posted
Hmm...not sure Evo is here anymore, but if you are, here are my thoughts:
1. While husband and wife don't agree on everything, it is important for you two to have some mutual understanding about this topic. While you might not see why it is so important, if it is so important to her, then it is important to your marriage.
2. There might be some agreable middle ground here. I for one, solidly believe scripture would have us believe that creation was a rapid affair. I have studied many areas of science which suggest this, but there are many scientists that can show things the other way too. Why? Well, science is not truth, it is just a method we use to try and discover truth. So, science can be used to show anything -- even two contradictory ideas. While I gravitate strongly toward a literal 7-days of creation, I find it easier to let up on that, pursuing more important truths. For example. Do you both acknowlege:
a) The Bible is the inerrant word of God, meant to be taken as truth.
b) Man was created differently and separately from plants and animals, set apart and set above the preceding.
These feel like non-negotiables in your situation. That is, if these are not agreed on, don't marry, or re-think your belief. Then there is a second tier which is even more helpful to agree upon, but it depends on you guys' elasticity. Can you further agree that:
c) God, as we understand Him from scripture, would not use an evolutionary process to produce man, that is, a process of millions of years of semi-human death and suffering is incompatable with His original purpose for creation.
d) The Bible should frame our understanding of science, not the other way around.
My sense is that if you agree on all of these things, you have agreed on the key underlying issues that motivates the overall tension between you two.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realise that you are writing utter, total nonsense, right? I mean, your sentences are grammatical and all, but then so is "The orange farbled the yellowry lovingly."
First, there are no scientists who believe in young-earth creationism. There are people with (mostly faked) degrees, but that's not the same thing.
Second, 'science as a method we use to find truth' kind of implies that it cannot show two things simultaneously, unless you are postulating two different contradictory truths.
Third, the Bible cannot be used to frame our understanding of science. It is not in any sense a scientific tract. At most it can be considered a moral text, though frankly I find it rather disgusting even on that level. Read Paul on slavery and women sometime and you'll see what I mean. But science and morals just don't intersect, nor does science and the Bible.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's not nonsense -- totally, or even in part. If it were you couldn't disagree with it. Nonsense is neither true nor false.
Now, science is not a method that finds truth. It can't prove anything. It only disproves things. If you try over and over to disprove a scientific theory and you can't, confidence in it builds . . . and then, hundreds of years later maybe (as with Newtonian mechanics), it breaks, and we find something better. The theory was only sort of true, we find. Which isn't bad.
(And since science can't prove things, it certainly can't prove contradictory things -- if it's done right.)
And of course the Bible can be used to frame our understanding of science. It doesn't provide science, but it does provide philosophy (among other things), which not only frames understanding of other things but provides a basis for it. The Bible tells us the natural world is created by God (and thus not beneath our notice) but it is not itself possessed of consciousness (and thus it isn't wrong to experiment on it). It's no accident that modern science developed in Europe and nowhere else, despite the obvious inventiveness of places with other perspectives.
Creationism surely isn't a scientific theory. Scientific theories are disproveable by observation of nature, and there's no observation that could disprove creationism: anything can be explained by "God made it that way." That's fine so far as it goes. Lots of good things aren't scientific theories. But since observations are irrelevant to creationism, there's no point in going on about observations confirming it, as creationists do. When any observation can be explained by the theory, it's not really interesting that the ones we make are explained. Another set would do as well.
Creationism can't run into a problem with science, since science is irrelevant to it. Creationism does run into a problem with theology, though. We see things in the universe that are greater than 6005 light years away; so if God made the world then, He must have put the light out into deep space, already headed here, to make it look like the light came from those objects. He littered the earth with fossilized skeletons of creatures that never lived. He put the continents in motion and shaped them so it would look like they fit together once, in a past that never happened. WHy would He do all these things to trick us into believing something that isn't true? Believing he does gives us a very different image of God than we get in the Bible. For this reason, I have to drop creationism: not because I don't believe in the Bible, but because I do.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the God who deceived Abraham into thinking he would have to kill his son; the God who gambled with Satan over Job's fate; the God who routinely ordered the slaughter of entire cities, down to babies in the womb - that God might well perpetrate a deception on a literally universal scale. It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My advice: read the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Brown. He argues, successfully I think, that the evolutionary view is MORE conducive to religious faith than is the literal creationist view.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: First, there are no scientists who believe in young-earth creationism. There are people with (mostly faked) degrees, but that's not the same thing.
