I often hear that God is "unchanging". What, exactly do people mean when they say this? To illustrate my confusion:
God in the old testament had no problem smiting a city for its sins, or simply demanding its destruction from his followers because the inhabitants worshipped a different god. He sent plagues and pestilence. He stood before his people's enemies in a pillar of fire. We don't see any of this today. Well, we do see cities destroyed, but the few religious leaders bold enough to declare that God did it to smite the wicked are sharply criticized (and rightly so, in my opinion) by most people including most religious leaders. Now it could be argued that God hasn't changed, but the way we interpret his actions and what we attribute to God has changed. There may be some value in this if someone wants to expound on it further, but I can't buy it at face value. If you don't believe that God smote New Orleans for its sins, for instance, why not? Is there any case of God smiting a city for its sins in post-biblical times? If not, does this not constitute a change in his methodology?
In the law he gave the Israelites, he commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death. Today, most Christians would agree that this isn't required. You can make an arguement that Christ fulfilled the law and therefore the stoning is no longer required, but is that not also a change in terms of how God deals with his people as individuals? The problem I have with the "fulfillment" idea is that nothing was fulfilled for the homosexual that got stoned. Christ's sacrifice did nothing to change the mortal consequence of his sin. (i.e. it didn't undo the stoning). And why does God not require stoning of Homosexuals today? Surely if such a thing isn't required today for God's plan to be carried out, it didn't have to be required back then. If God has imparted to our generation a wiser and more tolerant method of dealing with "sinners", he also could have imparted that method to his followers from Adam on down, no? In fact it seems like it might have been easier to do it back then when prophets were more likely to write scripture.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Homosexuals weren't the only ones to be stoned, there was all kinds of harsh punishments for various things. All women spent a good portion of their time in a state of uncleanness, if I understand it.
But the law of Moses did contain provisions for atonement, which I don't fully understand. Something involving the scapegoat.
Mainly my sense was that God's instructions differ to different people. That is why the children of Israel have the Torah, and the Muslims have the Koran etc. and so forth. It is tragic that such instruction becomes the justification for so much strife and killing, but I chalk that up to the nature of man.
There were differing degrees of punishment- a recent scholar I heard said there were 5. Punishable by death, imprisonment, recompense of some kind... can't recall the fourth one, and then uncleanness (for masturbation) which was to be kept out of the community until nightfall and then wash with running water.
It was a strange talk in which he discussed applying this as a solution to behavior problems today. He said that it gives us the opportunity to still keep a promise to God even if we fail to keep the original promise of the commandment we break.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Homosexuals weren't the only ones to be stoned, there was all kinds of harsh punishments for various things. All women spent a good portion of their time in a state of uncleanness, if I understand it.
But the law of Moses did contain provisions for atonement, which I don't fully understand. Something involving the scapegoat.
Wow. I don't even know where to start with that. And I'm about to step out the door. So I'll try to get to this tonight.
Meanwhile: a woman's state of taharah (ritual purity) is not a punishment (what would it be a punishment for?) And Jewish Law most emphatically requires that all repentance be done by the person themselves. The scapegoat was never used as any type of atonement!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Christ's sacrifice did nothing to change the mortal consequence of his sin.
Well, not necessarily.
The wages of sin is death. Regardless of whether your life is lived before or after Christ's sacrifice, the eventual outcome of imperfect, sinful life is death. Christ's sacrifice undoes this, and in a sense, it does undo the stoning by offering the hope of resurrection.
Christ's sacrifice changed a lot of things. In addition to no more stonings, we no longer are required to make animal sacrifices to atone for our sins.
Has God changed? Employing different methods based on different situations in order to accomplish a specific goal doesn't necessarily mean that he's changed.
Here's an example. I should note that this is an idea that just came to me now. I don't think I've read anything like this anywhere, so I don't think it represents any specific religion's belief...
God's purpose for mankind, as outlined in Genesis, included populating the earth. To accomplish this, offspring needed to be produced quickly (that is if God had a timetable that he was trying to keep) and so laws reflected that goal. That might explain why concubines and polygamy was allowed. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was counterproductive, so it was discouraged by being outlawed.
Now that the goal of populating the earth is no longer important, the consequences of those specific laws are no longer relevant.
But what about all the other ways in which it seems like he's changed?
No matter how we interpret Biblical accounts, it is quite obvious that God's visibility and interaction with mankind is different now than it was before. Once again, I think this has to do with God doing what is necessary for the times and situations of the people.
In early times, people were much more superstitious. It was very important for their God to have a very visible presence if He wanted them to have faith in Him. Today, those actions aren't necessary for a person to have faith in God.
So my interpretation of an "unchanging" God is a God whose grand purpose, attributes, and abilities don't change, just his means for carrying them out.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
St. Paul would say (and did) that the law wasn't relatively unwise or bad; it's just that we couldn't live by it.
If we don't live by the spirit of the Law, then we are indeed drifting from the God who provided it. The spirit of the law definitely includes "have mercy on the poor," but I'd say "don't eat lobster" is more the letter.
And we don't live by the spirit of the law. Today, the idea that we should stone adulterers sounds really bad, so we won't accept that they should be punished at all. A hundred years from now, we may think stoning adulterers makes perfect sense, and instead be horrified that he says we should kill defenseless lambs when we can get it all from a food replicator.
The Katrina thing is interesting. I would not assume that every disaster that happened in O.T. times was a punishment from God (the collapse of Santorini? Pompeii? Numerous nameless monsoons and hurricanes?). The flood, yes, but we have a prophecy saying it was. Yet I am skeptical of any prophecy saying a modern disaster is punishment. Maybe that's my modern programming. Maybe it's just that I want a bit more reason to think so than UBL saying we deserved Katrina.
Even though I've disagreed so far, I think it's an interesting question, and it helps me examine my assumptions. Thanks for bringing it up!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Homosexuals weren't the only ones to be stoned, there was all kinds of harsh punishments for various things.
Of course, picking a specific as an example isn't the same as claiming there aren't other examples. The fact that there were many other things punished harshly does more to strengthen the confusion about whether God is changeable than it does to remove it.
quote: Mainly my sense was that God's instructions differ to different people. That is why the children of Israel have the Torah, and the Muslims have the Koran etc. and so forth. It is tragic that such instruction becomes the justification for so much strife and killing, but I chalk that up to the nature of man.
This also seems to be evidence of a changeable nature. Are you saying that these are fundamentally different kinds of people and thus their prophets had to be given different instructions?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think that an unchanging God can treat his children in different times from different cultures differently and still be unchanging.
Just a few small examples from more recent LDS situations:
I have suspected that some of the restrictions in the WoW may be a response to the cultural environment we live in. Which means to say, I do wonder if alcohol will always be forbidden.
An even "smaller" example might be the standards of modesty (if one considers these scripture.) In the previous generations, it would have been considered immodest for women in the church to wear pants. Now the concern lies in how long shorts and skirts are. Things have obviously changed here. How much does the shaping of our culture from birth effect how God chooses to deal with us?
The OT times do seem brutal. It may be that because the times and culture were brutal, more gentle means wouldn't have reached the people then. It is very hard to understand how the world looks through the eyes of a completely foreign culture.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wonder if it isn't the god that's changeable, but a person's or a people's interpretation of the same god.
I mean, considering how three witnesses to a crime can have three differing descriptions of a suspect, it doesn't seem terribly far off the mark.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KarlEd,
God doesn't change; our understanding of God does.
Many peoples recorded their various creation myths, stories of God's interaction with "His" people - i.e. whoever was writing that particular story, - and rules for getting along with God.
Many of these rules were essential to the people writing them down; many of them are still pretty good ideas; many of them don't really make sense now that we have things like refrigerators and an understanding of germs and so forth. Bad consequences for doing something = God doesn't want you to do it.
The Hebrew Testament is a collection of these writings from one of these peoples.
The New Testament is a collection of stories about Jesus (written many years after the events, not by eye-witnesses) and the letters, etc., of some of the important early Christians - esp. Paul.
In the 4th century the Catholic Church got together and decided what was in and what was out. They had a specific agenda for this. They needed to settle on a particular doctrine - the divinity of Jesus. Writings that supported this doctrine stayed in. Also, we have no idea what got lost in the meantime.
Does this help? It is sort of a broad stroke explanation. I can go into more detail if it would be helpful, but that might bore (or furthur offend) folks here. Feel free to e-mail me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: God doesn't change; our understanding of God does.
But on what basis do you make this statement?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The first part (for me) is a matter of faith; the second seems self-evident. I know that, personally, my understanding of God has changed as I've learned more and matured. And I hope it will continue to do that. I believe this is also true on a larger sense for civilizations.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whether you're a believer and feel that understanding of an unchanging deity is true, or a nonbeliever and feel that the fiction of a deity serves a social purpose and changes with the society, a society's deity is developed, interpreted, and defined by that society and will change to meet their needs.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:The New Testament is a collection of stories about Jesus (written many years after the events, not by eye-witnesses) and the letters, etc., of some of the important early Christians - esp. Paul.
In the 4th century the Catholic Church got together and decided what was in and what was out. They had a specific agenda for this. They needed to settle on a particular doctrine - the divinity of Jesus. Writings that supported this doctrine stayed in. Also, we have no idea what got lost in the meantime.
Considering that others on this board have quite different viewpoints regarding the authorship of NT books and the formation of the canon (many of them not simply because some pastor "told them so"), you might be a bit careful with your "broad stroke" that negates so many peoples beliefs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Are you saying that these are fundamentally different kinds of people and thus their prophets had to be given different instructions?
The torah and the Koran aren't that different. The New Testament and the Book of Mormon also teach, fundamentally, "love God, and love your fellow man." But somehow, we come up with several definitions for each of those 7 words for a myriad of actual practices.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:God doesn't change; our understanding of God does.
Orthodox Jews might tell you that's not necessarily true. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How am I negating others' beliefs by stating my own? I assume that people with differing viewpoints will chime right in.
When did say that other people believe what they believe because "some pastor 'told them so'"? I said nothing of the kind and I'm not thrilled that you seem to be quoting me as doing so.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Just be careful not to state your beliefs as fact. It tends to get on people's nerves.
This is an example of that:
quote:God doesn't change; our understanding of God does.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Not to derail the thread, but your statement appeared to be more than simply your opinion. It seemed that you were stating a fact that all persons 'in the know' agreed with. Occasionally, we've had people, of completely different ideologies, mind, show up and make statement about matters like they were unquestioned fact. And when they have been called on it (be even people who might agree, but also respect that those on the other side), they have made statements to the effect that those who disagree have a head-in-the-sand mentality or are sheep following someone else's direction. I was merely pre-empting such criticism, just in case.
But I apologize if my statement offended.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:The New Testament is a collection of stories about Jesus (written many years after the events, not by eye-witnesses)
John's writings, and Peter's also, are written by eye-witnesses.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I often hear that God is "unchanging". What, exactly do people mean when they say this?
Well, among other things, at least from a Jewish perspective, it means that change isn't even a relevant concept for God.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: To illustrate my confusion:
God in the old testament had no problem smiting a city for its sins, or simply demanding its destruction from his followers because the inhabitants worshipped a different god. He sent plagues and pestilence. He stood before his people's enemies in a pillar of fire. We don't see any of this today.
Suppose I write a book where the narrative voice seems to be viewing a certain character as bad. And later on in the book, I have the narrative voice treating that same character as good.
Have I changed?
John Irving writes his books starting at the end. He writes the endings first, and works backwards from there. But the narrative goes from the beginning to the end when I read it. So any changes I perceive while I'm reading the book don't mean that Irving changed.
If God is unconstrained by time, which is to say that time is just one of God's creations, then God today and God yesterday and God the day after tomorrow... that's all synonymous. How can change even apply?
It applies to us, though. And, I mean, God even says Himself that if we misbehave, He'll hide His presence from us. So we'd kind of expect to see less in the way of obvious divine interaction, no?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Now it could be argued that God hasn't changed, but the way we interpret his actions and what we attribute to God has changed.
Or we can say that the God who zapped Sennecherib's army when Jerusalem was beseiged is the same God who didn't stop the Nazis from exterminating six million Jews and five million others. That the interaction (or lack thereof) in each case is by plan and by intent, and for a purpose. I'm not saying that it's a warm and fuzzy idea, but it's an option that doesn't require God to have changed and doesn't require our perceptions to have changed, either.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: There may be some value in this if someone wants to expound on it further, but I can't buy it at face value. If you don't believe that God smote New Orleans for its sins, for instance, why not?
For starters, Las Vegas seems to be doing just fine. That's got to indicate something, no?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Is there any case of God smiting a city for its sins in post-biblical times?
Dunno. You'd have to ask God. Honestly. If you believe that there are people in direct contact with God right now, go and ask them, and attribute the same authority to their answer as you do to their ability to be in contact with Him. If not, how can there be an answer to your question?
Things happen. Porches collapse. People get sick. Hurricanes obliterate cities. It's not like any of this is new, you know. We just have mass media dumping it in our laps now. In that sense, it is a matter of our perception.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: In the law he gave the Israelites, he commanded that homosexuals be stoned to death.
Actually, no. He commanded that males engaging in a particular act be killed, whether they are straight or gay. He also gave us rules as to what is necessary for death penalties to be carried out. You have to be warned by two qualified witnesses before the act, and have chapter and verse cited to you, confirm that you understand what you've been told, and that you're going to go ahead anyway. Two qualified witnesses have to actually see you do it, as well and then testify against you.
You have to pretty much want to die to be executed according to the law God gave Israel. The most practical purpose of those prescribed punishments is to indicate relative severity.
