quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Secondly, I did not say that Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law. I did say that they do not keep all aspects of Mosaic law as it was kept by the ancient Israelites. Over the past few millenia, Rabbis have made some changes in interpretation. Most notably, even with the correct number of witnesses being present etc., stoning is no longer practiced.
The fact that the temple in Jerusalem doesn't currently exist has a lot to do with that. It's not possible for Jews today to carry out such a sentence because one of the required elements is missing. It's about more than the number of witnesses, I believe.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the Temple (in that case, although it is the issue in some of the earlier examples Pel-- er, PB gave) that is the issue. It's the lack of a real Sanhedrin.
Then again, even with a Sanhedrin, the law is deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it extremely rare that anyone was actually convicted of a capital crime.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If I jump on you, it'd be for using "starLisa". I have no problem at all with what you wrote. You didn't try making claims about what Jews believe or do, like Pelegius did.
Aren't you, though? I'm so confused all of a sudden...
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "Pelegius, you said that even Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law, and that's crap"
First of all, I am not Pelegius, I am PrometheusBound or ProBo or PB. Pelegius was, I believe, the name of a poster who posted here before I came. Using that name could only lead to confusion.
Whatever.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Secondly, I did not say that Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law. I did say that they do not keep all aspects of Mosaic law as it was kept by the ancient Israelites.
You wrote this:
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: No Jews, even the most Orthodox, follow the Law exactly either. Maybe the tiniest of fractions of them wish they could stone people for adultry, but I have never heard of this actualy hapening.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Over the past few millenia, Rabbis have made some changes in interpretation.
That's part of what I meant when I said you don't know what you're talking about.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Most notably, even with the correct number of witnesses being present etc., stoning is no longer practiced.
You don't know what the requirements are. Stoning is absolutely still the law. It simply can't be carried out when there's no Sanhedrin sitting in session on the Temple Mount.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "They aren't branches. They're breakaway movements."
I am pretty sure that a branch is a breakaway movement. The Western and Eastern Church broke away from eachother, Sunni and Shia broke away, Protestant and Catholic, Anglican and Methodist, Mennonite and Amish, Conservative and Reconstructionist.
Doesn't matter what you think. They aren't branches of Judaism. They're movements of Jews. There are a lot of Jews in the Democratic Party as well. That doesn't make it a branch of Judaism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for all your thoughtful responses everyone. I have to leave now, but look forward to replying when I get back home tonight.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's not the Temple (in that case, although it is the issue in some of the earlier examples Pel-- er, PB gave) that is the issue. It's the lack of a real Sanhedrin.
Then again, even with a Sanhedrin, the law is deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it extremely rare that anyone was actually convicted of a capital crime.
Ah. Thanks for the correction, rivka. Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the whole "PrometheusBound" thing is kind of cute. It so suits his self image as one who comes to bring his knowledge to us, and is punished for his largesse. Heh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel so stupid. All this time I've been reading "PrometheusBound" as some sort of weird statement of destination, like the movie "Homeward Bound." I couldn't figure out why anyone would make up a screen name like that. Now I get it.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:parents doesn't change the system of morality they teach their kids as they grow older; they adjust their methods of getting the message across.
Yeah, parents do. My youngest isn't allowed to drink soda; my oldest is. (8 vs 20 months). My eight year old isn't allowed to date; when she gets old enough, she will be. We don't allow our son to take baths with the girls; but we do give the youngest girl and the youngest boy baths together.
Even further than those general rules, each child has individualized rules, meant to direct the child toward becoming better at their own individual weaknesses.
I don't consider that a change in the system of morality. They are the different rules (with appropriate conditionals) that are prescribed by Mormonism and your own moral precepts.
If mosaic law and the doctrine of grace are two facets of the same moral system, their basic moral imperatives must be consistent, or consistent with some higher principle (unless, say, mosaic law was a temporary 'necessary evil' in the eyes of god; which I think most Christians would consider a specious claim). And I can't say they are consistent. Mosaic law is not about forgiveness and love, which the doctrine of grace is more or less about; it's more focused on obedience to god. Obedience because god is the all-powerful creator and demands compliance.