False. I know several. None of them think science can be used to support this belief, but not everyone believes science is a god to be worshiped absolutely -- not even all scientists.
quote: Here's a puzzler:
How do we know that God didn't just create us all, hmm...let's see..five minutes ago?
He could have given us all a unique back-story, the whole world pre-history, the buried fossils and the books written about digging them up. All the birds and fish and cars and planes in motion.
The whole thing.
I mean, it's certainly within his power, right? And he's certainly within his rights to do such a thing. And He could make it so that we'd never know, right?
So why do you think that your mom is your mom, or your dad is your dad? Or your wife, or your children? God's created your relations, and your emotions, and your loves, and your hates. He's created your knowledge and your skills and your desires, and...
Wait a minute, this sounds like the plot from "Dark City"...
So: 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years, or 5 minutes. If one makes sense, then they all make sense.
quote: It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
Personally, I have a hard time believing God would punish anyone for using the brain that he gave them. There are some things on this Earth that I cannot believe God would have put here without some purpose and I honestly don't think that God's purpose is to condemn as many people to Hell as possible.
I think the true measure of a god is not vengence, power or knowledge, but instead a god that strives to help others become like himself/herself. I think that using one's brain in either the capacity of science or of faith may indeed be part of such a process.
Secondly: the matter of religion is always going to be fogged by your own point of view. If you believe that what you can observe, test and record is the only reliable source of truth, you're not going to be persuaded by one who believes that truth can only be achieved by reason or even someone who attempts to observe what truth they can through observation and reason, and takes what they don't know on faith.
(I apologize for the frequent use of political correctness in any of my posts. Discussing religion is metaphorically like walking on eggshells. That being said, I also apologize for the potential lack of political correctness in my posts as well.)
and i have read everything and i've been talking with my girlfriend about these things, and we've already agreed we will bring the child up according to religion, but we will send him to a school where religion is not part of the teachings. This os to give the child/children the ability to form opinions on their religion and decide to choose it or not.
Her fear was having a child who grew up faithless. I explained that faithless doesn't mean worthless and she got upset but finally agreed to let our children learn everything they can and make their desicions as we did. Ofcourse we will send them to sunday schools so they can be taught about religion.
I went to in international school and gained many friends from every religion, and it opened my eyes to the world, and i would hate for any child of mine to groww up completely blinkered view of the world assuming anyone who is not of his/her religion is evil.
I thank everyone for their replies,and i hope i haven't caused any problems between friends Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I explained that faithless doesn't mean worthless and she got upset...."
Forgive me for pointing this out, but this seems like a very basic ethical disagreement. I would be reluctant, were I you -- and were I bordering on faithlessness, as you are -- to consider marrying someone who honestly believed this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am not boardering on faithlessness. i believe deeply in my god, and in jesus christ.
my problem was the bible is very vague about alot of things and i could find noone to explain these vagunesses to me.
As to my girlfriend. She knows faithlessness doesn't mean worthless it just needed to be bought up in the situation to help me explain.
We will both try everything in our power to give our children the best possible home, and teach them the ways of god. I just did not want to let my children grow up without seing every angle. Religion is a choice.
Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard, it sounds like the point you need to make is that having a different belief is not the same as being faithless.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
regardless of phraseology we've sorted our problems out, and i recieved an awful lot of help from this post thanks to everyone Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the God who deceived Abraham into thinking he would have to kill his son; the God who gambled with Satan over Job's fate; the God who routinely ordered the slaughter of entire cities, down to babies in the womb - that God might well perpetrate a deception on a literally universal scale. It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
This is a "fallacy of distraction." The slaughter of the Canaanites was not a global deception, but instead was the slaughter of the Canaanites. The trials of Job were not a global deception, but instead were trials of Job. They're just ways to change the subject.