Still, if the rabbinic court system were still up and running (and once it is again), that law and all the rest will be effective again. No change here.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Today, most Christians would agree that this isn't required. You can make an arguement that Christ fulfilled the law and therefore the stoning is no longer required, but is that not also a change in terms of how God deals with his people as individuals?
It is. Particularly since God said that those laws were eternal statutes for all our generations. For God to turn around and say, "Oh, actually not" would constitute a change. It's one of the reasons why Jews can't buy the whole Christian thing.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The problem I have with the "fulfillment" idea is that nothing was fulfilled for the homosexual that got stoned. Christ's sacrifice did nothing to change the mortal consequence of his sin. (i.e. it didn't undo the stoning).
Why not? If you believe that it's now okay to eat a pork chop, or wear linen and wool blends, why should this be any different? I mean, the law is the law. If you believe that it no longer applies, then it no longer applies. If you believe it still does, then it still does.
Or am I missing something?
The lame challenge against Dr. Laura back when she was "being Jewish" was spot on when directed against Christians who hold those positions. It doesn't work on Jews, because we do keep all those things.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And why does God not require stoning of Homosexuals today? Surely if such a thing isn't required today for God's plan to be carried out, it didn't have to be required back then. If God has imparted to our generation a wiser and more tolerant method of dealing with "sinners", he also could have imparted that method to his followers from Adam on down, no?
Well, yes and no. I mean, the Revelation at Sinai was long after the time of Adam, right?
Also, those laws were commanded to Israel alone. When someone else eats a pork chop, it's not even something frowned on, let alone forbidden.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:God doesn't change; our understanding of God does.
Orthodox Jews might tell you that's not necessarily true.
Highly unlikely. God doesn't change.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: Are you saying that these are fundamentally different kinds of people and thus their prophets had to be given different instructions?
The torah and the Koran aren't that different.
Wow. That's... on the offensive side. They're actually quite different. The Torah pulls no punches when dealing with the lapses of our leaders and ancestors. The Qur'an would never dream of doing such a thing.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The New Testament and the Book of Mormon also teach, fundamentally, "love God, and love your fellow man." But somehow, we come up with several definitions for each of those 7 words for a myriad of actual practices.
For what it's worth, one of the wisest men I've ever had the privilege of meeting once pointed out that Judaism has a strong focus on the opposing concepts of strict justice and merciful compassion, viewing each as enormous values.
He pointed to Christianity, which vastly overemphasizes the merciful compassion side, and to Islam, which vastly overemphasizes the strict justice side, and then noted how the imbalances on each side have led both of them to commit the most horrible things throughout their history. Burning people alive during the Inquisition for the sake of compassion (saving folks from hellfire, dontcha know), and slaughtering everyone who stood in their way because Allah wills it so.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Homosexuals weren't the only ones to be stoned, there was all kinds of harsh punishments for various things. All women spent a good portion of their time in a state of uncleanness, if I understand it.
"Uncleanness" or "impurity" are really, really bad translations of the terms in question. There's nothing morally bad about tum'ah (the word being translated), and nothing particularly praiseworthy of taharah (the opposite). They're just states of being.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But the law of Moses did contain provisions for atonement, which I don't fully understand. Something involving the scapegoat.
The goat was part of a ritual on the Day of Atonement, but it was worthless without personal repentance.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There were differing degrees of punishment- a recent scholar I heard said there were 5. Punishable by death, imprisonment, recompense of some kind... can't recall the fourth one, and then uncleanness (for masturbation) which was to be kept out of the community until nightfall and then wash with running water.
The final thing that needs to be done to change your condition from tamei to tahor involves immersing in a mikveh. It specifically cannot be running water.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It was a strange talk in which he discussed applying this as a solution to behavior problems today. He said that it gives us the opportunity to still keep a promise to God even if we fail to keep the original promise of the commandment we break.
Yep. God doesn't expect us to do the impossible. We're to do our best and aim for getting everything right. And when we don't get it right, we have the opportunity to repent and fix things.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Burning people alive during the Inquisition for the sake of compassion (saving folks from hellfire, dontcha know), and slaughtering everyone who stood in their way because Allah wills it so.
Unless you believe God really *did* command those things. After all, God commanded Israel to destroy many nations, did He not? All I have to do is believe that God *didn't* command those things and voila! Jews have commited equally gross atrocities.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: St. Paul would say (and did) that the law wasn't relatively unwise or bad; it's just that we couldn't live by it.
I think that if you hear someone saying that about the law today (secular law), the response would be, "Speak for yourself." Maybe he felt he wasn't up to it. But God doesn't give laws that we aren't able to live by.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: If we don't live by the spirit of the Law, then we are indeed drifting from the God who provided it. The spirit of the law definitely includes "have mercy on the poor," but I'd say "don't eat lobster" is more the letter.
Isn't that a bit subjective? I mean, the same God gave both commandments. On what basis is it okay to place our own estimations on those commandments and say, "Well, this one we really have keep. That one... nah, no big deal."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think the fact that society constanty changes further enhances the perception that God is changing.
To illustrate...
As a child, my parents would occassionally spank me as a form of discipline. It seemed very harsh at the time, but in looking back, it was probably the most effective. As I grew older, the forms of discipline changed. Instead of phsyical punishment, a stern lecture or removal of privileges was all that was necessary for me to get the point. It wasn't my parents that were changing, rather, it was me that changed, and their actions were based on what they felt would be the most effective based on my situation.
Likewise, I think God's dealings with us seem different because we have changed, not because God has changed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many of these rules were essential to the people writing them down; many of them are still pretty good ideas; many of them don't really make sense now that we have things like refrigerators and an understanding of germs and so forth. Bad consequences for doing something = God doesn't want you to do it.
Um... germs and refrigerators have nothing to do with God's commandments.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
As you understand them Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Highly unlikely. God doesn't change.
I meant the "understanding" part.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think the point kmbboots was attempting to make is that, from his point of view, God's commandments are really aligned with things that have bad consequences. Eating meat that's older than a certain amount of time could have in the past killed a person without the proper preperation, for example, which could have been ascribed as an act of God. The commandment would then hypothetically me "thou shalt not eat meat past the fourth day" or something.
With the invention of refrigerators and an understanding of germs and so forth, this commandment's original intent, according to kmbboots would be lost.
Of course, this is open to your own personal or religious interpretation of the commandments or religious laws in discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: He pointed to Christianity, which vastly overemphasizes the merciful compassion side, and to Islam, which vastly overemphasizes the strict justice side, and then noted how the imbalances on each side have led both of them to commit the most horrible things throughout their history. Burning people alive during the Inquisition for the sake of compassion (saving folks from hellfire, dontcha know), and slaughtering everyone who stood in their way because Allah wills it so.
You know, starLisa, more monstrous than either of those two approaches is the dark possibility I hear in almost every post you make about religion: that, if Jewish law were in force, you would go about grimly and seriously and regretfully slaughtering people because it was your job.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote:Burning people alive during the Inquisition for the sake of compassion (saving folks from hellfire, dontcha know), and slaughtering everyone who stood in their way because Allah wills it so.
Unless you believe God really *did* command those things. After all, God commanded Israel to destroy many nations, did He not? All I have to do is believe that God *didn't* command those things and voila! Jews have commited equally gross atrocities.
Not really. I'll give you two reasons why that doesn't follow:
The sole evidence that exists for us having killed the Canaanites (after offering peace, but still...) is the same document that says God commanded it. If that document isn't reliable... well, then it isn't reliable across the board.
Matthew 7:15-20. We don't have any such thing in our religion. Christianity does, right?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: As you understand them
Germs and refrigerators? Lacking any evidence that connects them, I guess I'll stand with my categorical statement. And after all, it was in response to a categorical statement itself.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Highly unlikely. God doesn't change.
I meant the "understanding" part.
Then yes. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I think the point kmbboots was attempting to make is that, from his point of view, God's commandments are really aligned with things that have bad consequences. Eating meat that's older than a certain amount of time could have in the past killed a person without the proper preperation, for example, which could have been ascribed as an act of God. The commandment would then hypothetically me "thou shalt not eat meat past the fourth day" or something.
Ah. Just like "thou shalt save thy documents no less than once every five minutes" would have had no application a thousand years ago.
But neither of those commandments exists, right?
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: With the invention of refrigerators and an understanding of germs and so forth, this commandment's original intent, according to kmbboots would be lost.
You don't find it a tad dangerous to come up with personal "reasons" for God's commandments that let you out of them?
I mean... God said "Thou shalt not steal". So in theory, I could say that this was commanded because desert conditions were harsh, and stealing anything could easily result in someone dying. But nowadays, in areas where food is plentiful, stealing is actually okay.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: He pointed to Christianity, which vastly overemphasizes the merciful compassion side, and to Islam, which vastly overemphasizes the strict justice side, and then noted how the imbalances on each side have led both of them to commit the most horrible things throughout their history. Burning people alive during the Inquisition for the sake of compassion (saving folks from hellfire, dontcha know), and slaughtering everyone who stood in their way because Allah wills it so.
You know, starLisa, more monstrous than either of those two approaches is the dark possibility I hear in almost every post you make about religion: that, if Jewish law were in force, you would go about grimly and seriously and regretfully slaughtering people because it was your job.
But I wouldn't. I'd do everything in my power to avoid bloodshed. But my priority would be for my own. Why would anyone want to kill anyone else? Maybe that's what I don't get.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my opinion (if that makes you feel better) statements of faith are by their very nature matters of opinion.
What I write is what I have learned or believe. If you disagree with what I have written, dispute it. Present your own story; give your own information and opinions. I'm happy to discuss them - maybe I'll learn new things.
See below: Taalcon,
I should have made a distiction between " written " and "authored". The Books of John (and Matthew actually) were traditionally held to have been authored by the Apostles. Some scholarship (higher criticsim) since the 1800s has disputed this. Can we agree that it is somewhat murky, or even better, start a new thread as to keep from completely derailing KarlEd's? The letters and Revelation I was referring to as "the letters, etc., of some of the important early Christians". Does this clear things up?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
My head starts spinning....
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Not really. I'll give you two reasons why that doesn't follow:
* The sole evidence that exists for us having killed the Canaanites (after offering peace, but still...) is the same document that says God commanded it. If that document isn't reliable... well, then it isn't reliable across the board. * Matthew 7:15-20. We don't have any such thing in our religion. Christianity does, right?
For point #1: Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am playing devil's advocate and playing the part of the atheist. I am perfectly willing to dismiss all religion for the sake of the hypothetical point.
For point #2: I don't get your point. Are you saying that Christians are given reason to be suspicious of anyone who claims prophetic authority, but Jews are not allowed the same reservation? What does that have to do with what I said?
The fact remains that according to the Bible, Jews slaughtered whole nations of people. How can you call anything else done in the name of religion an atrocity and not that? OT Jews seem every bit as brutal as Muslims to me. I don't think you have a leg to stand on, especially when you say the only reason why Jews don't do it today is because they don't currently have the authority!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:In my opinion (if that makes you feel better) statements of faith are by their very nature matters of opinion.
Then you are OK with atheists stating, as though fact, "There is no God?" I have a problem with it. It seems horribly arrogant coming from either side. Maybe it's just me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't assume anything on a discussion board is a fact. How on earth could such a thing (or its obverse)be stated as a fact?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I don't assume anything on a discussion board is a fact.
My point is whether or not it is stated as a fact, not whether or not it is.
There is a world of difference, IMO, between saying, "There is no God," and "I believe there is no God."
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I wasn't trying to argue, kmbboots. And I appreciate your reasonableness. As I said, we've had people show up that were truly unaware that the issue was anything but settled. And when it was pointed out to them, they blustered and insulted and backed up until they either left, or learned humility and to respect the other side. I apologize that I even seemed to lump you into that category. And if you'd like to discuss the issue, I'd be happy to, if there's other interest, too. I don't want to derail the thread.
starLisa: If I, as a murderer who felt my murders were justified because God told me to do them, recorded my dealings with 'god' and detailed and justified my actions, other people would not be wrong to reject the possibility that my actions where divinely motivated without rejecting that I had actually done those things.
Thus, as Beverly (and now I) have played devil's advocate (because I, and she, AFAIK, don't actually believe this), people can reject the thought that the Jews were commanded by God to exterminate the Canaanites while accepting that they actually had done so in history. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
And doing so, people then can lump Judaism with Islam and Christendom (and numerous other religions) as having perpetrated atrocities in the name of God. Judaism is, in their eyes, no better then the others.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I should just stick to fluff for a few days, I think.
Most of the responses so far have really glossed over my specific examples. starLisa seems most to have read my initial post most carefully (which I appreciate) but still I guess I wasn't clear enough to get my main point across. For example:
quote:Well, yes and no. I mean, the Revelation at Sinai was long after the time of Adam, right?
My point is, if the Revelation at Sinai was really how God wanted his people to behave, why didn't he give this information to Adam? Why was it not something required of everyone from Adam to Moses? Why isn't it fully required of all of us today. starLisa will presumably counter this with "We should be following it today" or at least "We Jews should be following it today". OK. That's a valid answer, I guess, though I personally am glad there is no one in a position of power to enforce that law over me. But the vast majority of Christians also believe that God gave that law, but that it doesn't apply today, for the most part. Maybe I'm seeking the Christian answer rather than the Orthodox Jewish answer. (Not to discount the validity of your answer starLisa.)
quote:The problem I have with the "fulfillment" idea is that nothing was fulfilled for the homosexual that got stoned. Christ's sacrifice did nothing to change the mortal consequence of his sin. (i.e. it didn't undo the stoning).