One could not say for example, 'I will follow Yahweh because his law is moral' if the basis of the morality of his law is simply 'because Yahweh decrees it.'
kmbboots,
quote:If you only want to discuss this with Scott, then I'll let the two of you have at it after saying this:
Well no, I'm more than happy to discuss this with you too. I just don't want my questions to appear out of context. I wouldn't have put the query to you the way I did, knowing that your views on Christianity differ from Scott's.
quote:Christianity is not a closed system. Mortal human beings amend our understanding of Christianity all the time. And while Mosaic Law is undeniably significant, Christianity doesn't hinge on it and it certainly doesn't hinge on whether humanity's understanding of that morality has always been perfect.
Depending on what you're referring to when you say "Christianity", I think you're partly right and partly wrong.
Undeniably, the doctrine of Christian churches have changed over time. Catholicism adds new 'truths' to doctrine through the authority of the pope, the bible is constantly reinterpreted by all Christians, sometimes on better grounds than others.
But the moral code and history provided in the bible is not open to change. It states how the universe came into being, how god interacted with mankind in its early years, and what is moral and what isn't; based on god's command. There are no grounds other than scientific implausibility to interpret parts of the bible as metaphor and others literally. Reinterpretations are possible, but unless they claim to be a more accurate reflection of the will of god as recorded in the bible (or through some other method, like revelation), they fatally undermine the premise of Christianity; the divine nature of its morality.
One can't cherry pick from the bible. Yet every religious moderate does.
Nowhere did I say that Christianity hinges on mosaic law. I said that it hinges on the fact that the system of morality is espouses is god-given. Anyone who changes Christian doctrine but wishes to cling to that premise (and the cultural authority it carries) is obliged to show that their interpretation is a more accurate reflection of the will of god. And there is only so much wiggle room for the reinterpretation of the bible.
IIRC you see Genesis as a metaphor for the big bang. But presumably Jesus was literally the son of god and literally died for our sins. How about the plagues and venomous snakes god unleashed upon the Israelites? Or the giants? Are they metaphor? Was Moses joking when he told the Israelites to kill the male Midianite children and women who had lost their virginity, and to keep the virgins for their own pleasure?
Barabba,
quote:I tried to explain this in my own words, but after reading through Romans, I couldn't put it better myself. I hope you take the time to read through it. I cut and paste parts pertaining to the "Law" and why although we are no longer slaves to it, we still abide by them.
I did read through them, and thanks for taking the time to pick them out. But what's with the tongue-extending emoticons? There are 8 of them; IIRC, the maximum number allowed in a post.
quote:3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (The law makes all of humanity accountable.)
This is one of the more ambiguous passages in the bible. The law defines (or elucidates) what is sin, and proscribes sin (which applies to all humanity); yet, the law does not actually apply to non-Israelites. (?)
quote:7:1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
Okay, not sure how that was relevant to my point on the inconsistency of morals between mosaic law and the doctrine of grace.
quote:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (This explains why a Christian's salvation does not pertain to the stringent rule of having to live life according to every letter of the law.)
While I have trouble understanding what it means to "die to the law through the body of Christ" and how that is evidence that a new way of serving god is made possible without the obligation of following the law as it was, I've already conceded that the bible says mosaic law doesn't apply to all Christians. Though there are some bible passages that are ambiguous on that point also.
quote:6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Through the grace of God we are saved.)
But doesn't the law elucidate what is sin? Is what was sinful according to the law still sinful "under grace"?
quote:7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
This to me is a sign of Paul's moral poverty.
quote:(Observing the law, and always being aware of the law is still important.)
Do you believe mosaic law should be observed, or not?
Lisa,
quote:I don't mean this belligerently, but could you explain why you think Mosaic law is cruel?