The sacrifice of Isaac is at least relevant. However, there is a major difference between taking Abraham through this one-day drama to show he could be committed to God without killing family, and a vast network of false clues designed to deceive the entire human population forever.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The slaughter of the Canaanites was not a global deception, but instead was the slaughter of the Canaanites. The trials of Job were not a global deception, but instead were trials of Job.
I think the point here is that someone capable of genocide might also be considered capable of falsehood.
If your defense is that, yes, God is guilty of genocide, but falsehood is something else altogether, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situations are not identical, but I think they are rather indicative of character. Why should a murderer not be a liar? Why should a torturer not be a deceiver?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When and why did you people get so hung up about HELL??? ok. I'm sorry, I've yet to read the Christian Gospel. It's only so far on my reading list 'cause it's all I can do to remember months later what I read in the Tanakh. ... but where'd all this Hell crap come from? when did people get so afraid of G-d that they thought - oh crap, if I have an evil thought and forget to think of G-d in my last moments I'll be screwed into an eternal punishment of flame and blades and heavy weights and ice and frostbite and bla bla blah, torture torture torture. Why are so many people convinced that G-d's love is so fickle? Where did that start? please somebody put up a few quoties. or better yet, if any of you are good history buffs, tell me when people first started writing about places of eternal flame and torture for people who shat into the wrong hand and didn' warn their neighbors.
As for me, I take solace in knowing, that is, having faith, that when my life is over, G-d doesn't stop loving me. The testament to his/her - (darn unknowable mysteries, it's so difficult to place down proper names like he or she or it or whatever) love for every sentient creature is this bloody fantastic, endlessly complicated UNIVERSE!
really. A fella what's going to create CREATION -by whatever means he did it - is going to punish people for disagreeing with HOW he did it? How many artists get pissed when people praise his work and then disagree with him on how he did said work? I realize I'm trying to rationalize G-d as a character, which we all tend to do, so I'm going to stop before I write even more stupid things.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The situations are not identical, but I think they are rather indicative of character. Why should a murderer not be a liar? Why should a torturer not be a deceiver?
Well, KoM, I think you are a jerk and tend to hyperbole, but I'm fairly certain you don't torture kittens. One character trait does not imply another.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
and this slaughter of the Canaanites - this was - where was this again? I remember a rabbi saying - I dunno. giving me examples about nasty stuff in the bible, as a reminder that it's as much a history of the Jewish people as it is anything else, especially the stuff in prophets. - anyway, he was telling me we didn't actually commit genocide. wierd enough that we were ordered to, we never really did it. we just attacked some people we were ordered to exterminate, what, three or four times, over a couple of generations - and they just kept coming. then again, I don't think it was canaanites. think the name for these folks started w/ an H.
But yeah, you can easily read the bible and decide, yeah, G-d's a prick. aren't you a prick for washing your hands when you get a harmless lil' food stain on them? you're killing countless microorganisms!
aw, damnit. I did it again. ok, I run now.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you are referring to the Amalekites? And actually, yes, we did wipe 'em out -- or very close. Perhaps we should have done a better job. Then there wouldn't have been a Haman.
OTOH, I do hope you didn't just compare an entire nation of people to bacteria.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, KoM, I think you are a jerk and tend to hyperbole, but I'm fairly certain you don't torture kittens. One character trait does not imply another.
You know, I do not think being insulting on a message board is quite as despicable as wiping out entire peoples for not circumcising their sons. In fact, I don't think it's even as bad as torturing kittens. I am reasoning from the worse trait to the less-bad; you are going from the not-very-serious to the worse. I am thinking you might legitimately reason that a kitten-torturer is a jerk. But perhaps you theists have different standards of morality. Here is Numbers 31, for example :
quote:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now, killing every male is not completely unreasonable, and looting happens in every war. But really, women and children, and then keep the virgins as slaves? This is seriously unpleasant stuff, ordered by a man who was apparently the mouthpiece of Yahweh.