What I mean by this is that the whole grand plan of Law and then Fulfillment doesn't ring true to me if you believe that God's goal is individual Salvation (as most Christians seem to) and that he is "unchanging". I can only presume that God wants as much the salvation of individuals today as he did then. In the science thread a couple of people sidestepped the possibility of conflicts between science and religion with the idea that scientific unknowns weren't that important because they didn't really have any bearing on one's eternal salvation. This sidestepping doesn't work so well when it is in regard to religion today and religion yesterday. If homosexuality is a sin punishable by death at one time in religious history, why isn't it always so? You might argue that the biblical Jew who was stoned for homosexual activity was breaking a covenant he had made. A covenant that I am not under obligation to (for instance). However, why would I not be under the obligation? Presumably you believe God gave the commandment to the Jews. Why not to the Christians as well? Or any other group to whom God speaks? Does he only speak to an incredible minority of his children to the neglect of all others, or does he give strikingly different commandments to different groups of people throughout history and time? If the latter, how is that not evidence of a changeable nature?
Anyway, I think the answer is going to be something like "You just have to have faith that it is so".
Like I said, I should probably stick to fluff for the next few days. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Beverly,
I understand your concern with tone. Especially after reading some of the other posts here. I hate sprinkling my posts with "in my opinion"s (mostly because I think it is poor writing), so please take big picture unprovables (the existance of God, for example) as matters of faith and a starting point for discussion, and smaller picture informational statements ("The Council of Rome in 382 settled the canon") as...well even there I hate to say fact as I could be mistaken...but at least as something where I have some actual information.
If there is a question as to which I mean I will try to clarify.
Better?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
IanO, thanks for that last post. I wanted to discuss many other things stated, but I only have time to pick and choose. You stated my position perfectly (except that for me it isn't "devil's advocate").
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KarlEd
From my perspective as a Christian I believe that the conflict you are questoning comes from taking the Bible as literal. I don't believe that there is one "Christian answer" to your question. I would question that "the vast majority" of Christians would be in complete agreement on any of this including what commandments God gave to whom.
I personally am pretty settled on the "love thy neighbor" one. But that is a matter of faith.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, I'm sorry for not giving a more comprehensive response. I will try to give some response to your recent comments.
quote:My point is, if the Revelation at Sinai was really how God wanted his people to behave, why didn't he give this information to Adam? Why was it not something required of everyone from Adam to Moses?
One possibility: Moses was simply restoring laws that were already in place. It is not beyond reason that during their period of slavery, Israel may have lost many of the practices that were once central to their society and religion.
Certainly Mormonism specifically believes that Adam practiced the law of sacrifice as well as baptism and all other ordinances later "lost".
Another possibility put forth at least in Mormonism: Moses was instructed to give the Israelites the higher law: the law of the gospel. But when he came down the mountain the first time and found them reverting to other-god worship, they had proven themselves "unworthy" or "unready" to follow such a law. He then returned to the mountain to receive the "lesser law", the Law of Moses.
Mormons are not unfamiliar with the idea of being required to live laws at some times and not others. Polygamy and Consecration are two that readily come to mind. Circumstances and the preparedness of the people are cited as the two foremost reasons--certainly not the changeableness of God, of course.
But you should know the Mormon perspective inside and out. Perhaps you are interested in the non-Mormon Christian view?
quote:The problem I have with the "fulfillment" idea is that nothing was fulfilled for the homosexual that got stoned.
Let me see if I understand: No, but what if you believe in repentance after death? And what if for this people at this time having such a harsh punishment was the most effective way of keeping others from doing the same? Perhaps for reasons we don't fully understand, it was more important at that time that people not do these things, whereas now it is in people's best interest to have the freedom to choose and bear that responsibility. After all, we are far more educated and taught to think today than humans have probably been in any other age. We may be far better prepared to be "agents unto ourselves" in some matters whereas before it was more important that the whole not be disobeying.
Maybe this is the eventual point that God meant us to reach when we were mature enough as a people? After all, the higher law described by Christ has far more to do with internal motivations than outward actions. The Law of Moses didn't touch on internal motivations nearly so much (the first of the 10 commandments arguably does.) Take, for example the difference between the old law: "do not commit adultery" and the new law "do not look upon a woman (man) with lust". The second is concerned with committing adultery in your heart (and one of the reasons I believe pornography is sinful.)
Just throwing out ideas. I don't necessarily embrace them.
quote:However, why would I not be under the obligation?
Just because the law of my church doesn't call for the stoning of those who engage in same-sex intimacy doesn't mean it isn't still considered sinful. The earthly consequences are different, but I don't see why that is a problem for an unchanging God who deals with different cultures differently according to their specific needs.
On the other hand, while my church has allowed polygamy at times, that does not mean that my husband can take another wife right now with the approval of the church. In fact, he would be excommunicated for it. And yet, the church does not denounce past polygamy practiced in the church as sinful or wrong. In fact, church may allow polygamy in the future. If Mormons can resolve this as the behavior of an unchanging God in the face of changing society and needs, the other issues aren't so problematic--for us.
There is vast inequality as to what God requires of different people, or so it seems to me. I am not required to cross the plains with a handcart. I am not required to sacrifice my child--even if I didn't have to go through with it. I am not required to allow my husband to take another wife (at this point in time). I am not allowed to drink wine (at this point in time). I do have faith that God treats his children fairly, even if He treats us differently. That means a lot of the balancing may not happen in this life. If there were no afterlife whatsoever, I would have a harder time believing that God treats His children fairly.
quote:Presumably you believe God gave the commandment to the Jews. Why not to the Christians as well? Or any other group to whom God speaks? Does he only speak to an incredible minority of his children to the neglect of all others, or does he give strikingly different commandments to different groups of people throughout history and time? If the latter, how is that not evidence of a changeable nature?
I believe I have already answered this question for homosexuality in particular. But I think that Jews have an interesting answer to this question. They are held to a higher law than Gentiles because they have a mission to fulfill as God's chosen people. It is a responsibility, and they are being an example to others. Others are free to join them in this calling if they so choose. Their presence in the world and their obedience in some way seems to make up for the lack of obedience around them. And they are called upon to suffer in ways that no other people has to suffer.
To me it sounds quite similar to the concept of a Savior. But maybe that's just 'cause I'm a Christian and I'm so biased.
_________________________________________________
kmbboots, there are a lot of ways to express that what you are saying is only opinion. I do not think it is poor writing, in fact, I think it is poor writing to state beliefs as though they are facts. Not just in religious matters, but on any matter--like the recent discussion that touched on global warming. If you say, "Global warming is not caused by fossil fuels," you are stating it as though it were fact and you are going to get called on it here.
I understand that I can't make you change the way you write, but just understand that if you consistantly state your beliefs as fact on Hatrack, you will get called on it time and time again. It's just part of the culture here, and rightfully so, I think. You may find it annoying enough after awhile that you decide to alter your approach.
For now, I will just agree to disagree with you. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:My point is, if the Revelation at Sinai was really how God wanted his people to behave, why didn't he give this information to Adam? Why was it not something required of everyone from Adam to Moses? Why isn't it fully required of all of us today.
Well, Adam was created perfect, so it's possible that he didn't need to have the law given to him since he would have been created with a perfect conscience, thus a perfect understanding of God's will. Perhaps this intuitive perception of God's will was gradually lost over time. By the time Moses was alive, it may have been necessary for God to give a more definitive description of his laws to replace an imperfect, or flawed, conscience.
God may still have the same requirements today, even though they may not be spelled out in the NT. The biblical Jews were born into a covenant relationship with God, thus they were required to live and die by that covenant. People today are not born into that covenant (obviously some people believe otherwise), thus, even though God may require many of the same things, He does not exact the same type of punishment.
And some things just may not be expected of us anymore, possibly due to different situations/environments, or as a concession to our imperfect state.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well thanks everyone for their responses. I still don't think I've made my actual issue clear, and for me that means I must not have thought it through enough somewhere. I'm apparently not able to articulate it. Once I think it through some more, I may revisit it here if it is still an issue.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote:Not really. I'll give you two reasons why that doesn't follow:
* The sole evidence that exists for us having killed the Canaanites (after offering peace, but still...) is the same document that says God commanded it. If that document isn't reliable... well, then it isn't reliable across the board. * Matthew 7:15-20. We don't have any such thing in our religion. Christianity does, right?
For point #1: Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am playing devil's advocate and playing the part of the atheist. I am perfectly willing to dismiss all religion for the sake of the hypothetical point.
If you dismiss it, you have no basis for claiming that Jews ever killed anyone. If you claim that the Bible should be accepted as evidence for that, you don't have any basis for arguing against the Bible saying that God commanded it.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: For point #2: I don't get your point. Are you saying that Christians are given reason to be suspicious of anyone who claims prophetic authority, but Jews are not allowed the same reservation? What does that have to do with what I said?
I'm talking about the part about a good tree not being able to give bad fruit. We don't think that's necessarily the case. But for Christians, it's hard to reject the sentiment, coming, as it does, from their deity. So all the evils done in the name of Christianity... how exactly does that work out?
quote:Originally posted by beverly: The fact remains that according to the Bible, Jews slaughtered whole nations of people. How can you call anything else done in the name of religion an atrocity and not that?
If you accept the Bible's testimony about that and not the Bible's testimony about God commanding it, I'd think you'd need to give some plausable reason for accepting the one and rejecting the other. I haven't seen that yet.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: OT Jews seem every bit as brutal as Muslims to me. I don't think you have a leg to stand on, especially when you say the only reason why Jews don't do it today is because they don't currently have the authority!
I didn't say that. I said that we don't have the death penalty today because we don't have the authority. Even when we do have that authority again, it'll still be next to impossible to apply it.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
As I said, it isn't an all or nothing proposition.
Again, use this example (though, in fact, I do not believe the ancient Israelites guilty of atrocity). If a murderer confesses to murder, but explains that it was God who ordered it, then we are not forced to accept all or nothing of that statement. We can accept that the murders may have occurred, but not at God's command. That could either be because the person is delusional or because he was trying to come up with an after-the-fact justification.
Yet, according to your argument, either the Jews were commanded by God and did commit the extermination, or they were NOT commanded by God and therefore did not commit the extermination.
A confession is a confession and the motivations have no bearing on the existence of the act.
So, again, to someone who rejects the inspiration of the Torah, the Jews, JUST LIKE Christendom and Islam (and all the other religions) are guilty of atrocity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:If you dismiss it, you have no basis for claiming that Jews ever killed anyone. If you claim that the Bible should be accepted as evidence for that, you don't have any basis for arguing against the Bible saying that God commanded it.
I wouldn't say *no* basis. Don't most atheists view the Old Testament as a historical record of sorts? Actual events with God's will being added in from the opinion of the writers? Sadly, I am not a historian, and I do not know what parts of the Bible are supported by archeological and historical evidence.
Does history show the Jews to be a bloodthirsty people who kill with no provokation in the name of their God?
I guess it throws enough doubt on it that Jews cannot be "pinned" as responsible. But at the same time, Jews believe it, and it often surprises me how atheists grill Christians about believing in the Bible that containst the OT but I never see atheists grilling Jews about the same thing. Maybe it is because Christians claim a loving God and Jews do not? Do atheists have a grudging respect for people who admit to having a bloodthirsty God?
Atheists seem to believe that if you believe that your God once required it, that is near as bad as doing it now. I can see where they are coming from on this.
quote:I'm talking about the part about a good tree not being able to give bad fruit. We don't think that's necessarily the case. But for Christians, it's hard to reject the sentiment, coming, as it does, from their deity. So all the evils done in the name of Christianity... how exactly does that work out?
From whence comes the bad fruit? God, or the prophets? If God is commanding it, the bad fruit is coming from God. Can bad fruit come from God according to your beliefs? If it is from the prophets, then it wasn't God's will at all. Is that what you are saying? That perhaps God did not command all the killing at all?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I should just stick to fluff for a few days, I think.
Most of the responses so far have really glossed over my specific examples. starLisa seems most to have read my initial post most carefully (which I appreciate) but still I guess I wasn't clear enough to get my main point across. For example:
quote:Well, yes and no. I mean, the Revelation at Sinai was long after the time of Adam, right?
My point is, if the Revelation at Sinai was really how God wanted his people to behave, why didn't he give this information to Adam?
Okay, that's a good question. Maybe it was necessary. After all, even after the Revelation, it wasn't commanded to everyone. God obviously doesn't think it's a bad thing to eat a pork chop. He simply commanded Israel not to do it.
Why? Beats me. I didn't grow up observant, and I miss barbecued baby back ribs a lot.
We do believe that God did give a set of universal laws to Adam. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery (I know, rivka, but it's a good enough translation for these purposes). Don't worship idols. Don't blaspheme God. See to it that these laws are enforced by society in general.
Then at the time of Noah, once we got permission to eat meat, a seventh one was added, which was not to eat the limb of a living animal.
So up to this point, no problem, right? Six universal laws given to Adam, and one more added when it became applicable.
Then God gave a whole slew of laws to Israel. Why? Were these laws things that everyone should obey? Was that ever God's intent? Had He given them all to Adam, everyone would have had to keep them, right?
There's a fascinating essay by the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan called If You Were God.
I'm not saying that what Rabbi Kaplan writes is the answer. But I think it's a possible one.
I'm currently re-reading (for the umpteenth time), Stephen R. Donaldson's Mordant's Need. There's a line I got to just yesterday:
quote:"Either his lunacy is complete, or his need for us is so desperate that he cannot explain what he wants without making what he wants impossible."