As Tom mentioned, one of the things that stands out is the frequent prescription for capital punishment.
quote:It so suits his self image as one who comes to bring his knowledge to us, and is punished for his largesse.
I would have laid my suspicions to rest a while ago if it weren't for the symbolism of the name.
Occasional,
quote:Those with Law are judged by it, and those without Law are judged by what laws they know or have. Christ makes up the difference.
So, is United States law a qualified pseudo-substitute for mosaic law?
quote:where the written code was to regulate behavior, Christ's Grace allows us to change our very nature if we so live our lives.
Can you please expand on this part?
quote:In a way that means that if we sin, then we are not under Grace.
What is sin? Only what conflicts with Jesus' rather simplified doctrine of grace?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Was Moses joking when he told the Israelites to kill the male Midianite children and women who had lost their virginity, and to keep the virgins for their own pleasure?
quote:One can't cherry pick from the bible. Yet every religious moderate does.
It seems to me you conflate the term 'cherry-pick' with 'prioritize' entirely too often. There are only so many hours in a day, only so many things human beings can think about and really focus on for any given hour, day, week, month, or year.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if by "prioritise" you mean "ignore all the bad parts, even of the New Testament," then yes.
For example, do you believe that over-eaters will go to hell (1 Corinthians 11:27) along with the inhabitants of cities that didn't receive Jesus (which will get worse treatment than Sodom, according to Matthew 10:14-15), or that a Christian should not befriend or wed an atheist (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)? There's a lot more. Jesus said a lot of horrible things actually.
The fact that sprinkled throughout the books are broader imperatives like "charity edifieth" (1 Corinthians 8:1) doesn't excuse the above, in my opinion.
Assuming you've oggled a woman at least once in your life, you just haven't gotten around to removing your eye? (Matthew 5:29-30)
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well if by "prioritise" you mean "ignore all the bad parts, even of the New Testament," then yes.
No, that's not what I mean. Frankly if that's the spin you're putting on the discussion before I even began talking about it with you, well, I just stopped caring about this thread.
But in the spirit of your response to me, let me just heap scorn on the notion that everything in the New Testament should be taken literally. Equally on the notion that the speakers in it intended it to be so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
From my perspective there are two easily identifiable (though less easily articulated) disparities in how I am looking at this discussion.
One is the concept of "inspired" when it comes to the Bible. I think that Paul, for example, was inspired by God to write his letters. I think that they need to be carefully considered. I think that we need to understand what he was saying and to whom and under what circumstance. I also think that Paul was not God. He was not perfect. He was a human being who lived in a specific time and was part of a specific culture. And, like all of us, he sometimes got things wrong.
The same is true for Moses. Could be that if I understood the entire context of the story of the Midianites, the reason for it would become clear. Could be that the point of the story is about something else entirely, like obediance or not holding on to things that tempt you, and this would make sense to people for whom killing children and taking slaves was part of their normal culteral context. Could be Moses got it wrong.
The other big piece in this that I think is being overlooked in this discussion is that God is still working in the world. God didn't just leave us scripture and abandon us to figure it out. God the Holy Spirit is present in all of us and we continue to do God's work in the world. We, in one way of looking at it, are God in the world.
Of course, we get it wrong sometimes, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
About the emoticons, it just happen to be the one I picked randomly. I was using it as an easy way to separate my words from Romans. I'm new here, and I don't normally post on forums, so my knowledge on forum etiquite is poor. Please forgive.
I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing you did in your post. I'll just be copying and pasting.
Quote: This is one of the more ambiguous passages in the bible. The law defines (or elucidates) what is sin, and proscribes sin (which applies to all humanity); yet, the law does not actually apply to non-Israelites. (?)
-The law is essential because it identifies sin. Without it, how can God keep you accountable? The world is held accountable because no one will be able to say they did not hear of Jesus. His command to his disciples was to spread the gospel (including the Law) to the four coners of the earth. You don't have to accept him, but everyone will be given a chance to hear the "sales pitch"(I jest). Our technology (the internet) makes this more possible than ever before.