Still, it is just possible that Moses was acting on his own authority here. What does Yahweh say himself? Here is the first book of Samuel, chapter 15 :
quote:Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Well, that's pleasant, isn't it? Note also that this occurs 450 years after the flight from Egypt, to a generation as far removed from the original 'crime' of resisting a bunch of ragtag nomads invading their land as we are from the beginning of the Wars of Religion in Europe. As a matter of fact, Saul is cast down from being king of Israel because, although he kills every woman and child, he spares the king, Agag, and very sensibly steals the cattle and sheep instead of killing them. In other words, he's chucked out for not being quite genocidal enough.
Now, it is true that the Jews weren't just nasty to out-groups, they tended to slaughter each other also. Here's 2 Chronicles, for example :
quote:Then the men of Judah gave a shout: and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered them into their hand. 17 And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men.
I tend to doubt the number a bit, but apparently something rather nasty occurred in that battle. Still, at least they were fighting men, and not women and children. That sort of treatment is only given out to infidels.
Getting back onto the subject of divine lies, here is Yahweh promising Canaan to Moses, in Exodus 33 :
quote:And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
Um, right. So how is it that they still existed when the Jews got there, and as you point out, resisted invasion quite successfully for a long time?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no verse in Exodus 33 containing those words.
Reasoning from an awful trait to a less-bad one is still unsound. Even if it can be established that, say, some accused serial killer really did murder seven hundred people per night, this would not imply that he was responsible for my great-aunt's gout.
[ May 04, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but it might reasonably imply that he could be expected to lie without any great qualms about it. As for the Bible quote, I suggest you take another look at the King James Version. .
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know plenty of people who kill chickens and goats and cows who are not liars. I know plenty of people who kill whole colonies of insects who don't lie. Can you imagine what they would be thinking about us if they could understand what was happening?
I realize that brings up the question of what God thinks of us. But, isn't that the point? The nature and personality of God is different from our mortal selves. The Scriptures have said time and time again that He doesn't lie. Its not in His nature. On the other hand, that IS one of the traits God's prophets are always struggling with or the subject wouldn't come up as often as it does. Now, I can see how you can find killing would be on equal footing with lying when we are talking about a MORTAL person. But, God is Eternally beyond mere human traits or concerns.
You can hate God for what he has done. I won't argue with that. If you want to call him a murderer than by all means do so; until the judgement day when God (if he exists as I believe that he does) will decide your fate. Can't wait to see you call Him that to His face. However, one thing he doesn't do is lie, or at least there isn't anywhere in the Scriptures (as history of God if you will) where that has happened. If anything, God is TOO up front. If he wants to kill you, He will tell you in your face that is what he will do. He honestly does what he says, even if what he does is grotesque to your feelings.
posted
Oh well, the old theist refusal of responsibility again. Why should I not judge someone just because he holds life-and-death power over me? You might as well say that the Jews at Auschwitz had no right to judge their killers.
Now, before someone invokes Godwin's Law on me again, let me point out that I am quite literally accusing Yahweh of genocide. As far as I can see, the actions described in the quotes above are precisely on a level with Hitler's. Thus a comparison with the Holocaust is not the out-of-proportion hyperbole Godwin's Law is intended to prevent, it is an exact analogy.
I cannot judge anything, whether human or divine, based on its own assertion of utter superiority. To be consistent, I would then have to accept white-supremacy theories; assertions that the 'Aryan' race is superior have just as much proof as assertions that Yahweh is divine and beyond human comprehension. I can only judge by actions and consequences.
Looking at the Old Testament, I see a perfectly comprehensible being : A god of war, "the Lord God of Hosts", who punishes at a whim and brags about it. To convince me that Yahweh is above human judgment, you must show some kind of superiority of behaviour; its own word is not enough, and that's all you have.
In fact, you'd first have to convince me of the mere existence of Yahweh. The incomprehensible part, to me, is how people can wish for such an obviously evil being to exist, and yet believe they are acting in a rational fashion.
EDIT : Also, your assertion that Yahweh does not lie. Let me again call your attention to the story of Abraham's sacrifice and the promise to drive the Canaanites from their land.