Such situations happen in real life, too. Have you ever been really hurt that someone didn't thank you for something? Or express sympathy or empathy for you when you expected it? It's a rotten situation, because you can't really say anything. If you do, it can only make things worse, at least in the short run. If they then thank you, or apologize, or whatever, it's still not going to be what you expected. And it never will be now. It's tainted by the fact that you requested it.
Maybe the way God has done things is the best way to bring about a certain end. Maybe giving those laws to everyone would have prevented the result He wanted the laws to have eventually.
I don't think there's any answer anyone can give to the question you're asking that is certain. We'd have to be God to give you a certain answer, I think.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Why was it not something required of everyone from Adam to Moses? Why isn't it fully required of all of us today. starLisa will presumably counter this with "We should be following it today" or at least "We Jews should be following it today". OK. That's a valid answer, I guess, though I personally am glad there is no one in a position of power to enforce that law over me. But the vast majority of Christians also believe that God gave that law, but that it doesn't apply today, for the most part. Maybe I'm seeking the Christian answer rather than the Orthodox Jewish answer. (Not to discount the validity of your answer starLisa.)
I understand. I'll stand back.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: But I think that Jews have an interesting answer to this question. They are held to a higher law than Gentiles because they have a mission to fulfill as God's chosen people. It is a responsibility, and they are being an example to others. Others are free to join them in this calling if they so choose. Their presence in the world and their obedience in some way seems to make up for the lack of obedience around them. And they are called upon to suffer in ways that no other people has to suffer.
To me it sounds quite similar to the concept of a Savior. But maybe that's just 'cause I'm a Christian and I'm so biased.
<grin> It does indeed. And I'm sure you know that we think all the "suffering servant" material in the Bible refers to Israel, rather than to a messiah.
But I wouldn't agree that we're "called upon" to suffer. We're obliged to follow God's laws one way or the other, and when we suffer, it's generally because we haven't fulfilled our duty as well as we should have. It's like how Moses was barred from the promised land for hitting the rock. It seems like such a big punishment for such a small infraction. But more was expected of him.
It's really easy for us to mess up. And the price to be paid for it can be horrible.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I have a sudden desire to read Mordant's Need again... thanks a LOT. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: kmbboots, there are a lot of ways to express that what you are saying is only opinion. I do not think it is poor writing, in fact, I think it is poor writing to state beliefs as though they are facts. Not just in religious matters, but on any matter--like the recent discussion that touched on global warming. If you say, "Global warming is not caused by fossil fuels," you are stating it as though it were fact and you are going to get called on it here.
I understand that I can't make you change the way you write, but just understand that if you consistantly state your beliefs as fact on Hatrack, you will get called on it time and time again. It's just part of the culture here, and rightfully so, I think. You may find it annoying enough after awhile that you decide to alter your approach.
For now, I will just agree to disagree with you.
Beverly, I expect to "get called" on facts that are incorrect or opinions that somebody disagrees with. That is not incompatible with polite discussion. Now, if I were called someone an idiot for not agreeing with me or was otherwise insulting I could see how my posts would be offensive. But I don't think that I've done that. Nor have I tried to correct other people's writing styles.
As for it being part of the culture here, I think that you will find that I am not the only person here (or on other threads) making declarative statements.
KarlEd - I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I have a sudden desire to read Mordant's Need again... thanks a LOT.
<grin> You're quite welcome.
It's funny... when I was a teenager, I thought his Covenant books were the best thing I'd ever read. They actually helped get me through that time of my life. But nowadays, I find Mordant's Need to be a lot more to my taste.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think that you will find that I am not the only person here (or on other threads) making declarative statements.
No, but they will get called on it too, even if it doesn't happen every time. That's just Hatrack for ya.
quote:But I wouldn't agree that we're "called upon" to suffer. We're obliged to follow God's laws one way or the other, and when we suffer, it's generally because we haven't fulfilled our duty as well as we should have. It's like how Moses was barred from the promised land for hitting the rock. It seems like such a big punishment for such a small infraction. But more was expected of him.
It's really easy for us to mess up. And the price to be paid for it can be horrible.
Sorry about not representing that entirely correctly. I think I understand what you are saying. God's chosen people have a responsibility, and therefore more is expected of them. Mormons tend to have a similar view of the situation. Doctrine and Coventants 82: 3
3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
A very similar scripture in the NT:
Luke 12: 48
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
To address Karl's original post-
I think that while perhaps God himself does not change perhaps both his dealings with his children and his children's understanding of who he is and what he does do indeed change.
As far as the first point goes- the obvious analogy is to parents and children. Young children require a lot of direction and specific rules (like the law of moses). As the children grow and show themselves able to properly control their own actions most parents allow them more freedom.
Clearly it is arrogant and likely wrong to believe that any modern human is somehow superior to a human at any other point in history. However, human culture does change with place and time, and I believe that most humans would far prefer to live in our day than in their own, and not just for the big houses and cars.
To revert to the analogy- in training up a child in the way he should go you don't get to start with the child you wish you had, but rather with the child that is born to you. If the kid is rowdy and a bully, obviously certain training methods will be used which are not necessary for the quiet kid.
To address my second point- it stands to reason that if God does, in fact, exist, he knows a whole lot more than any of us. As such, it should not be surprising if we cannot understand things about him such as why he does what he does. Further, the ideal "god" of any people will reflect the values of the culture as much as they reflect what God actually does, for the interpretations of God's actions will be entirely (or nearly so) culturally dependent. This means that even assuming that a given action could be entirely understood to be an act of the divine, the reasoning for that act would be both inaccessible to us as well as subject to widely varying interpretation based on the culture of the individual who witnessed the event.
Perhaps, then, there are rules which are universal (the ten commandments?) to all cultures as well as rules which are given according to the specific situation of the people in question.
quote: For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
quote: Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There were differing degrees of punishment- a recent scholar I heard said there were 5. Punishable by death, imprisonment, recompense of some kind... can't recall the fourth one, and then uncleanness (for masturbation) which was to be kept out of the community until nightfall and then wash with running water.
It was a strange talk in which he discussed applying this as a solution to behavior problems today. He said that it gives us the opportunity to still keep a promise to God even if we fail to keep the original promise of the commandment we break.
First of all, making such a major edit without labeling it as such is kinda rude, neh?
Second of all, while there were different levels of punishments for different sins (including four forms of capital punishment, malkos (lashes), and several that are only administered by Heaven and never by an earthly court), those are completely separate from questions of tum'ah and taharah.
Punishments are also not generally compensatory. They may serve the community (by removing a murderer from circulation) or be intended as a deterrent. In the case of punishments from Heaven, they are more commonly intended as prods to induce us to repent. Because it is only by doing repentence that sins can be forgiven in Jewish Law. The scapegoat, unlike the meaning the word has taken on in English, did not absolve the people of their sins. It was more like a barometer.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I never see atheists grilling Jews about the same thing. Maybe it is because Christians claim a loving God and Jews do not? Do atheists have a grudging respect for people who admit to having a bloodthirsty God?
Wait just a second. Who ever said we don't believe in a loving God? Just because we believe that being a loving God doesn't mean being warm and fuzzy . . . well, I got the impression from ScottR that we were not alone on that one. Was I wrong?
God is not bloodthirsty. (And I have to say that hearing my people slandered as worshippers of a bloodthirsty god is very hurtful. I did not expect that of you, beverly.) Like any parent who must do something that hurts their child, He cries (whatever that means) over the pain He must inflict. Doesn't mean he doesn't do it, any more than a loving parent would "save" their child from necessary pain, heartless thought they may seem to the child (or observers).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
KarlEd, I very much want to give this topic justice because it is a very important question. Not just a question that an unbeliever might ask a believer but one that believers themselves will differ on.
You will have to give me time to formulate a thoughtful reply. I know what I want to say but want to make sure I articulate it correctly so I'm going to read works from people who are smarter than I am and have said it better than I could.
And I want to thank you for bringing it up. It's a question that a lot of Christians might think is uncomfortable, and it's one that my husband and I have discussed many times because our own faith (Reformed Covenant) differs from that of many of my family members (Arminian Dispensational) and this is an area that we've discussed many times.
It has always bothered me to hear people say "Well, I worship the New Testament God not the Old Testament one" because to me they are the same God. To worship one and reject the other is like taking all the passages about Christ's forgiveness that make you feel warm and fuzzy and not remember that he also included the message "Go and sin no more."
Like I said, I want to come back to this and hope you'll be a little patient, it might be later today. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Sure, take your time.
And thank you for taking the time. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Part I - I will have to do this in stages
The immutability of God
quote:"The fact that God is immutable does not mean that he is inactive: immutability should not be confused with immobility." -Herman Bavinck
That's where I'm going to start with the fact that the immutability of God (His unchanging nature) does not mean he cannot make decisions and do things. Some people have argued that the fact that God says in the Bible that he repents or grieves for actions that he has done is contrary to the idea of an unchanging nature.
Here I'm quoting from a series of articles by James Petigru Boyce found at http://www.monergism.com
quote:II. It is again objected, that the Scriptures represent change in God, when they speak of him as "repenting" of the acts which he had done.
Gen. 6:6. "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
1 Sam. 15:35. "And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."
Ps. 106:45. "And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitudes of his mercies."
Amos 7:3. "The Lord repented concerning this: It shall not be saith the Lord."
Jonah 3:10. "And God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them."
In reply to this objection, it may be stated that these are merely anthropopathic expressions, intended simply to impress upon men his great anger at sin, and his warm approval of the repentance of those who had sinned against him. The change of conduct, in men, not in God, had changed the relation between them and God. Sin had made them liable to his just displeasure. Repentance had brought them within the possibilities of his mercy.
Also, I think it’s important to understand that when we say God does not change, exactly what we’re talking about. Here is a quote from Reformed Answers.com: You may want to read the entire question and answer at that link because it’s specifically addressing the question of God’s immutability.
quote: First, in Reformed theology it is said that God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises. Louis Berkhof's systematic theology text (a Reformed classic) defines God's immutability as "that perfection of God by which He does not change in His being, perfections, purposes, or promises." The Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable." Those things do not change. A number of Scriptures attest to this idea (e.g. Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 102:26; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:17-18; Jam. 1:17).
Let's look at Malachi 3:6 in context, since that one was mentioned in the question. In chapter 3, Malachi is announcing the Lord's judgment upon his people because of their evil. But then in verse 6 he says, "I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." Why, though they will be punished, are they not destroyed? Because the Lord does not change. What's the connection? The answer is that the Lord does not change in regard to his covenant promises. He promised always to remain faithful to Israel, even if only to a remnant. We see this in view in the next verse when the Lord refers to the people as "descendants of Jacob." God made his promise to Jacob, and in regard to that promise he would not change. So, in the next verse, even though they have continually turned away from the Lord, he still says, "Return to me, and I will return to you." This is an instance of God remaining unchanging only in regard to his covenant promises.
Okay, this is just to get us on the page of what we mean by immutability. Next, I’m going to address the specific instances you mentioned in your first post.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Rivka,
Beverly was playing Devil's advocate, in response to starLisa's insinuations that it was only Christendom and Islam that were guilty of atrocities. She (and I, later) was merely pointing out that from the perspective of someone who does not accept that the Jews were divinely mandated to exterminate the Canaanites, such actions would also fall under the classification of atrocity. Ergo, the moral superiority that was being implied only depends on the perspective and beliefs of the person making the claim.
But (and if I'm wrong Beverly, correct me), as an LDS, she believes that the God of the OT (who they believe is Jesus, ironic given the 'fuzzy, accept all, demand nothing' politically correct Jesus that some people believe in) did, in fact, command such actions. And the Jews, more or less, did carry it out. And they were not atrocities.
Merely taking the other side to make a point regarding perceived moral superiority.
Or I could have misread the whole thing. I pretty much agree with Jacare and Belle, on the issue.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
So if God doesn’t’ change, and God gave us the law, why don’t we stone sinners today?
That is not an easy question to answer and different theologians will answer it different ways.
quote: Does God’s law apply today? Are civil governments obligated to apply the moral law, including the moral case laws, toward modern society? Are Christians obligated to follow the moral law as a guide to sanctification, or are they simply to follow the Spirit’s leading in a subjective, mystical sense? We live in a time when the church (both Evangelical and Reformed) has to a certain extent an arbitrary, schizophrenic view of God’s law. Many Fundamentalist churches teach that the whole Old Testament law has been abrogated by Jesus Christ. Yet in the battle against secular humanism, it is not uncommon to hear Fundamentalists quoting from the Old Testament case laws in order to stem the tide of anti-Christian statism. Many of those in Reformed and Presbyterian circles like to think of themselves as anti-Dispensational champions of God’s moral law. Yet many, if not most, of those in Bible-believing Presbyterian circles do not believe that the moral case laws found in the Old Testament civil law and their accompanying penal sanctions apply to modern nations. Many have also accepted the idea of religious pluralism (i.e., equal status for atheism, Satanism, Buddhism, Islam, Arminianism, etc.), and believe that the civil government does not have the right to uphold the first table of the law (i.e., punish open heretics, blasphemers, rank idolaters, etc.). The only way to have a biblical understanding of God’s law is to examine the passages of Scripture which discuss the place of God’s law in the New covenant, and the relation of Christians to that law. We believe that the Bible teaches that God’s moral law and the moral case laws “of the Old Testament are still binding on society in the New Testament era, unless annulled or otherwise transformed by a New Testament teaching, either directly or by implication. In short, there is judicial and moral continuity between the two testaments.”
