Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 12:42 AM
217 online now:
DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, PaulK (3 members, 214 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Biblical atrocities... ????
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 65 (28456)
01-05-2003 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by doctrbill
01-05-2003 6:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
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


Doctrbill,
Thanks for responding.

First off, I have no ax to grind. I am simply offerring a perspective on an often troubling passage. I apologize if my input has caused you or anyone offense, or leads them to feel defensive. That was not my intent.

Second, if I were attempting to mislead anyone I would not have cited my source for the definition possibilities of fulfil/fulfill. It is somewhat disappointing that you, or anyone else, would decide to read the post that way.

Third, I never said that "THE" primary definition was anything; I said "A" primary definition was: to satisfy. This usage actually makes the most sense in the orthodox reading of the verse, anyway, as Christ's life was to satisfy the Law (to allow for redemptive sacrifice) and the prophets (to establish His place as the Messiah). The Law obviously could be "carried out" in many ways, such as by a judge, etc., but satisfied in only one way, and in one person.

Fourth, "sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter.

You may not agree with my take on the subject. I accept that many will not. But please try and consider the offering in the spirit in which it's given.

Thanks,
-Shiloh

[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 01-05-2003 6:13 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by doctrbill, posted 01-08-2003 1:07 AM shilohproject has responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 65 (28459)
01-05-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by doctrbill
01-05-2003 6:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill:
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


Doctrbill,
If the discussion concerned application of the Law in occupied Israel/Palestine, then I would see the value of this contribution. As it is, though, it is not relevant at all:

1. The passage deals with adultery, not rape or the other free v. slave questions you bring up;

2. The very people bringing the accused were the lawyers of their day, so it is reasonable to assume that they had a finer handle on the appropriateness of the charge than either you or I might today;

3. I did not suggest that Jesus had "jurisdiction" or any thing like it, rather that he should have supported the Mosaic/Levitical punishment for adultery;

4. Jesus is not quoted as having said either "God's Law over man's law! Damn the Roman oppressers!" or "Well, yes, the Law does say that, but, uh, there are these Romans, see, and if I stand up for God's Law then you'll tell the authorities and I'll get in trouble." (He is famous for not denying God in order to avoid conflict!)So the question of jurisdiction does not appear to be a part of the consideration of principle players. Neither should it be for us in determining the lesson in the story;

5. You raise several possible defenses which Jesus did not feel compelled to raise, so they seem even more of a non-issue in the matter.

Having said all this, your response posts really miss the central point I am making. Jesus was not in line with the Judaism of the OT as expressed by the Pharasee/scribe cabal which was entrusted (or self-commissioned!) to protect and enforce the very Law which defines that Judaism.

Thanks for you feedback,
-Shiloh

[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]

[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-05-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by doctrbill, posted 01-05-2003 6:32 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 65 (28467)
01-06-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Karl
12-30-2002 6:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Karl:
The problem with the "God defines what's good and evil and so anything He does is by definition good" argument is that it means that religious genocide is not wrong, because God does it.

So. Would a military campaign, wiping out the muslim population of the middle east and replacing them with Christian settlers, be justified? If not, why not? God did it.

Insistence on reading accounts written by people whose conception of God was extremely primitive and above all tribal as literal accounts of the nature of God is a sure-fire way of getting the wrong end of the stick. It is exactly what Jesus' disciples did - "Master! Shall we call down fire on them like Elijah did?". I note Jesus' response was "You do not no what kind of Spirit you belong to". The understanding of God evolved through the OT - it was written over hundreds of years. These atrocities are part of an early tribal conception of God and give a totally disordered picture of Him taken literally and in isolation. To put it bluntly, I, and many other Christians, do not believe that God ordered the genocides recorded in the OT.


And so I am not totally alone in this? It is somewhat comforting.

"Christians" should not all be painted with the same broad brush. Many of us are capable of abstract thought.
-Shiloh

[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 01-06-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Karl, posted 12-30-2002 6:26 AM Karl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-06-2003 2:14 AM shilohproject has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 65 (28469)
01-06-2003 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by shilohproject
01-06-2003 1:13 AM


I can agree with you guys here, that the Israelites did not understand the nature of God. God seems to be slowly revealing himself over time, up until the point where he had given them enough to know that no matter what they did they could not live up to God's holiness.

Then he sent Jesus to show us his grace and mercy.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by shilohproject, posted 01-06-2003 1:13 AM shilohproject has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-06-2003 10:46 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 65 (28493)
01-06-2003 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky
01-06-2003 2:14 AM


From Funkmasterfreaky:
quote:
I can agree with you guys here, that the Israelites did not understand the nature of God. God seems to be slowly revealing himself over time, up until the point where he had given them enough to know that no matter what they did they could not live up to God's holiness.

Then what purpose did the flood serve for then? Why kill the first born in Egypt to punish those children for their parent's sins? The more things are explained in this fashion, ie, "God's ways are not our ways", "God is mysterious so we should worship Him", and the like, I find it even harder to accept your God.