Quote: Okay, not sure how that was relevant to my point on the inconsistency of morals between mosaic law and the doctrine of grace.
While I have trouble understanding what it means to "die to the law through the body of Christ" and how that is evidence that a new way of serving god is made possible without the obligation of following the law as it was, I've already conceded that the bible says mosaic law doesn't apply to all Christians. Though there are some bible passages that are ambiguous on that point also.
-It refers to the fact that when you accept Jesus and are reborn. Your death to the old way (living by the law) frees you from the law. The law is holy in itself, but its only by product is the fact that you know when you sin. There was no salvation through the law, only the atonement of sin.
Quote: But doesn't the law elucidate what is sin? Is what was sinful according to the law still sinful "under grace"?
-It most certainly is, but Jesus expanded upon it. What he did was to emphasize our relationship with God through him, rather than through the law. Jesus gave us freedom by humanizing the law. Jesus broke some laws according to the Jewish elders of his time. For example, when he asked them that if they were to see someone in danger on the sabbath; did God intend for them to ignore the needy as long as they kept the law of resting on the sabbath. He called them hypocrites because if it was their donkey (property) in trouble, they would do whatever it took to save it.
Quote: Do you believe mosaic law should be observed, or not?
-Yes, but under the guidance provided by Jesus in the New Testament (NT).
Quote: What is sin? Only what conflicts with Jesus' rather simplified doctrine of grace?
-Here's the tricky part. Although it seems that living under grace is easier than under the law, in reality it is not. The law required only the minimum from a believer. If you check off on all these requirements you are good. The NT urges us to live like Jesus did; to love one another no matter what. To deny ourselves, and live according to his will. Jesus says you have to go beyond that. You have to love your enemy.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
How about the ten commandments? Do you believe that god gave those to Moses in writing as the bible says?
And Jesus? Being the son of god (and the father at the same time), can we trust his word to reflect god's, or could there be a discrepancy by virtue of Jesus being of the flesh?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Hmm... well, taking into account the fact that Paul emphasized missionary work; and in 1 Corinthians 7 stated that the unsanctified spouse is sanctified in the believing spouse...
I don't take this particular scripture to literally mean that believers are supposed to disassociate themselves with unbelievers. A comprehensive knowledge of Paul's writings (actually, my fairly rusty one) serves to temper some of the more outrageous things he says with understanding.
In this case, I think he's talking about members of the Church who are trying to lead the rest of the congregation into sin.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you need to keep in mind that some of us don't consider the Bible to be the Ultimate Source of God's Will.
Mormons have three other books of scripture, in addition to living prophets who tell members what it is God wants today.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Thanks Kate.
How about the ten commandments? Do you believe that god gave those to Moses in writing as the bible says?
And Jesus? Being the son of god (and the father at the same time), can we trust his word to reflect god's, or could there be a discrepancy by virtue of Jesus being of the flesh?
As for the ten commandments. I think that they are good commandments. They pretty much boil down to love God and love your neighbor. It doesn't really matter to me whether God wrote them with some giant Godlike finger (which I find unlikely, but what do I know?) or that God dictated them to Moses or that Moses was inspired to write them down or that the Moses or that the story of Moses bring actual tablets down from the mountain is a mythologized story of how the law came to the Israelites.
As for Jesus's words, what we are actually trusting is what various writers of the Gospels recorded as what Jesus said. Decades after the fact, gleaned from the stories His followers told about Him. And what Church "fathers" decided were the most reliable and accurate of the written-down versions centuries after the fact. I believe they are reliable, but I think this is an important distinction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:About the emoticons, it just happen to be the one I picked randomly. I was using it as an easy way to separate my words from Romans. I'm new here, and I don't normally post on forums, so my knowledge on forum etiquite is poor. Please forgive.
