Was her partner free or slave? Did she consent or was she forced? Did she protest? Furthermore, the case was probably a tricky since it had been brought to entangle him.

At any rate, Jesus had no jurisdiction in the matter, nor did the men who brought him the case. Their courts were subject to Roman law, which was more civilized than the barbaric Assyrian-style code of the Hebrews.

Besides, Jewish courts were not allowed to judge capital crimes.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 1:36 PM shilohproject has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 9:40 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019