Can you then say that God was wrong? No? Even God himself regretted His actions in the flood, seriously underminding any claims that He is omnipotent.

quote:
Then he sent Jesus to show us his grace and mercy.

Okay, if the Isrealites were not much better than many of their contemporaries, why did God even bother with them? It would seem God would have been able to trach a more advanced society, the Greeks, the Persians, even the Chinese all of whom were more civilized? The Chinese should have been the first choice!

I know, God works in mysterious ways and His ways are not our ways which is fine as I don't kill my children.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-06-2003 2:14 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by shilohproject, posted 01-07-2003 3:03 AM Mr. Davies has not yet responded
 Message 65 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 2:41 AM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
NeoPagan
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 65 (28517)
01-06-2003 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mr. Davies
12-19-2002 12:41 PM


I totally agree. Christians are always saying that because Christ died & took our punishment, the price was paid "in full." How could it be paid in full, if our sentence was supposedly an "eternity" in hell? Jesus spends three days there & then gets whisked back to the comforts of heaven. Big deal! Anyone can suffer anything for a little while if they know they're going back to heaven shortly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-19-2002 12:41 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Karl, posted 01-07-2003 2:50 AM NeoPagan has not yet responded
 Message 57 by gene90, posted 01-09-2003 6:55 PM NeoPagan has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 65 (28565)
01-07-2003 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by NeoPagan
01-06-2003 4:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NeoPagan:
I totally agree. Christians are always saying that because Christ died & took our punishment, the price was paid "in full." How could it be paid in full, if our sentence was supposedly an "eternity" in hell? Jesus spends three days there & then gets whisked back to the comforts of heaven. Big deal! Anyone can suffer anything for a little while if they know they're going back to heaven shortly.

I have used this line of reasoning to defend my rejection of Hell as eternal torment.

Having said that, the Christ "took our punishment" model is only one and it is just that - a model. It is a mistake IMO to speak of it as an absolute and objective truth.

My take: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/believe.htm

Mr Davies - the slaying of the firstborn, as a deliberate act of God to free the Israelites is not something I believe in. It is a reflection of the tribal understanding of God at the time the books were written. I am agnostic about the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan - I note that Hebrew is most closely related to Canaanite - if the Genesis and Exodus accounts were historical I would expect it to be more closely related to Babylonian and to have a considerable number of loan words from Egyptian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NeoPagan, posted 01-06-2003 4:34 PM NeoPagan has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 65 (28566)
01-07-2003 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Mr. Davies
01-06-2003 10:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
From Funkmasterfreaky:
quote:
I can agree with you guys here, that the Israelites did not understand the nature of God. God seems to be slowly revealing himself over time, up until the point where he had given them enough to know that no matter what they did they could not live up to God's holiness.

Then what purpose did the flood serve for then? Why kill the first born in Egypt to punish those children for their parent's sins? The more things are explained in this fashion, ie, "God's ways are not our ways", "God is mysterious so we should worship Him", and the like, I find it even harder to accept your God.

Can you then say that God was wrong? No? Even God himself regretted His actions in the flood, seriously underminding any claims that He is omnipotent.

quote:
Then he sent Jesus to show us his grace and mercy.

Okay, if the Isrealites were not much better than many of their contemporaries, why did God even bother with them? It would seem God would have been able to trach a more advanced society, the Greeks, the Persians, even the Chinese all of whom were more civilized? The Chinese should have been the first choice!

I know, God works in mysterious ways and His ways are not our ways which is fine as I don't kill my children.


History is the lie agreed upon by the winners,
-Shiloh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-06-2003 10:46 AM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 54 of 65 (28624)
01-08-2003 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by shilohproject
01-05-2003 7:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by shilohproject:
A primary difinition of fulfill is "to satisfy." Another is "to bring to an end." (Webster's, 2nd College Edition)

quote:
Originally posted by doctrbill: These definitions are not primary! -They are not even secondary!! - They are Tertiary!!! - and Quarternary!!!!

quote:
Shilohproject -
I never said that "THE" primary definition was anything; I said "A" primary definition was: to satisfy. ...

The definitions you selected are not primary. Look up the word primary.

quote:
"sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter.

(sic) means - Spelling Incorrect. That is all it means.

You spend a lot of time in mental gymnastics. Try spending more time with your dictionary.

BTW, despite your protest, you do have an axe to grind. I hope you will come to see what it is.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by shilohproject, posted 01-05-2003 7:01 PM shilohproject has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by shilohproject, posted 01-09-2003 12:53 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 65 (28747)
01-09-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by doctrbill
01-08-2003 1:07 AM


Originally posted by Shilohproject:
[B][QUOTE]

quote:
"sic" does not mean that something is in error, rather that a quote which may APPEAR in error, or questionable, has been precisely reproduced. Most people make the mistake of assuming it only applies to error, but your dictionary ought to confirm my usage in this matter.

Originall posted by Doctrbill:

(sic) means - Spelling Incorrect. That is all it means.

You spend a lot of time in mental gymnastics. Try spending more time with your dictionary.