Oh, no worries.
quote:I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing you did in your post. I'll just be copying and pasting.
You can put anything in a blockquote by preceding it with "[ QUOTE ]" and appending "[ /QUOTE ]" at the end, except without the spacing within the square brackets.
quote:
quote:But doesn't the law elucidate what is sin? Is what was sinful according to the law still sinful "under grace"?
It most certainly is, but Jesus expanded upon it. What he did was to emphasize our relationship with God through him, rather than through the law. Jesus gave us freedom by humanizing the law. Jesus broke some laws according to the Jewish elders of his time. For example, when he asked them that if they were to see someone in danger on the sabbath; did God intend for them to ignore the needy as long as they kept the law of resting on the sabbath. He called them hypocrites because if it was their donkey (property) in trouble, they would do whatever it took to save it.
I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
quote:
quote: Do you believe mosaic law should be observed, or not?
Yes, but under the guidance provided by Jesus in the New Testament (NT).
Ah, okay. My above objection applies here as well I think.
quote:Here's the tricky part. Although it seems that living under grace is easier than under the law, in reality it is not. The law required only the minimum from a believer. If you check off on all these requirements you are good. The NT urges us to live like Jesus did; to love one another no matter what. To deny ourselves, and live according to his will. Jesus says you have to go beyond that. You have to love your enemy.
Again, this would make sense if the doctrine of grace was an expansion of the OT laws. I actually think it was intended to be, since Jesus maintains that the OT laws were moral and in his discourse he's often consistent with OT doctrine; but the often broad and benevolent statements he makes are usually taken to be the most important aspect of the doctrine of grace, but unfortunately conflict with so much else. Consider for example how often Jesus emphasises fear of god and fear of punishment or hell to motivate 'moral' behaviour.
Scott,
quote:Also, you need to keep in mind that some of us don't consider the Bible to be the Ultimate Source of God's Will.
Mormons have three other books of scripture, in addition to living prophets who tell members what it is God wants today.
Certainly. I know little about the Mormon scriptures though, and wanted to focus on Christianity in general.
Kate,
quote:I think that they are good commandments. They pretty much boil down to love God and love your neighbor. It doesn't really matter to me whether God wrote them with some giant Godlike finger (which I find unlikely, but what do I know?) or that God dictated them to Moses or that Moses was inspired to write them down or that the Moses or that the story of Moses bring actual tablets down from the mountain is a mythologized story of how the law came to the Israelites.
How about if they were invented by man? Would they still be good commandments, and would you care about their historical origin?
What criterion did you use to evaluate them as good?
quote:As for Jesus's words, what we are actually trusting is what various writers of the Gospels recorded as what Jesus said. Decades after the fact, gleaned from the stories His followers told about Him. And what Church "fathers" decided were the most reliable and accurate of the written-down versions centuries after the fact. I believe they are reliable, but I think this is an important distinction.
Yep, I recognise that distinction.
Is this the reason you don't follow certain bits of advice Jesus gives though, while you follow others?
[Sorry to pause the conversation at such a lively time (is it lunch time for most people, or before work/school?), I'll have to get some shut eye.]
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Was Moses joking when he told the Israelites to kill the male Midianite children and women who had lost their virginity, and to keep the virgins for their own pleasure?
Except that the "for their own pleasure" thing is an interpolation. They were taken as slaves. And yes, some of them were probably eventually married. But they weren't toys.
Nor was it a question of virginity. Women who'd been married or had played the harlot with the Israelites (which caused God to kill a lot of us) were treated no differently than their men.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
It goes back to the purpose of the Law, and the purpose of the Savior. The Law is there to condemn you, he is there to save you. Because of him, a sinner can be saved/redeemed. God took away from the Law the power to make the final decision.
quote: since Jesus maintains that the OT laws were moral and in his discourse he's often consistent with OT doctrine; but the often broad and benevolent statements he makes are usually taken to be the most important aspect of the doctrine of grace, but unfortunately conflict with so much else. Consider for example how often Jesus emphasises fear of god and fear of punishment or hell to motivate 'moral' behaviour.