I absolutely agree with is characterization of the schizophrenic view of God’s law being prevalent in many churches. The sentence I bolded for emphasis is key – when deciding what parts of the law are still applicable, you must determine that by scriptural examination and determination of the law’s applicability to Christians.
In other words, there is no simple answer that I can put in five words or less, say, as to why some laws from the Old Testatment are abrogated but not all. I think it’s unscriptural to say all the laws are abrogated, just as I believe it’s a mistake to think all the laws should be upheld.
Quoting again from Schwertly:
quote: Much of the misunderstanding and refusal to recognize the moral case laws as binding stems from the fact that a number of the judicial laws have indeed been abrogated. The judicial law not only contained case laws that applied the Ten Commandments to the family and society, they also contained some laws that were local and temporal, that were never meant to apply to the nations outside of Israel. Laws which dealt specifically with the land of Israel (e.g., the laws of jubilee, the cities of refuge) also do not continue. The judicial law contained regulations designed to protect the lineage of the coming Messiah (e.g., levirate marriage and the requirement to keep plots of land within family bloodlines); with the coming of Jesus Christ, these laws are no longer necessary. These laws cannot even be applied to modern Israel; the documents proving family lineage and proper succession of family plots were destroyed in A. D. 70 by the Romans. Other aspects of Old Testament Jewish society that were never intended to be binding on the Gentile nations are the Jewish form of civil government, the location of the capitol, the organization of the military and the method of tax collection (many Theonomists include the method of execution).
Schwertly argues, and I agree, that moral case laws are not abrogated because they stem from the moral character and immutable nature of God. That is why the condemnations against sexual immorality are still applicable today. We must draw a distinction between something that stems from God’s character and nature – like the moral case laws – and something that was meant to accomplish a specific purpose for a specific people for a specific time which is no longer necessary.
So to answer your objection about how nothing was fulfilled for the homosexual that was stoned, I would say several things. First – that I believe we don’t stone today because I believe the penal laws were abrogated. Secondly, that while it may seem as if “nothing was fulfilled for the person stoned” to paraphrase you, I would argue that in fact their own destiny was indeed fulfilled according to God’s sovereign purpose. As a Reformed Christian I do believe in God’s sovereign election, and believe that even people condemned and executed under the law may be part of God’s redeeming plan and that person may in fact have been saved – the thief on the cross is a good example. So, I’m not going to assume that every person stoned under the law was eternally condemned. If they were condemned, however, it wasn’t because of the law or because of Christ’s method of fulfilling it, but rather it was because of their state as a fallen sinner. The law doesn’t save and it doesn’t condemn, it exists to reveal our nature as sinners to us.
So, that brings us to the question of “Is the God that ordered whole cities slaughtered to the last man and child the same God Christians worship today?” Some people would say no, and try to tell you God changed into something else. I would say yes, because God is eternal and immutable. God’s unchanging nature and his holiness require justice – the wages of sin is death. For the elect, Christ’s death paid those wages and therefore they are redeemed in Him. For the reprobate, the wages of sin is still death. In that, God has not changed. He may not be actively, outwardly slaughtering cities but there are still many people who suffer the wages of sin every day.
Was this at all understandable? Do you want me to go into more detail anywhere?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'd like to expand on something that IanO mentioned. An atrocity or tragedy from a human perspective is not necessarily so from a divine perspective. As a simple example, many people here at Hatrack have expressed sentiments in the past that God is a "killer" or somehow unfeeling because he allows people to die in this manner or that manner. Yet, to the extent that I can imagine things from a divine perspective, it seems to me that death can only be viewed as a bad thing if the person who died was horribly evil. If not then death is a homecoming and progress to a state which is better in every way. To me it seems that those who culpify God for death have a particularly odd hybrid in that they generally don't believe in an abstract, rhetorical way in which he is guilty of all the perceived wrongs of the universe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If not then death is a homecoming and progress to a state which is better in every way.
So murder is a good thing, unless the person you kill is a murderer? I'm not sure that "death is an improvement" plays well in Peoria.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Get some perspective here, Thomas. From a Christian perspective it should be obvious that death is not such a tragedy, even if one is murdered, tortured etc. But it may well be a tragedy if one is a murderer, torturer etc.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I disagree. Being murdered is a tragedy. Just because I don't believe it's the end of existence doesn't make it less tragic.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
dkw- why is it a tragedy?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think it is a tragedy when the person is either unprepared, unwilling, or unready for death.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I think it's more tragic for the friends, family, and those who knew the victim than for the victims themselves, actually.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think it is a tragedy when the person is either unprepared, unwilling, or unready for death.
Well, while I can understand this viewpoint I would hazard a guess that your description fits about 99.9% of people.
Again, from a Christian perspective I just can't see how death is bad- for the one who dies. Clearly those said person leaves behind have reason to grieve.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Yes, and so I think most deaths are tragic, but I think there are different degrees of being ready for death.
I understand that time and unforseen occurrence befall us all, so I'm ready for death in the sense that I recognize that it could happen at any given moment. I would be disappointed if it happened now because of all the things I have yet to accomplish in my life. So I'm unready for death, but I'm not unprepared.
If I contracted some terminal illness, I would eventually come to terms with the impending inevitability of death, thus taking away the unwilling part.
So I think all these things play a role in how tragic death can be for different people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As much as I hope to enjoy whatever comes after this life, I'm also quite happy here. I have things to do, things to learn, and people who I love. If God were to speak to me in person and ask if I'd rather die now and go straight to heaven or finish out another 60 or so years on earth I'd say, "earth, thanks." For that to be taken from me by someone else's whim is, to me, a tragedy.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
dkw- but consider, as happy as you may indeed be now, isn't heaven infinitely better? And assuming that one were murdered today, wouldn't that automatically mean that one had already learned all that God intended them to learn from this life?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And assuming that one were murdered today, wouldn't that automatically mean that one had already learned all that God intended them to learn from this life?
Are you saying then that God is responsible for when people die?
quote:as happy as you may indeed be now, isn't heaven infinitely better?
Then why are there accounts in the Bible of people being resurrected? Why would they be taken from a better place (heaven) and then be happy to be on earth again?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The New Testament is a collection of stories about Jesus (written many years after the events, not by eye-witnesses) and the letters, etc., of some of the important early Christians - esp. Paul.
In the 4th century the Catholic Church got together and decided what was in and what was out. They had a specific agenda for this. They needed to settle on a particular doctrine - the divinity of Jesus. Writings that supported this doctrine stayed in. Also, we have no idea what got lost in the meantime.
Actully, just a few claifications. First, it's true that the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus, however Matthew, Mark and Luke (Mark being the earlies by about 5 years) were all written within 30 years of Jesus' death. They are some of the earliest historical records of the life of any man in existance today. So while they were not written in his lifetime, most scholars agree that they are likely to be (if not completely) mostly accurate stories of the life of Jesus.
Second, we do actually have records of the books that were left out of the current Biblical Cannon. If you're interested in reading some of them you can pick up a copy of After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman. It includes such "Apostalic" writings as: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Proto-Gospel of James etc. It's a college text book, so you may have to head to your local college bookstore to locate a copy. Most classes in New Testament use Ehrman so it's fairly likely they'd have a copy. It becomes painfully obvious very quickly to anyone familiar with the current Biblical Cannon just why these books, and others, were left out.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Are you saying then that God is responsible for when people die?
Depends on your point of view. If God is all powerful, then most definitely he is responsible. If he is not all powerful but is all knowing then at least he knew when you would die and has taken that fact into account.
quote: Then why are there accounts in the Bible of people being resurrected? Why would they be taken from a better place (heaven) and then be happy to be on earth again?
Again, a completely doctrinal question. Resurrection is different from bringing someone back from the dead. One assumes that when one is brought back from the dead, such as Lazarus, it is because they haven't yet learned all God wanted them to (as well, of course, to illustrate that Christ has power over death). Resurrection is another thing entirely. Resurrected people apparently don't stick around on the earth (at least not with the currently living people)
[ September 23, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks Belle. I do understand what you have written and I thank you for the time you took to research and post it. I admire your dedication and your desire to understand and help others understand.
I won't quibble with what you've written in terms of its logical nature given what you believe to start with.
I'm beginning to think that it's not that I have a problem with perceived internal inconsistencies within other peoples beliefs. Many people do have them and I think we should examine our own beliefs to rectify any internal inconsistencies, myself included, but that's not what this thread is driving at. I think its more that I want to understand why people believe what they do, and what those beliefs actually are. Part of this is probably born of fear of the ultimate implications of what many people believe. Part of this is also because I believe that as much as some people wear American patriotism as an expression of their religiousity, I believe many of those same people would scrap the very parts of the constitution that protects their right to believe and practice what they do if they were in a position where their understanding of what is "right" could be made law of the land.
Another problem with this thread is probably that I have confused myself about my own intent to some extent by using homosexuality as an example. (i.e. I feel so strongly that OT law was completely wrong on this count, part of me wants someone to say, "Yeah, God thought that back then but has changed his mind." but I really didn't start this thread with that kind of intention.
Rather than pose a question like "how can God be 'unchageable' yet appear to change the way he acts, or what he requires of different groups?" I probably should have just stated what I think. Problem is I don't think I knew what I thought until this thread, but I'm starting to.
I used to think that if God were God, he would be unchanging. And from our human point of view, one might say that he is. But I'm beginning to think that such a quality is impossible in any being I would call "God" in any meaningful way. I have problems with a "real-time" interactive God too numerous to mention in this thread. But even a God "outside" of time, must be changeable. I believe this, because when I say "outside" of time, I mean "outside our time". A literally "unchanging" God, to me would be a dead god.
This is a complex issue for me and one of the reasons I simultaneously consider myself an athiest and an agnostic and why I find myself continually frustrated by the limitations of those two terms.
[ September 23, 2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:And assuming that one were murdered today, wouldn't that automatically mean that one had already learned all that God intended them to learn from this life?
No, I do not believe it would mean that. It might mean that God's plan for a life was tragically cut short. I'm sure God can roll with it, but I certainly don't think God planned it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thank you, lanO. I think you described well what I was trying to do.
Rivka, I am sorry to cause offense. I was not speaking from my actual POV, as lanO says. It seemed to me that Lisa was making ridiculous claims and I was trying to point that out. I'm not sure I succeeded, and I ended up offending people I didn't intend to offend in the process. For that, I am sorry.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
dkw- but doesn't an omniscient God automatically preclude the possibility of altering God's plans? After all, if he knows everything then he can plan for everything, right?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is a difference between knowing and controlling.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Sure, but knowledge grants the ability to plan for an event.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Contingency plans do not mean that you would not prefer it be otherwise.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
But when you know everything there is no such thing as contingency plans or "otherwise". Things simply are the way they are.
Sure God would likely prefer that his children didn't murder one another, but surely it is no surprise to him when they do.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Unsurprising does not make it less tragic.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
But now we have come full circle- how can it be tragic for the person involved to die and go to heaven?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Because of the reasons I gave in my earlier post?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:No, I do not believe it would mean that. It might mean that God's plan for a life was tragically cut short. I'm sure God can roll with it, but I certainly don't think God planned it.
This is an area where dkw and I differ. I think everything that comes to pass does so because God wills it, so if I die young then while it may be a tragedy to the outside world and certainly to my family, it is in fact God's will for me that my earthly life be cut short and I won't experience it as a tragedy if I'm in heaven.
However, I do agree with dkw that I'm quite fond of this life and would like to hold onto it. So I would respond the same way if I were given a choice between going directly to heaven right now or staying on earth another 30 years. I'd like to stay, and experience all of this life I can. Doesn't mean that what comes after won't be better, but this is all I know, and this is what I want to have.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Doesn't mean that what comes after won't be better, but this is all I know, and this is what I want to have.
And that is really the heart of the matter, in my opinion. Even if one is completely sure that heaven awaits after this life, the question of the unknown still makes death a seeming tragedy.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
starLisa:
quote: If you dismiss it [religion], you have no basis for claiming that Jews ever killed anyone.
starLisa what about recent Jewish history?
What about Deir Yassin? How do you feel about the Irgun? Not to mention the conflict between the Irgun, Stern Gang and the Haganah. Weren't there observant Jews in all three of those organizations?
There's plenty of basis, and you don't have to look that hard.
AJ
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:I wouldn't say *no* basis. Don't most atheists view the Old Testament as a historical record of sorts? Actual events with God's will being added in from the opinion of the writers? Sadly, I am not a historian, and I do not know what parts of the Bible are supported by archeological and historical evidence.
Bev, I can give you the POV of an agnostic who knows a lot of atheists, as well as some various things that I've learned in one of my classes this semester.
I see the OT as more of a historical document than anything else, but I have recently learned that there is little to no mention of Abraham or Moses in any other culture from that period of time. Even when the Israelites went to Egypt after the famine, Egyptian texts don't mention them, it isn't until the late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BC) that there was some mention that there were slaves escaping to Isreal/Canaan. There are also no outside texts for the mass exodus when Moses led the people and parted the Red Sea. I think it's after the Book of Joshua that there are external sources to support what the Bible states.
quote:I guess it throws enough doubt on it that Jews cannot be "pinned" as responsible. But at the same time, Jews believe it, and it often surprises me how atheists grill Christians about believing in the Bible that containst the OT but I never see atheists grilling Jews about the same thing. Maybe it is because Christians claim a loving God and Jews do not? Do atheists have a grudging respect for people who admit to having a bloodthirsty God?