BTW, despite your protest, you do have an axe to grind. I hope you will come to see what it is.

db[/B][/QUOTE]

----------------------------------------------------------------
Doctrbill,

I'm at a bit of a loss to know how to respond to your last post. It seems arguementative and petty, hardly in the spirit of reasonable debate.

I have already bothered to explain the earlier usage possibilities of "fulfill," and why they should be considered. Same is true for the use of the word "sic." I'm sorry that your definition/dictionary is incomplete, but that is sadly an unavoidable fact. If you don't like Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd College Edition, you may check out American Heritage Dictionary online.(It is ironic, however, that you are completely comfortable using the secondary spelling of "ax" while trying to correct someone on the proper use of vocabulary, all the while missing or avoiding the point of the post.)

As to any ax to grind, I don't have one at all, but am interested in what you might think is there. Curious.

You can email me your address at shilohproject@hotmail.com and I'll be happy to mail you a more comprehensive dictionary.

Thanks,
-Shiloh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by doctrbill, posted 01-08-2003 1:07 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 56 of 65 (28761)
01-09-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mr. Davies
01-03-2003 6:30 PM


quote:
Why would God need to kill anyone?

To preserve Israel. Or perchance even to save the "victim" from something worse that might happen to him down the line.

quote:
No. He just slaughtered them.

How do you know? Do you hold the Bible as inerrant and containing every single relevant piece of information about the dealings of God? If you do, you're more Fundy than me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-03-2003 6:30 PM Mr. Davies has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-09-2003 10:32 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 57 of 65 (28762)
01-09-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NeoPagan
01-06-2003 4:34 PM


quote:
How could it be paid in full, if our sentence was supposedly an "eternity" in hell?

If Jesus were "infinitely" just then it would be payed in full.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NeoPagan, posted 01-06-2003 4:34 PM NeoPagan has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 58 of 65 (28763)
01-09-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mr. Davies
01-03-2003 6:42 PM


quote:
Them Leviticus did not get his laws from God?

I did not say that. I suggested that the laws of God could be superceded by other laws. Especially Mosaic law.

It would be nice if you did not deliberately misrepresent me in the future.

quote:
Still, God, the Omnipotent One, let it (slavery) go on for so long.

You're ignoring my past point about the possibility of God gradually reforming the Israelite society over time, rather than in one jump. Please stay with the issues.

quote:
What does that mean?

It means that the OT limitations on taking captives to wife is irrelevant if it breaks another law ("love thy neighbor") to force one to marry in the first place.

quote:
Wait, they were God's chosen and instead of allowing another tribe to become His chosen, he stuck with them?

Because it was promised. I believe it is in Isaiah (I may be mistaken) where it is said that Israel was written upon God's hand.

quote:
unless of course that's another part of what men said and not really what God wanted.

That could be a possibility.

quote:
The prohibition on slavery, rape, etc., should have been direct with punishments of death for those who defied God's law.

And if the people were not ready for that, and they rebelled, and all had to be killed?

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

Changing a law is not the same as changing one's mind. Say if a chronic wasting disease outbreak occurs and all the game is destroyed under an edict of law. The outbreak subsides and the law is repealed. Who changed their mind?

Now, for my own edification, why don't you hand over those Biblical references?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mr. Davies, posted 01-03-2003 6:42 PM Mr. Davies has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 59 of 65 (28764)
01-09-2003 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John
01-04-2003 12:15 AM


quote:
How many slaughtered pagans do you think get that deal? How many slaughtered believers, for that matter, get that deal?

How many pagans and believers are worthy of that deal?

quote:
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's nice. Would you be willing to take upon yourself every human frailty, suffering, and weakness that ever was felt or will be felt by future generations? Forgive me if I don't believe you'd make it past the first day of the Holocaust before giving in.

Even if you did make it even that far (and that would be amazing) you haven't lived a sinless life therefore you are incapable of making that kind of sacrifice because (as I recall) you are not sinless and you are not infinitely just and I seriously doubt that you are a Son of God in the flesh.

And by the way, who was it that said that Jesus "became God" after he was crucified?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John, posted 01-04-2003 12:15 AM John has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 60 of 65 (28765)
01-09-2003 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
01-04-2003 12:54 AM


quote:
Interesting that a law can be 'usurped' but still not 'repealed.'

I'm not necessarily saying that a law cannot be repealed. I'm waiting (with interest) for the references that say every law is eternal. I am however pointing out other possibilities even if that is correct.

quote:
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.

How was God part of making the mess? Through inaction? That would be a violation of free will now wouldn't it? And even if God stepped in would people have listened? Or would they all have disobeyed? (And therefore been removed even further from God?)

quote:
God did a lot of talking in the OT.

That He did. But how much listening was done in the OT? As soon as Moses walked up the mountain they were making golden calves. The fact is that they could barely follow the basic laws they got. They would have had no hope at following modern laws because their society was not ready for them.

Now John, tell me. If everybody gets resurrected what's wrong with God occasionally killing people? Especially when it is necessary for some future good?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 01-04-2003 12:54 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by doctrbill, posted 01-09-2003 10:20 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019