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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a tragedy when the person is either unprepared, unwilling, or unready for death.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more tragic for the friends, family, and those who knew the victim than for the victims themselves, actually.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But now we have come full circle- how can it be tragic for the person involved to die and go to heaven?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