Heh, I've never thought of that. Also, one thing that any non-Jew or non-Christian should remember is that more often than not, Christians don't take a lot out of the OT. The OT is still part of the Bible, but more stock is put into the NT. I was at a Jewish event with my Jewish gf about Judaism and tattooing and a friend of ours said, "So is all the Christians really take out of the OT the story of creation, the flood, and the ten commandments?" While not entirely true, the only rules that most Christians follow or even know are the ten commandments.
There are some things I don't fully understand about killing in the name of your god (any god), especially when your god has said not to kill.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
(Side note based on Kojabu's comment) I will say that starLisa has a very interesting Essay on her site about the Exodus and it's dating/support in secular history/archeology here.
Very interesting.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, kojabu, I appreciate the info.
I will have to read that essay of Lisa's.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Here I'm quoting from a series of articles by James Petigru Boyce found at http://www.monergism.com
[QUOTE]II. It is again objected, that the Scriptures represent change in God, when they speak of him as "repenting" of the acts which he had done.
Gen. 6:6. "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
1 Sam. 15:35. "And the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."
Ps. 106:45. "And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitudes of his mercies."
Amos 7:3. "The Lord repented concerning this: It shall not be saith the Lord."
Jonah 3:10. "And God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them."
Unfortunately, that's one of the problems with translations. The verb used there is not "repented" or "regretted", but rather "comforted". But since that wouldn't make sense ideomatically in English, a simpler and less accurate translation was used.
The verb "nahem" means "comfort". It refers to amelioration of something bad. There's no sense of God changing His mind.
I mention this not to bring in a Jewish view on the issues KarlEd is raising, but merely to clarify something about the texts being cited.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Rivka,
Beverly was playing Devil's advocate, in response to starLisa's insinuations that it was only Christendom and Islam that were guilty of atrocities. She (and I, later) was merely pointing out that from the perspective of someone who does not accept that the Jews were divinely mandated to exterminate the Canaanites, such actions would also fall under the classification of atrocity. Ergo, the moral superiority that was being implied only depends on the perspective and beliefs of the person making the claim.
But (and if I'm wrong Beverly, correct me), as an LDS, she believes that the God of the OT (who they believe is Jesus, ironic given the 'fuzzy, accept all, demand nothing' politically correct Jesus that some people believe in) did, in fact, command such actions. And the Jews, more or less, did carry it out. And they were not atrocities.
Merely taking the other side to make a point regarding perceived moral superiority.
Or I could have misread the whole thing. I pretty much agree with Jacare and Belle, on the issue.
So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
That is a lie. You are not "just asking".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: starLisa:
quote: If you dismiss it [religion], you have no basis for claiming that Jews ever killed anyone.
starLisa what about recent Jewish history?
What about Deir Yassin?
Attacking a military stronghold during wartime counts to you?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: How do you feel about the Irgun?
In what way? We were getting massacred by the Arabs, and the British refused to allow us weapons, on pain of death.
One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
Do you have a problem with that?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Not to mention the conflict between the Irgun, Stern Gang and the Haganah. Weren't there observant Jews in all three of those organizations?
I don't know if there any observant Jews involved with the Haganah. I'd be surprised if there were, given how anti-religious they were.
And what could any conflict between them have to do with the issue of carrying out massacres and atrocities. You don't think I'm claiming that no Jew ever killed anyone, do you? If so, you're reading me completely out of context. I was referring solely to the conquest of Canaan, when we did indeed kill many Canaanites.
I'll assume that you misread me by mistake.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
That is a lie. You are not "just asking".
A "lie"? I think not. She was comparing the killings in the Inquisition to those in the invasion of Canaan. For that to work as a comparison, they had to either both be commanded by God, or both not be commanded by God. If one was and one wasn't, than the analogy fails.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO: (Side note based on Kojabu's comment) I will say that starLisa has a very interesting Essay on her site about the Exodus and it's dating/support in secular history/archeology here.
Very interesting.
Wow. I was going to post that.
It's kind of strange being quoted, you know? Sort of cool.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well there you have it from starLisa: wartime excuses the raping and murdering of innocents like the ones in Deir Yassin. And there's photographic evidence of what happened there as proof.
AJ (The Haganah which she writes off as non-observant, wasn't involved in that incident.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:So we can assume that she thinks God commanded the Inquistion to murder millions of people?
Just asking.
That is a lie. You are not "just asking".
A "lie"? I think not. She was comparing the killings in the Inquisition to those in the invasion of Canaan. For that to work as a comparison, they had to either both be commanded by God, or both not be commanded by God. If one was and one wasn't, than the analogy fails.
Exactly. You weren't asking a question -- you were making a statment. That's why I called it a lie that you were "just asking".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Well there you have it from starLisa: wartime excuses the raping and murdering of innocents like the ones in Deir Yassin. And there's photographic evidence of what happened there as proof.
There's no such thing, because that's not what happened.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Note: the pictures that I recall seeing of Deir Yassin bodies were not the "secret" footage thats locked. I believe they were from later Red Cross footage. They were in a non-fiction book called "O Jerusalem" by Larry Collins.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Thank you, lanO. I think you described well what I was trying to do.
Rivka, I am sorry to cause offense. I was not speaking from my actual POV, as lanO says. It seemed to me that Lisa was making ridiculous claims and I was trying to point that out. I'm not sure I succeeded, and I ended up offending people I didn't intend to offend in the process. For that, I am sorry.
Ok. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
So, to clarify, you're A-OK with terrorism. Unless it would be wrong for Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the imprisonment and death of a Palestinian youth.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: One time, they arrested two Jewish boys for possession of firearms and sentenced them to death. The Irgun reacted by capturing two British soldiers and telling the Brits that whatever happened to the two Jews would happen to the two Brits.
The Brits were too full of themselves to accept that kind of ultimatum, and hanged the Jews. The Irgun killed the two British soldiers.
So, to clarify, you're A-OK with terrorism. Unless it would be wrong for Palestinians to kill Israeli soldiers in retaliation for the imprisonment and death of a Palestinian youth.
This is getting sick. Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms. What the Irgun did was not terrorism. They didn't go and kill people. They took military personnel, and they gave the Brits every chance not to be barbarians. They could have even kept the two Jews locked up, but they decided to hang them. That was their choice, which they made knowing the consequences.
It's like the bombing of the King David Hotel. This was the military headquarters of the British in Jerusalem. They were warned to evacuate the building ahead of time. Can you even imagine the Arabs warning people ahead of time to give them a chance to evacuate a building? No, because they aren't targeting buildings. They're targeting kids eating pizza with their families. They're targeting people shopping in an open market for their families.
One of these days, you're going to wake up and understand the fundamental difference between deliberately targeting innocents and every other kind of warfare, and you're going to be bitterly ashamed of what you've written.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms.
Israel may not have the death penalty, but surely you do not deny that its police and military have not only killed Palestinians -- through assassination and other methods -- but occasionally blameless Palestinians. I submit, in fact, that this particular form of killing is in many ways worse than simply sentencing someone to death.
quote: What the Irgun did was not terrorism. They didn't go and kill people. They took military personnel, and they gave the Brits every chance not to be barbarians.
Israeli soldiers and police have been captured by Arab terrorists and executed due to perceived slights, often because Israel refused to capitulate to their demands. More recently, American soldiers have been beheaded in retaliation for our occupation of Iraq.
Do you not consider these terrorist acts? Or are they ethical ways of repelling a superior military foe?
quote: One of these days, you're going to wake up and understand the fundamental difference between deliberately targeting innocents and every other kind of warfare, and you're going to be bitterly ashamed of what you've written.
God, I hope not. Because I never -- ever -- want to be ashamed of failing to excuse cold-blooded murder.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Israel doesn't have the death penalty. If it did, it wouldn't be used for possession of firearms.
Israel may not have the death penalty, but surely you do not deny that its police and military have not only killed Palestinians -- through assassination and other methods -- but occasionally blameless Palestinians. I submit, in fact, that this particular form of killing is in many ways worse than simply sentencing someone to death.
Submit what you want, but the Arabs deliberately place their military (or paramilitary, or whatever you want to call it) emplacements smack in the middle of civilian concentrations, knowing full well that it discourages us from attacking.
And they're right. Up to a point.
To compare that to setting a roadside charge, waiting until a schoolbus full of children comes by, and then deliberately triggering the explosive, is the act of a moral bankrupt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To compare that to setting a roadside charge, waiting until a schoolbus full of children comes by, and then deliberately triggering the explosive, is the act of a moral bankrupt.
But that's not what I'm comparing it to.
I'm specifically comparing capturing your enemy's military or police and killing them in retaliation for having killed some of your civilians to, well, capturing your enemy's military or police and killing them in retaliation for having killed some of your civilians.
Is it your contention that this behavior is A-OK, but other forms of terrorism are still bad?
For that matter, do you agree that your "Israel has no death penalty" statement is fairly disingenuous, given that Israel is one of the few Western countries with a policy of civilian assassination?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*bumped for starLisa*
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Israel entered Jenin, where there was no masacre, in order to shut down weapons making factories and capture and kill armed terrorists. Israel went into Jenin with ground troops, rather than using targeted missiles as they have done so many times before, because too many Palestinian civilians were in the area. It was discovered that a number of these innocent Palestinian women and children were brought there by Palestinian terrorists to act as human shields against the Israeli army. Israel lost 27 soldiers in that Jenin incursion compared to 47 Palestinians (45 of whom were armed Islamic Jihad terrorists).
Israel could have easily saved the lives of 27 of its own soldiers by attacking the Islamic Jihad stronghold from the air. Compare this to Abu Jandal, an Islamic Jihad commander, who said "Believe me, there are children stationed in the houses with explosive belts at their sides."
There is a war going on in Israel. I would prefer that no war was going on, and that nobody was getting killed. It is a horrible, horrible situation that we are in. But you are being dishonest by not viewing the actions of both sides as being part of a war. One side systematically kills civilians. The other side puts the lives of its own people at risk in order to prevent casualties to civilians on the other side while it kills or captures those who are personally responsible for killing civilians and endangering them. Targeted killing of terrorist commanders saves lives. It saves the lives of Israeli soldiers, it saves the lives of Israeli civilians, and it saves the lives of Palestinian civilians. If Palestinian militants were attacking military installations, I would have a lot more sympathy for their fight. But terrorists targetting civilians? They deserve worse than death.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You mean I was supposed to respond to the rhetoric?
The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
I didn't reply because from what I can see, you're an intelligent guy. If you posted such an obviously poor analogy, I figured that it was intentional, and didn't require a reply.
Nor do I consider it honest to compare the assassination of terrorist leaders to the death penalty. Israel is between a rock and a hard place. People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs. They claim that it's just certain radicals who are responsible for the atrocities.
Then when Israel goes after those monsters specifically, all of a sudden it's terrible to go after them.
Understand; this is not a crime situation. You seem to be unable to comprehend that, but it's true. If Israel could go and arrest the scum who plan these attacks, they surely would. And in the vast majority of cases, when that's been possible, that's exactly what they've done.
And every time, what ends up happening is that the terrorists demand a release of prisoners as a gesture of good will (I'm still waiting for the first gesture of good will on their part; and no, refraining from murdering Jews for a day or two does not count), and the terrorists go free to maim and murder again.
If it were up to me, I'd kill every one of those prisoners who could be demonstrated to have taken any active role in the death of any Jew. But Israel doesn't do that. And every Jew that dies at the hands of one of the released terrorists was murdered, in part, by the Israeli government.
And that's about it. If Israel can capture them, it captures them. If it can't, and the only way to stop them from committing more atrocities against us, then we kill them. I see no moral fault in that whatsoever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
Ah. And when they went ahead and killed them, what rationale were they applying at that point? That since there had already been a little killing, they wanted some of the action?
What you're suggesting here is that it's perfectly acceptable to kidnap and threaten to kill policemen to extort someone's freedom. Is that your position?
------
I was going to respond to the other points in your post -- like your extremely flattering and unrealistic depiction of the "rock and a hard place" faced by Israel -- but it's occurred to me that it's actually better to let your words stand on their own, since they do an excellent job of making my point for me.
But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I'm sincerely trying to understand where you're coming from, here. What distinction are you seeing? Is it because one such kidnapping and murder was done by the good guys?
[ September 26, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I think a reasonable person can answer that yes or no. I think no. It isn't ok. It was wrong of the Irgun to kill them at that point. People, of all races and cultures, can be hotheaded and cruel. Jews are no exception. But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation or applies to some greater swath of people than those who committed the murder.
This case is a bit similar, though mostly different, to a situation Palestinian terrorists find themselves in. The question now becomes, is it ok to stop killing innocent civilians for a few days in order to convince the government to release some murderers they've arrested?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation....
Nope. I'm merely pointing out that the Irgun quite self-evidently engaged in terrorism themselves, although to a lesser degree than the more desperate Palestinian terrorists.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But you are insisting on this as if it in some way either knocks Israel's handling of the current situation....
Nope. I'm merely pointing out that the Irgun quite self-evidently engaged in terrorism themselves, although to a lesser degree than the more desperate Palestinian terrorists.
Even if we can agree that the Irgun was wrong, that's putting it mildly.
If that is your point, though, I fail to see the significance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's significant precisely because starLisa does not agree, whereas you think it's insignificant precisely because it's self-evident.
The fact that the sky is normally blue only becomes important when you're talking to someone who insists that it's generally yellow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The case was not the same. In the case I mentioned, they did not capture and kill them as a matter of revenge. They captured them in order to prevent the killing of the two Jews. It was possible at that point for there to be no killing, which is not the case in your example.
Ah. And when they went ahead and killed them, what rationale were they applying at that point? That since there had already been a little killing, they wanted some of the action?