[ May 04, 2005, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can't wait to see you call Him that to His face."
I just want to point out that I've gone on the record as saying that, if I'm ever faced with God and commanded to worship Him, I will absolutely demand an explanation from Him about all the death and suffering out there before I do so. A God who could not -- or would not -- explain this would not be worth my admiration.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, what was this intended to contribute to the discussion? If you want to post just for posting, why don't you dig up the hug thread or one of the other fluffies from the other side?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word "Perizzites" does not appear in Exodus 33 (according to the Electronic Text Center, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html ), but it does appear in Exodus 3, 23, and 34. Here's what it says in Exodus 23:23-23:
"But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off."
We could leave of the "if" part. This is called "Dowdification."
[ May 04, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I would not like to accuse anyone of deliberately lying, but you are most certainly mistaken. Here are the first few verses of Exodus 33 from your link :
quote:1: And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: 2: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: 3: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. 4: And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.
Perhaps you were using a search function rather than actually looking at the page in question? I suggest you try again with the singular. Badly-programmed search algorithms are finicky like that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
and my brain just grew a good 5 sizes larger.
... Wow. I've got a LOT! of reading to do. but I can definitely say for now that I don't believe much of what was written in the Torah. I've generally looked at it in a few different ways. I've generally believed it was written by various inspired writers. I've generally believed it was written for it's time, and compiled again and again for it's time and for soon after. I have always believed that the best idea with holy scriptures was NEVER! to stop writing, and say - there. the story is over. that's it, those are the five books of moses, they're the most holy, NEver. EVER. Change them to suit the spiritual needs of future generations.
I believe religions have to change. I believe the spiritual needs of people today differ from the spiritual needs of people 2000+ years ago. And I am saddened that people continually forget this.
... That said, I've generally been taught that much of the Bible was written as history, or what amounted for history for people 2000 years ago. Documents of the time would use extreme language, such as - MURDER EVERY LAST WOMAN AND CHILD! RAPE ALL THE VICTIMS! and actually, most likely, they'd send everyone from the town running and screaming, kill a few folks as examples, and generally get back to the buisness of running an army, country, etc. Extremist genocidal language was everywhere when these books got written. the touble is we don't ratinally look at history to see what happenes. the Amonites keep coming back. that means we DID NOT KILL THEM ALL. not sure if there's examples for the others, but I refuse to believe the predecesors to Jews today continually, seriously, attempted genocide. it wasn't a serious idea then - it was just words to make harsh language to make contracts sound far heavier.
Anyway, whether it was true or not, the Torah, and the Tanakh, were/are the spiritual beginnings of a religion that by the time the Talmud was created - while we would write death penalties for things as silly as lying naked in bed w/ someone of the same sex - we couldn't stomach carrying out the death penalty. period.
I guess for a long time we kept to a habit of writing really nasty laws, and at the same time countering them with commentary to keep us sane and rational as a religion. to keep us, hopefully, growing, and learning further the nature of G-d, a being so generous and powerful that it managed to CREATE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE! frankly - with a scale of art like that - I'd be happy to count just how many people have died throughout history, and blame them all on the Creator of the universe, as, inevitably, all deaths are his responsibility, having started the story - and still thank him. look outside people! look at a sunset, look at the beauty of your parents and your children, look at the wonderful, horrible story of it all and say you're not terribly thankful that it's there - that you wouldn't give about anything to keep it, your life and the lives of everything you love. The gift is that we have someone to thank. even if we can never understand him. even if, inevitably, we need to blame the bad on him too.
Thank you God, creator of the universe. Thank you for billions upon billions of lives (I'm counting animals and plants) - oh, and hopefully billions more out there in the universe, hopefully even comprehensible to us, whom you helped to tell different stories for their different histories. Thank you for our crazy, mixed up world where no two people think perfectly alike, where change happens every day. thank you for this fantastically long story, which for all we know is more than we deserve. dyeinu. but it is more than sufficient. Even if I bear the guilt of Jews who committed wanton murder just to have a home thousands of years ago. even if I bear the guilt of Jews who do the same today, if that's what they do defending Israel. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that mess, and I don't hope to soon, it's a big, scary idea - even if I must bear this guilt, and even if we all must - all the guilt of the whole world I'll bear and still thank you because I AM STILL HERE.
and of course, if there's something after this, I'll demand an explanation. but for now? the world suits me. all it's crap? well, eventually I might see a fix to it, and then we'll have more problems, and more stories. that's life, folks! love it, do your best to grow with it and fix it, or get out.