I don't think it conflicts at all. In the OT fear of the Lord is a connerstone to knowing God. Fear is a sign of respect, as well as love.
Let me explain: When you love someone more than you love yourself "fear" of disappointing them becomes a factor of your thought process. I'll give you a real life example.
In my recent youth, I would drive my car as aggressively as possible. I would get comments from passangers such as, "Do you think you are a race car driver?" My mother would hate driving in the passenger seat because my driving would freak her out.
Now, with my baby in the car. I think more than twice before I would drive the same way. I fear for his safety. That fear is out of love. My love for him makes me drive like a grandmother. I beleive the same principle can apply to fearing God out of disappointing him. In fact, knowing that he loves us so much, I'm sure he prefers that fear as opposed to the fear of his power to condemn us to "H - E -double hockey sticks" (I jest).
I believe that we condemn ourselves to Hell. He just passes the judgement necessary to confirm our actions. He is the "Holy Judge" of all.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that the "for their own pleasure" thing is an interpolation. They were taken as slaves. And yes, some of them were probably eventually married. But they weren't toys.
Nor was it a question of virginity.
The scripture I linked seems to contradict your interpretation.
quote:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
If you're saying that Moses didn't really say, 'Keep the girl-virgins, the rest get the sword,' I'm open to learning how you support that.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He said what he said. The young girls were spared. The dividing factor was virginity, because that was proof that they hadn't had a part in the spiritual ambush the Midianites carried out.
So yes, it was a question of virginity, but not in the way you're implying. Not in the "70 virgins for everyone!" way.
My statement that it wasn't a question of virginity was addressing that, and it was inaccurate as I wrote it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: It does not state for what purpose the virginal women were kept. "Keep alive for yourselves" could mean ALOT of things.
1: Keep alive for yourselves as maid servants. 2: Keep alive for yourselves as adopted children 3: Keep alive for yourselves as slaves edit: 4: Keep alive for yourselves as future wives/concubines (Decided to add that as a possibility but IMO an unlikely one.)
Tom: Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
Do you even know the entire circumstance of the matter? That brief passage mentions several events that chronologically led up to the killing of these Canaanites. Do you know what "the matter of Peor" was all about? The subsequent plague? What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place? The very people who had influenced for evil the children of Israel?
Do you have a proposition for what the better response would be?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
quote:What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Do you really think it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a situation however implausible?
quote:What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?" [/QUOTE]
That's not a defense, its an observation of fact. The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order, we have no reason to assume it was for humane reasons or just because of sheer stiff-neckedness.
The OT is rife with passages where God via prophets severely chastises the Israelites because they won't do what God commands, and then turn to other God's when things get rough. Its rife with passages where God says in effect, "When have you obeyed and found me to be lacking?"
Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not? They didn't target this group of people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, they targeted their religion. If anything it should be called theocide, as they burned all their idols too. The rationale for killing the non virginal women was that they as a group invited Israelites to participate in their fertility rites, and this included having sex in the presence of idols.
Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
I can't pretend to know all the details of this situation, and I am not sure why you think you do. If you want to take what details you do know and say, "No way could this be fair, the God of the OT is evil." that's your business, but I disagree that it's impossible to justify His actions in this instance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While searching for something else, I came across this thread where I posted some of my veiws on the Hebrew Bible in 2003. Since I still stand by it, I link it here. You get the bonus of substantial posting by Ralphie, the amusing (in retrospect) scriptural discussion between Bob and I before we started dating, and the somewhat depressing realization that Squicky and kat's feelings about each other haven't changed much in 4 years.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And you're going to say that this wasn't evil because...?
They were a clear and present spiritual danger. Back then, spiritual issues were a little more clear cut. They entice some of our men into sinning, and God hit us with a plague.
These days, you don't get a plague for sinning like that, so there isn't as clear a connection. But at the time, they were danger that needed to be eliminated.