If you are asking a question, it behooves you to wait for an answer, rather than supplying your own and then continuing as though your answer was mine.
You don't make a threat and fail to carry it out. Not if you ever want to be taken seriously again. How many Jews do you think were hanged by the British after this event took place?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What you're suggesting here is that it's perfectly acceptable to kidnap and threaten to kill policemen to extort someone's freedom. Is that your position?
Nope. And again, why not wait for an answer?
They didn't threaten to kill anyone to procure anyone else's freedom. They wouldn't have even taken those British soldiers captive had the Brits not said they were going to kill the Jewish prisoners. It was the brutality of the British that was at issue. The fact that they intended to murder two human beings who had committed no crime.
And before you object to that, I repeat what I've said before on this forum: "Victimless crime is an oxymoron".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I was going to respond to the other points in your post -- like your extremely flattering and unrealistic depiction of the "rock and a hard place" faced by Israel -- but it's occurred to me that it's actually better to let your words stand on their own, since they do an excellent job of making my point for me.
Nicely dishonest. Label my points, but refrain from responding to them.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
No. Never. Maybe I was mistaken in my judgement of your intelligence if you actually read that into my words.
Brits take Jews captive and announce that they are going to murder them for possessing weapons at a time when Arabs are killing Jews and the Brits have declared themselves unable to protect the Jews.
Jews, wanting to prevent this murderous act, take British soldiers captive and announce that the lives of the Brits are in British hands.
The Brits go ahead and kill the Jews. The Jews kill the Brits to demonstrate that they are deadly serious and that they do not make empty threats.
That's what happened, dammit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I really DO want a clarification of my first question: is it okay to kidnap and kill policemen in order to convince the government to release someone they've arrested?
I think a reasonable person can answer that yes or no. I think no. It isn't ok. It was wrong of the Irgun to kill them at that point.
I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives.
Ah. So cold-blooded murder becomes justifiable when it persuades people to abandon their laws? Or just when those laws include the death penalty? Or just when they're laws that cost Jewish lives?
I'm still looking for the distinction here that you wouldn't apply to other forms of cold-blooded murder that apparently works as a moral justification for you.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Reread Lisa's comment. Her example may be poorly chosen. Her point, I think, is that not all situations are created equal. While murdering the British policemen was wrong, in my opinion, the context does need to be taken into account.
There is not really any significant analogy between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists. There is no analogy because the situations are so different. Superficially one can claim that each group murdered people, but that only tells 1 percent of the story. The Jews were being massacred, were prevented from defending themselves, and were inadequately defended by the British. The Palestinian civilians are in the most danger, not from Israel, but from Palestinian terrorists. Arming them to fight the terrorists was attempted, but the weapons ended up in the hands of the terrorists. The best protection they have and the best protection Israeli civilians have, in my opinion, is from the Israeli governement's decapitation of the terrorist organizations.
The two cases are so dissimilar, I was surprised you kept insisting on this. Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
I do think that killing them at that point was wrong. Of course, I think what the British did was worse. I don't think kidnapping them was wrong in any way. If the Jews being held hostage by the British had killed their captors I would not think it was wrong. If the Irgun had captured and killed those particular soldiers who were about to hang the Jews or those who planned their hanging, I would not think it wrong. But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
I hate arguing with you about this, because it seems such a minor point. Even if we disagree on this issue, there is a world of difference between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, a convincing historical argument could be made, that the Palestinian tactics against the current state of Israel, were directly learned from the methods that Jewish groups used to get rid of the Brits in the first place.
If I had plot creativity, I think a very interesting and semi-plausible alternative history could be written. One where after the end of the Ottoman Empire the arab and jewish settlers worked together to kick the Brits out.
If you go back to the early 1900s there really wasn't nearly the messy animosity that exists between the two groups today.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
You're right, of course, about a reasonable discussion of ethical warfare being impossible.
For my part, I submit that war is unethical. And cold-blooded murder even more unethical. And attempting to justify cold-blooded murder is as sleazeball as it can possibly get, because it makes it easier to head down that path every time you're convinced it's "worth it."
Practically no one starts out a killer. People have to rationalize murder to themselves for a whole bunch of reasons before they'll do it.
quote: But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
While we're at it, is this an appropriate description of events? As I understand it, British law carried with it a death penalty. I would argue, if that's the case, that the kids involved were sentenced, not murdered.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives.
Ah. So cold-blooded murder becomes justifiable when it persuades people to abandon their laws? Or just when those laws include the death penalty? Or just when they're laws that cost Jewish lives?
I'm still looking for the distinction here that you wouldn't apply to other forms of cold-blooded murder that apparently works as a moral justification for you.
I believe that I've made myself perfectly clear to anyone who has read what I've written honestly and without an axe to grind.
It was funny. Last night I watched the season premiere of The West Wing. One line that comes up in the episode was, "If you don't like the question, don't accept the premise of the question."
That bugged me. It came across as less than honest. A tricky debating trick. But it's awfully close to a sentiment that I fully embrace, which is, "If you don't agree with the premise of the argument, don't let someone try to push in you into answering within that premise."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, where have I misunderstood you? Are you saying that you agree the Irgun was a terrorist organization, and that the murder of two British soldiers was an evil act? If not, then I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I disagree. I strongly disagree. By carrying out the threat, they saved Jewish lives. What they did was nothing like killing someone to get someone released from jail. The goal was to get the Brits to stop murdering Jews.
Don't let him play you like that.
I do think that killing them at that point was wrong. Of course, I think what the British did was worse. I don't think kidnapping them was wrong in any way. If the Jews being held hostage by the British had killed their captors I would not think it was wrong. If the Irgun had captured and killed those particular soldiers who were about to hang the Jews or those who planned their hanging, I would not think it wrong. But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
I hate arguing with you about this, because it seems such a minor point. Even if we disagree on this issue, there is a world of difference between the Irgun and the Palestinian terrorists.
Had we taken two British civilians and threatened to kill them if our boys were hanged, even the mere threat would have been wrong, and had we carried it out, it would have been unconscienable. But I can't view British troops in the same way.
But we can agree to disagree. The bigger thing is Tom's onslaught (which has totally hijacked this thread, aside from its dishonesty).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, a convincing historical argument could be made, that the Palestinian tactics against the current state of Israel, were directly learned from the methods that Jewish groups used to get rid of the Brits in the first place.
If I had plot creativity, I think a very interesting and semi-plausible alternative history could be written. One where after the end of the Ottoman Empire the arab and jewish settlers worked together to kick the Brits out.
If you go back to the early 1900s there really wasn't nearly the messy animosity that exists between the two groups today.
Right. The Jews who died in the Hebron Massacre in the 20s must have killed themselves. Or tripped over a bunch of sharp objects.
What caused the animosity was having more than dribs and drabs of Jews returning. The Arabs don't play well with others. Not unless they're on top.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Okay, where have I misunderstood you? Are you saying that you agree the Irgun was a terrorist organization, and that the murder of two British soldiers was an evil act? If not, then I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all.
They were not a terrorist organization. They were right to kill the British soldiers. You have misrepresented what that consisted of by comparing an attempt to prevent a double murder from being carried out to trying to get people released from imprisonment.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm amused starLisa. If anyone has been inflammatory, it's me, not JonBoy and not Tom Davidson.
Did I deliberately throw that out there? Yes. Because, (and your further responses have proved this) it appears to an observer, you are "ultra-orthodox" rather than merely "orthodox".
I'm sure you won't like it that I say that. But your responses put you firmly on that side of the ultra-orthodox political line. (Though I realize in Judaism especially where religion and politics intersect it's always more of a web than a line.)
So then, the question really comes down to the Hatracker community. How *do* we treat someone who is ultra-orthdox? How would we treat a Muslim in the same situation? How do we find any sort of place for them in our little crystal City? Because in a microcosm, if we can't make it work here, no wonder the rest of the world is screwed.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Lisa's example showed a murder on a simple level, but ignoring its context means that we can never have a reasonable discussion of what tactics are considered ethical in war.
You're right, of course, about a reasonable discussion of ethical warfare being impossible.
For my part, I submit that war is unethical.
And for my part, I'd love to hear your opinion of that again when someone who has launched war against you is on your doorstep. Methinks you might reconsider your view on defensive war.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But taking two soldiers not directly involved in the murders and killing them, that's wrong.
While we're at it, is this an appropriate description of events? As I understand it, British law carried with it a death penalty. I would argue, if that's the case, that the kids involved were sentenced, not murdered.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime. A government has an obligation to protect those it governs. When they don't carry out that responsibility, they forfeit any moral authority they ever had.
Arabs were murdering Jews. The Brits wouldn't stop them, and refused to allow the Jews to protect themselves. So they passed a law forbidden possession of weapons on pain of death.
Around the same historical period, the German government also passed a number of laws. They also sentenced people to death or to imprisonment in death camps. "Sentenced" is the correct term in that case as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I'm amused starLisa. If anyone has been inflammatory, it's me, not JonBoy and not Tom Davidson.
Did I deliberately throw that out there? Yes. Because, (and your further responses have proved this) it appears to an observer, you are "ultra-orthodox" rather than merely "orthodox".
How about that. You sound like Robert Kaiser. Actually my mind boggles a bit at the concept of a somewhat Objectivist lesbian being called "ultra-Orthodox". A term which was coined as a pejorative in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I'm sure you won't like it that I say that.
M'lady, you overestimate your importance. Your opinion on the matter isn't significant enough for me to dislike.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: But your responses put you firmly on that side of the ultra-orthodox political line.
In your opinion. I wonder what basis you have for presuming to offer one on this subject?
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So then, the question really comes down to the Hatracker community. How *do* we treat someone who is ultra-orthdox? How would we treat a Muslim in the same situation? How do we find any sort of place for them in our little crystal City? Because in a microcosm, if we can't make it work here, no wonder the rest of the world is screwed.
That's adorable.
"I declare Lisa to be a meanie. We don't really want meanies around here, now do we? What shall we do? Muahahahaha."
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
For KarlEd, if you're still reading this thread:
I want to respond directly to your initial post and query without delving into all the specific issues this thread seems to be in discussion of.
When I say that God is "unchanging," I don't mean that he doesn't act differently under different circumstances, and so he might require some behavior from one person and some behavior from another. Rather I mean that he first of all exists outside of time and second, that he has a consistent character. Since we are beings who exist within time it is rather hard to grasp what it means to live outside of time, of course.
You may claim that he required one thing in Old Testament times and another thing today, but that does not necessarily mean he is unchanging; to me it means that we are changing and so God's method of dealing with us has changed to reflect that. Does that answer your initial query?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You are not willing to say that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. That is what puts you there.
As an American, I would be willing to admit that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act (though a mild form because no one was killed.)
Most nations are founded on some kinds of terrorism, nation founding almost requires it. Hopefully they move beyond it. Some do, some don't.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: You are not willing to say that the Irgun was a terrorist organization. That is what puts you there.
That's really funny. So Menachem Begin, despite not being Orthodox, was Ultra Orthodox? Do you even know what the pejorative term "ultra-Orthodox" is used for? It's used primarily for non- or anti-Zionist groups in Israel who so opposed the creation of a state prior to the coming of the Messiah that they declared it illegal to vote in Israeli elections. It spread from there to what some people call "black hat" communities in general.
The idea of the insult was to differentiate those icky black hatters from "normal" Orthodox Jews, who may be nutty enough to keep kosher and all, but will at least wear t-shirts. The ones who don't make their more assimilated counterparts feel uncomfortable.
For you to apply the term to someone who is openly gay and someone who finds the whole "We have to wait for the Messiah" thing to be really, really sad... well, remember what I said about your presuming to offer an opinion? That's because an opinion that doesn't have at least some information behind it just isn't all that worth addressing.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: As an American, I would be willing to admit that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act (though a mild form because no one was killed.)
Most nations are founded on some kinds of terrorism, nation founding almost requires it. Hopefully they move beyond it. Some do, some don't.
It's people like you, Anna, who have devalued the concept of "terrorism" so much that people have begun to accept it as a legitimate tool.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks, Alvin. Yes, I'm reading this thread (with trepidation at times, but . . . well, yeah.)
I believe I understand what you and others are asserting when you write of how God can be "unchanging" but still act differently under different circumstances. However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means? I agree that it can be hard to grasp what it means to "live" (I'd say "exist") outside of time, but surely we must have something in mind, especially if that is a quality we believe God to possess. I mean, to assign a quality to something if we have no idea what that quality means is beyond "unhelpful" in determining the nature of the thing defined.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One thing to remember, KarlEd. Not all Christians (by a long shot) are biblical literalists.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Oh, of course I realize that. I've never intimated otherwise. That's why I'm asking people to express their specific beliefs. I hope everyone will take the opportunity to reject my premise whenever it incorrectly states their viewpoint.
Not only is every Christian not a biblical literalist, but I'm finding that there is almost as much variety of belief among the individuals of even the most defined sects (or denominations or "orthodoxies" if you prefer) as there are between the sects themselves.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means?
KarlEd, I consider myself to be an agnostic, but I wanted to respond to this question.
I believe that there is a higher power out there, but how I define it I'm not entirely sure. With regards to the question of God existing outside of time, I think that, for me, it means outside of all time. Something had to have created everything and that thing which created it cannot be part of it. It's just a higher power beyond all comprehension, therefore, in my opinion, there is no need to figure out the nature of it, which is part of the reason I don't follow any particular religion. There are other reasons as well, but they don't fit into this topic.