<whew. ok. time to be bashed. I know it'll happen sooner or later, you guys'll get angry and block me>
quote:I just want to point out that I've gone on the record as saying that, if I'm ever faced with God and commanded to worship Him, I will absolutely demand an explanation from Him about all the death and suffering out there before I do so. A God who could not -- or would not -- explain this would not be worth my admiration.
I tend to think it's all a matter of perspective. I like to think a dialogue of this sorts would go something like this:
GOD: "Remember twenty three years ago when you stubbed your toe?"
PERSON: "Not particularly."
GOD: "I do. There was this doorjam, and you hit it. It really hurt for a few hours. But after you stubbed it, you never ran into that particular doorjam again."
PERSON: "I don't think I get your point. I'm asking about massive big-scale suffering. People getting wiped out, cancer, AIDS, rapes.'
GOD: "So, I'm not being shouted down by you anymore for the stubbed toe because you viewed it as fleeting?"
PERSON: "I don't think I blamed you at all for that."
GOD: "You sure yelled my name out pretty loud when it happened."
PERSON: "It was just an expression. And Sure. You're off the hook now, because it wasn't serious. I mean, it didn't kill me or scar me for life!"
GOD: "You need to get some perspective. When you look at the eternities, and how fleeting life is on earth, any pain that happens there, in the scheme of things with eternity in mind, will be as fleeting as your forgotton toe-stubbing. The lessons you've learned, and the empathy you will have gathered for those in similar situations will stay with you, but the actual pain is gone."
PERSON: "But you allowed people to DIE!"
GOD: "Well, you died too, yet you're talking to me. How permanent was that?"
posted
So it would be ok, then, if I killed you because God told me to? Not to mention raping your wife and daughter. Or maybe I should just sell them into slavery, there's a limit to how many women I really need.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're trying to apply a situation that existed at a specific place and time, for a specific purpose - an exception - and are trying to get me to justify it as the rule.
posted
Ah, I see. So it's ok when the rapes and selling-into-slavery only happens to foreigners who lived a long time ago? Suppose Yahweh has a reason to want your wife raped? Maybe she needs to learn something? Perhaps she has been known to speak up in church - not kosher, you know. But even so, burning in Hell forever and ever seems just a little harsh, so maybe just dying painfully would be sufficient punishment.
Incidentally, comparing death to a stubbed toe, or humans to non-sentient insects as someone else was doing a few posts ago, is utterly disgusting.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, you died too, yet you're talking to me. How permanent was that?""
Taal, I'm not sure you can apply this logic, because it suggests that nothing which occurs during life on this Earth particularly matters. There are very few religions which actually believe this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think when it comes down to it, actions, choices, and decisions are what eternally matter. It's these things that are important in developing character, and it's these things that carry into the eternities. Everything else is background noise, and stubbed toes.
posted
Excellent! So you won't mind if I kill you and take all your stuff? I could be doing with a new computer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'd have far more to worry about from my friends, family, and the law than anything I'd have to think about it.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not relevant. Stick to the point, please. Since what happens on this life is transitory, is it, or is it not, OK that I kill you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So then, was it OK for the Jews to kill all the Amalekites, Canaanites, and so on, out of greed for their land?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So then, was it OK for the Jews to kill all the Amalekites, Canaanites, and so on, out of greed for their land?
It wasn't greed for the land, and you're displaying your lack of understanding of the situation.
First of all: the land was originally promised and given to the Israelites. Those who lived there were invaders. Also, for the proper way of life to continue without idolatry sinking in, the invaders influence was needed to be removed. In many cases, it was made quite explicit that greed wasn't the case - in many of those incidents, they were explicitly commanded NOT to loot them afterwards. Those who did were punished.