I see nothing evil at all about wiping them out. And something laudable about the fact that we spared those of them whom we could afford to spare.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also one of the times (see, I told y'all there were several) that I came into such a thread to agree with dkw. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
quote:What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
Since this was before we entered Canaan, the issue of Canaanites being left alive isn't relevant. But yes, when a spiritual danger is as immediately lethal as a physical one, it's not only okay, but correct, to eliminate it. In this case, we were specifically commanded to do so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Er... I didn't post that the Midianite girls were specifically kept to make concubines of them. That was Euripides.
Lisa misinterpreted my post as agreeing with Euripides' conclusions; I can kind of see why, as I didn't elaborate.
She's clarified what she meant. So I'm good to go.
My apologies. I assumed you meant the same thing Euripides did.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
Because, seriously, dude, I have no problem holding the God of all Creation to a higher moral standard than primitive desert tribes.
quote:I see nothing evil at all about wiping them out.
I know. That disappoints me. I'm even more disappointed in your god.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see nothing evil at all about wiping them out.
I know. That disappoints me. I'm even more disappointed in your god.
I'd have to agree. For reference, I'm going to add the following exchange from a thread that was closed for a different reason. Never Forget
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
I'm consistent, you see. Now, you can say that God told the Inquisition to burn Jews alive. If you do that, then I say it's a lie, or that any religious claim that God commanded any such thing is blasphemy.
Wow. This is bizarre. So, hypothetically, if the Holocaust *was* ordered by God, there would be nothing wrong with it? To reiterate, genocide is not inherently bad, just genocide not-sanctioned by God?
With apologies to Dag, perhaps another comparison to children is in order link :
quote: "Tamarin [an Israeli psychologist] presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua: Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and assess, with the edge of the sword...And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted righty or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent gave total dissaproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:
In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.
In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.
Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth." (pp 255-256)
Continuing on a little further:
"Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it." (p 257)
quote:Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
I can't pretend to know all the details of this situation, and I am not sure why you think you do. If you want to take what details you do know and say, "No way could this be fair, the God of the OT is evil." that's your business, but I disagree that it's impossible to justify His actions in this instance.
I suppose for myself, it is that there's so much that has to be justified. When there are hundreds, if not thousands, of things that your God triumphs as good but that to our sensibilities are fairly evil except under extremely unprobable situations, I'm more likely to not like your God than to find constant excuses for his actions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order,
No, we hadn't. You're chronologically mistaken.
Perhaps, but then why was Moses, "Wroth" with the captains after the battle and queried as to whether the women had been slain or not? It says nowhere that God commanded Israel to "Slay just the men."
quote: Because, seriously, dude, I have no problem holding the God of all Creation to a higher moral standard than primitive desert tribes.
What are you talking about? Have you even read the Old Testament? God does not randomly and sadistically torture the Israelites or slap them around. He promises them happiness and prosperity if they obey, and death and destruction if they do not. More often then not, God simply does not help the Israelites when they disobey. Foreign armies are permitted to molest them, drought is allowed to blight their crops. It's no different from a parent who initially spanks their child and down the road just stops letting them borrow the car when they keep coming home drunk.
The Israelites are supposed to be God's chosen people and live up to a code of conduct that those around them can see and admire. Instead they turn to the idols of their neighbors some of whom belonged to religions that were nothing short of evil. Where men and women mutilated their bodies sometimes inviting spirits to posses their bodies so that they could divine the future. Where children were placed bound in the arms of bronze bulls, the base of the bulls were heated with fire and the children literally were burned to death, their screams drowned mostly out by the beat of drums. Where visitors were in danger of being molested or raped. That does not even cover everything. Surrounded by such evil how could the Israelites possibly live in those communities, they removed the occupants with the sword, and when they themselves fell into iniquity God did not protect them and their neighbors were permitted to come in and remove them.