But that brings up the question of where did the creator come from and was it always there and will always be there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
andi330,
quote: Second, we do actually have records of the books that were left out of the current Biblical Cannon. If you're interested in reading some of them you can pick up a copy of After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman. It includes such "Apostalic" writings as: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Proto-Gospel of James etc. It's a college text book, so you may have to head to your local college bookstore to locate a copy. Most classes in New Testament use Ehrman so it's fairly likely they'd have a copy. It becomes painfully obvious very quickly to anyone familiar with the current Biblical Cannon just why these books, and others, were left out.
And the Magdelene gospel and Gnostic gospels. I didn't want to further muddy the waters when I posted (silly me!). And who knows what simply didn't survive?
Scholarship on the dates of the gospels differs widely and keeps changing. With the advance of "higher criticism" some scholarship puts the dates somewhat later than originally thought. Also, there is some scholarship that believes that they were "compiled" over a periods of decades rather that written as a whole.
At any rate, my point was that not all Christians believe that the bible is inerrant.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But that brings up the question of where did the creator come from and was it always there and will always be there.
Well, actually, it doesn't bring up that question if that is what you truly believe. If it exists outside of all time there should in fact be no state of before or after in relation to that thing. And while I can conceive of a thing that exists outside of all time, I don't believe there must necessarily be such a thing.
I consider myself an agnostic, but I'm always open to new concepts or ideas. I believe (or more precisely I entertain the possibility of) a power outside of our universe, but I have no reason (as of yet) to believe that it is a "higher" power, per se.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Well, actually, it doesn't bring up that question if that is what you truly believe. If it exists outside of all time there should in fact be no state of before or after in relation to that thing. And while I can conceive of a thing that exists outside of all time, I don't believe there must necessarily be such a thing.
Yea, well then I guess for me, I still haven't been able to get my head about something that has existed for all of time and will continue to exist no matter the state of the universe.
quote:I have no reason (as of yet) to believe that it is a "higher" power, per se.
Same here, though I was raised Presbyterian.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, let me see if I'm correctly stating your position:
1) The British empire failed to properly protect its Jewish subjects from its Arab subjects, abrogating its right to rule them.
2) It arrested two Jews under an unjust law, and threatened to apply the law to them.
3) Irgun kidnapped two British soldiers -- who, by virtue of being troops belonging to a power that had abrogated its right to rule, can be more properly assumed to be hostile troops of an occupying power -- and attempted to extort negotiations from the occupying nation.
4) When the British refused to negotiate with the kidnappers, Irgun was right to kill its two military hostages. This does not constitute terrorism or murder, as it was done in an attempt to defend individuals from a hostile state.
Is this a fair statement of what you believe?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The way "ultra-orthodox" is currently used in the U.S. media, is to describe those who resist any sort of comprimise with the Palistinians and think that all is justified because God has given Israel a right to exist. As I said, it's the strident "political" orthodoxy, not the "religious" orthodoxy that I'm objecting to. Perhaps you aren't that far out there. I sincerely hope you aren't to that extreme. But you sound that fanatical to me. You sound equally as fantatical about your lesbianism. I have a problem with fanatics of all stripes because I'm related to way too many of them. It's your life. But people like you scare me.
(It was pointed out to me that religious ultraorthodox Jews are often much more like Quakers or Amish. I apologize for convoluting the current media shorthand of ultraorthodox = right-wing fanatics with those nonviolent religious ultraorthodox)
And please, your defense of the Irgun, means that *you* think terrorism is a legitimate activity. Not me. It happens. That doesn't mean it should be defended or justified. It is the people who try to defend and justify it that lend it legitimacy.
AJ
[ September 26, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 2) It arrested two Jews under an unjust law, and threatened to apply the law to them.
Context is important here. The law prevented them from defending themselves. The law was not only unjust, but the Jews' acquisition of weapons could easily be argued was in self-defense. The law does make certain concessions for cases of self-defense.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: ...have devalued the concept of "terrorism" so much that people have begun to accept it as a legitimate tool.
How sad that this has become the case. The word Genocide is going through a similar situation. I don't believe that word is being used appropriately either, though in the other direction. I am frustrated to hear people's reservations about calling situation in Sudan genocide.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The law was not only unjust, but the Jews' acquisition of weapons could easily be argued was in self-defense. The law does make certain concessions for cases of self-defense.
Not the sort of concessions we're talking about. It's a different sort of self-defense argument, too. Proactive self-defense is not in fact a factor in sentencing.
If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE]If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Please see my post revision on the previous page.
I apologise for convoultiong the media definition of "ultraorthodox=rightwing fanatic" with the true religious ultraorthodox community.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
No, I doubt it. If I believed Billy were going to kill me, and consequently shoplifted a rifle from KMart, I imagine they'd still prosecute me to the limits of the law.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs.
Thanks for dropping the "self-described/so-called." It looks like a fine distinction to someone who has no Palestinian background, but I do, and I appreciate that you changed it.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
No, I doubt it. If I believed Billy were going to kill me, and consequently shoplifted a rifle from KMart, I imagine they'd still prosecute me to the limits of the law.
And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you? I think Billy's threat would be taken seriously enough that you would be justified in your actions. Just as these two Jews were justified in protecting themselves from certain Arabs who were murdering Jews at the time in that place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you?
Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Nice job changing the example. Now, from the original example, Billy is "the guy down the street" and you're "gangbanger". That's a different situation and a different context. It is interesting how these things always end up more complex than they originally seem. And with more complexity come more reasonable nuance in forming an opinion.
Let's complicate this further and get closer to the original analogy then. Billy has killed your unarmed friends and others from your community. And not just Billy, but Billy and his friends. The law states that you cannot have a firearm to defend yourself. You know that Billy and co. are coming back and the police will not, or are not able, to stop them. Someone, not you, brings in case of firearms and offers you one. Remember, Billy is not just coming after you, but coming after your family and friends. Are you justified in accepting that firearm?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you justified in accepting that firearm?
Legally? No. Ethically? It's a wash. Because presumably the state has decided that no exceptions can be made for the possession of firearms, and moreover has provided for the protection of individuals through another method.
You may well decide yourself that the state has failed you, and thus conclude that you are better off breaking the laws of the state and forfeiting its ineffective protection. But in so doing, you also accept that you are knowingly breaking the laws of the state; you have deliberately placed yourself above the law.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are consequences. And the state gets to decide what those consequences are.
In this case, two youths decided they were above the law, and the law in question sentenced them to death. Another group, dissatisfied with the law, kidnapped and killed two people.
At every single stage, ethics broke down.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Please see my post revision on the previous page.
I apologise for convoultiong the media definition of "ultraorthodox=rightwing fanatic" with the true religious ultraorthodox community.
Cool. So I'm a rightwing fanatic libertarian lesbian science fiction fan.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs.
Thanks for dropping the "self-described/so-called." It looks like a fine distinction to someone who has no Palestinian background, but I do, and I appreciate that you changed it.
Um... I just figured that I'd made that point. I'd probably still use it if that was the precise topic of discussion. I'm still refusing to use the term Palestinian as nationality, and when I say "Palestinian Arabs", I'm going to presume (hope, I mean) that people realize I'm using it in contrast to Palestinian Jews such as those who created the State of Israel.
Like I said before, my partner's great-grandfather is buried in Safed. She's at least as much a Palestinian by descent as you may be.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you?
Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Are you unable to comprehend the difference between crime and war? It seems so.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Right wing when it comes to Israeli politics, libertarian on US politics I think there's a distinction there.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you unable to comprehend the difference between crime and war? It seems so.
Which one entitles you to kill innocent people?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Right wing when it comes to Israeli politics, libertarian on US politics I think there's a distinction there.
Interesting. I so love it when people try and tell me (and others) what my positions are.
Actually, I'm off the left/right spectrum entirely.
I'm against the draft,
I think we never should have sent a land force into Iraq,
I think we should legalize gay marriage,
I think we should shut down government run schooling,
I think people should be able to hire or fire or rent or sell to or turn away anyone they want, provided that they don't violate a contract in the doing, and that no one on earth has the right to demand that they justify it.
Trying to label that as either left wing or right wing, or left wing domestically or right wing domestically or whatever simply demonstrates that you're more comfortable dealing with labels than ideas.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you unable to comprehend the difference between crime and war? It seems so.
Which one entitles you to kill innocent people?
I reject the premise of your question. Rephrase it, or I won't answer it. Your choice.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm using it in contrast to Palestinian Jews such as those who created the State of Israel.
I know, and in that context it makes logical sense. However, it also makes logical sense from a modern perspective, as "Palestinian" in common usage today is a subset of "Arab."
And that's as close as I'll come to discussing the larger issue on this forum.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So its your position that the Israeli soldiers taken off the street and then killed due to no action of their own were not innocent?
edit: I actually misspoke; I meant British soldiers, but this in some ways makes the point more.
[ September 26, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I reject the premise of your question. Rephrase it, or I won't answer it. Your choice.
Which premise do you reject, specifically? Are we presuming that the British soldiers in question were guilty of something?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*bump*
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
I think you misunderstand her. I don't think she was saying "Those are your positions in US politics" but rather "Those positions are what we, in US politics, call 'libertarian'." See the difference?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still interested in hearing which premise you do not accept. I'll gladly rephrase the question if you tell me which part of the question makes it difficult for you to address.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
I think you misunderstand her. I don't think she was saying "Those are your positions in US politics" but rather "Those positions are what we, in US politics, call 'libertarian'." See the difference?
I don't think I misunderstood her. This was what she posted:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Right wing when it comes to Israeli politics, libertarian on US politics I think there's a distinction there.
Seems fairly clear to me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm still interested in hearing which premise you do not accept. I'll gladly rephrase the question if you tell me which part of the question makes it difficult for you to address.
Go back and reread all of my answers to your posts. Do it without trying to fit me into some preconceived box. If you have questions then, feel free to post them. Preferably on a thread other than this one. Hijacking isn't nice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am also curious about what premise inherent in his question you reject.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
KarlEd (by the way, my name is Avin, not Alvin),
quote:However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means?
I do mean outside of all time. It's rather a puzzle to try to explain, though. I certainly have concrete beliefs about what this means, because as you say, otherwise it would be pointless to claim this is a defining characteristic of God.
"Outside of time" is what I mean when I use the word "Eternal" and that's how I believe the Bible uses it. The common conception of this is without beginning or end, and I think most take this to mean existence that continues for infinite time in the past and will continue for infinite time in the future, but this is not what I mean. Eternity is as much like an infintisimal moment as it is an infinite length of time. There is no before or after, there just is. This precludes the physical reality we experience because space necessitates time as any physicist knows, but I've heard philosophy/theology that expresses similar concepts prior to this last century, so this isn't a theory founded on those physics. The reality we know is as much a infintisimal blip in the eternal reality as much as it encompasses it: there is no "before" creation, for instance. God then exists within this eternal reality, yet is more than an impersonal force. He has will and character that exist outside of time even though we experience them from within time.
Oh, and I definitely agree that you will find much more diversity of theology within a single denomination or sect than between them, more often than not. Perhaps one reason that it might be less obvious on this forum is due to the large number of Mormons, and Mormon theology is one of the few that is very different overall from everything else, which is why most Christians regard your denomination as a mere personal preference, except for certain denominations like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, I would not consider myself a "Biblical literalist" (although I see how someone could mistake me for one) because although I take some parts of the Bible literally (the most disputed being parts of Genesis), there are other parts I do not think were meant to be taken literally (the most disputed being parts of Revelation), and I think the proper way to treat the Bible is to take it to mean what it was originally meant to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am also curious about what premise inherent in his question you reject.
Then create a topic and ask.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Go back and reread all of my answers to your posts.
Did it. I still don't see the premise you're rejecting. Would you lay it out more specifically?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am asking here, where the question is. I'm asking now, where you are looking. You refuse to answer the question because you disagree with the premise. Which premise is that?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not on topic in this thread. If you won't start a new one, then I will. Let me know.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Sorry, Avin
"Unchangeable" and "Timeless" seem to go hand-in-hand. If something changes it must exist "in time", else there could be no "before" nor any "after" which are both necessary qualities of "change". That said, I can see how a god could appear unchangeable from a vantage point outside of the timestream of the observer. However, I don't see how any meaningful god could exist outside of all time. Of course I don't see how any meaningful god could be utterly unchangeable, either. An unchangeable god might as well be the ultimate rock, literally. Such a god just is. Such a god can't really do anything, for "to do something" implies a time when it was not yet done, and a time in which it is done, and a time after the doing. Additionally, a God that does something isn't literally "unchangeable", for once He has done something, he is no longer a being who has not done that thing.
I can conceive somewhat of a thing that is literally timeless and unchangeable (as opposed to just appearing so in relation to us), but I can't see how such a god could have any relevance to us or even this universe.
quote:I think the proper way to treat the Bible is to take it to mean what it was originally meant to.
LOL. Yes, but of course this begs the ultimate question concerning the bible. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
starLisa, you can't be seriously concerned with off topic posts at this point.
Seriously, though, on the off chance that you really are concerned with thread highjacking, I have no problem with you answering their question here, if you're going to do it at all. A new thread is unlikely to make any sense to readers not familiar with this one, and to move the conversation at this point is rude to those who are following it. IMO.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
High-jacking is a time-honored tradition.
Stop wiggling. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
KarlEd, I really am concerned with thread hijacking, and not just because it detracts from the topic you started, which I consider very interesting.
I think forums work best if you can find things, you know? And as much as I appreciate your granting me permission to continue here, I started another thread here, with a link back to this thread for those who are interested.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It tends to get on people's nerves.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)