It was God keeping a promise he'd made before. Those who the Israelites didn't wipe out came back and caused them tons of trouble down the road.
They're inheritance had been stolen away from them - this was part of the plan for them to reclaim it.
It had nothing to do with the fact that their neighbor had an X-Box and they kind of wanted one themself.
Once again - you're taking it out of historical context. An entire nation's rightful existence was at stake, not one individual's greedy desire.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Talk about buying into self-serving propaganda! I mean, seriously. I think you would have believed Hitler was justified in wiping out the Jews, had he won the war and been able to spew his propaganda into your tender young ears. After all, they were clearly threatening the rightful existence of the German nation.
In the second place, why is the existence of the Israelite nation more important than that of the Amalekite nation? I'm sure their gods had promised them that land, too, when they took it away from whoever was there before them. If I'm going to grant the existence of one tribal god, why not all of them?
In the third place, you clearly aren't reading the quotes I posted. The Israelites are not fighting a war against people who stand between them and their promised land; they are returning more than 400 years later to take revenge for some inconvenience they had suffered on the way to the Palestine. They are now well-established as a power in the land; the Amalekites are no threat to them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the third place, you clearly aren't reading the quotes I posted.
No, you're wrong again. I understand your view, and why you interpret it the way you do. Try doing the same. I didn't say you had to agree, just try to understand. There's a difference.
It won't kill you to try and be civil.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you can articulate why the Israelites are important and the Amalekites are not, I'll give your views consideration.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, I've considered. I still stand by the question : Why are the Israelites important and the Amalekites not? Are we not all humans alike? Just how racist is Yahweh, anyway?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would commend any man (or woman, for that matter) who would kill me, rape my child and wife, from a commandment of God.
Truth, as it is, would show, for if the person was lying, there is a good chance that they would be condemed to Hell. If they were telling the truth, then he was a tool of God that was needed in His plan.
We live in a superficial world that means nothing to us, is the long run. I'm not saying you should give up life or stop caring, just try to understand the impossible (yes, it sounds like a monolithic task, but it must be done).
Our actions are strictly to give us an oppratunity to chose our eternity. For those who believe in Fate, destiny, or think that we are just weaves in His quilt, understand that He is above time, He knows everything, He can do anything, yet He gives us an oppratunity to chose. Even though He already knows the outcome, we still need the chance. And there is reason for this, but I need not go into that, for the Book is most likely readily avaliable to you, even if you don't believe.
NO matter what you believe in, we can never know while on this Earth what happens after we die. Yes, we have our beliefs, our speculations, but nomatter what you believe, I charge you that you can never understand it, our ignorance will remain.
Anyway, in answer to a much earlier post: I also wouldn't accuse someone of lying without solid reason. In fact, I'd be so reluctant to do it I wouldn't even bring it up without solid reason.
You're right, K o M: I put in "Perizzites" when I should have put in "Perrizite." There is a reference in Exodus 33. My mistake.
Your objection -- that, in Ex 33:2, God promised that his Angel would finish driving out the locals before the Israelites arrived, and obviously did not do this -- puzzled me, but the verse seemed to say this, and I couldn't find anything in any commentaries. So I posted it on a message board, and got this answer. It seems pretty obviously true; at least, "before" often means location, rather than time, in KJV.
Please pardon the lack of diplomacy on the part of the answerer.
quote:The argument doesn't occur to most reasonable people because of its outright silliness.
He is looking for a technicality here that doesn't exist. When the text says 'before', he wants to force it to mean "prior to", and it does not.
When someone says "I stood before the president", it means he stood in the presence of the president, not that he stood someplace previous to the president. While it is true that the word CAN mean 'prior to', it does not here. This is obvious from the other commands given concerning driving the inhabitants of the land out.
Thanks for making me think. It's sort of like when someone says, "You said you ate dinner with Sally -- but I saw you, and you were eating with a fork! She was just sitting there!" Amazing that something like that could stump me. I've been hearing the word "before" all my life!
[ May 06, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