Israel was a theocracy, it's not the same thing as what we have in America. If you think its right to have sex with a goat, well thats fine we are not God's chosen people, and he is not the lawgiver of our state, but Israel did have God's law and though they knew what it was, they were in near constant rebellion to it.
What would you do if you had an emissary that represented you to the world and they kept saying and doing things that were in stark contrast to what you were all about?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would you do if you had an emissary that represented you to the world and they kept saying and doing things that were in stark contrast to what you were all about?
I would get a new emissary or say and do the things myself. I would NOT commit evil acts to try and get my emissary in line. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer: I disagree, or to be more accurate, I believe the God of the OT and NT still accomplished far more good. A very small fraction of his actions require justification.
If somebody reads the entire OT they find passages like, Ezekiel 18:23
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
^^ Can you really read that and get the impression that the God of the OT is not the same sort of being that Jesus is?
I just don't understand why we look so closely at what God does in the scriptures and completely discount the efforts of the force that has declared war on God. God is interested in letting us be agents unto ourselves and his enemy is interested in enslaving us and blaming God for it.
If we are going to take into account what God does we should take into account what Satan is described as doing. I mean if we are warned, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."
Why do we pretend he is not a big part in any equation? The truth does indeed make us better people, but intentional rebellion to that truth makes us the same monsters the devil is, why do we then always blame religion when some of the people we find within it turn out to be terrible people? I expect I'd find the worst humanity has to offer next door to some of the best. Judas was one of Jesus' inner sanctum of 12 followers, Cain was the son of Adam just like Abel. The men who worked the hardest to see Joseph Smith murdered were former members of the church. Satan himself had a very high position, else why would be called, "Son of the Morning?" And yet he turned against God and now seeks to make us all as miserable as he is.
Of course not all of you are Christians, but try to pretend the Christian God is not the only being that has access to men's hearts and minds when you discuss the bible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would you do if you had an emissary that represented you to the world and they kept saying and doing things that were in stark contrast to what you were all about?
I would get a new emissary or say and do the things myself. I would NOT commit evil acts to try and get my emissary in line. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Get a new emissary's huh? So how would you get the old one to stop representing you? Just allow him to go off and continue saying he represents you? You CAN'T say and do everything yourself, you are God, you must allow people to exercise their agency, you can't just be ever present right in front of them as then they do not really have much to decide on.
If you would, go read Jesus' parable of the vineyard, it describes what happened in the Old Testament VERY accurately. Mark 12:1-9
The husbandmen are God's people, and the messengers are the prophets, the son is Jesus.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order,
No, we hadn't. You're chronologically mistaken.
Perhaps, but then why was Moses, "Wroth" with the captains after the battle and queried as to whether the women had been slain or not? It says nowhere that God commanded Israel to "Slay just the men."
SOP. Unless specified otherwise. In any case, you had claimed earlier that we hadn't wiped out the Canaanites, and these were Midianites.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Israelites are supposed to be God's chosen people and live up to a code of conduct that those around them can see and admire. Instead they turn to the idols of their neighbors some of whom belonged to religions that were nothing short of evil.
Hey, now. Slow down. Some men did that. It was hardly "the Israelites" as a group.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where men and women mutilated their bodies sometimes inviting spirits to posses their bodies so that they could divine the future. Where children were placed bound in the arms of bronze bulls, the base of the bulls were heated with fire and the children literally were burned to death, their screams drowned mostly out by the beat of drums.
You've been reading too much Lynn Austin. But yes, they were bad news.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Where visitors were in danger of being molested or raped. That does not even cover everything. Surrounded by such evil how could the Israelites possibly live in those communities, they removed the occupants with the sword, and when they themselves fell into iniquity God did not protect them and their neighbors were permitted to come in and remove them.
He's judging it as though a group of people today were to do the same thing, when God operates in a more hidden way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe the God of the OT and NT still accomplished far more good.
What good does the God of the Old Testament do that is not a cure for something He did in the first place?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
