Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Religion and Morality - Poles apart.
Options
Comments
-
Ah, cut out the drama.
I expressed my opinion on the rightness of a God (whom you believe to be an imaginary being) punishing a gang of young hoodlums in an event thousands of years ago that you probably don't believe actually happened.
If you were really consistent in your beliefs, or a real atheist, then this would be no more shocking to you than someone saying that they consider it morally OK that Santa Claus goes down people's chimneys on Christmas Eve.
But this is the same God that you worship right? The same God that believers accross the world say guides them and their moral codes? So presuming that God hasn't suddenly changed his ways in the last few thousand years these stories are still relevant to any moral claims based on the Bible that are made today.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that Jesus' crucifiction forgives all future sins as well as the past ones, and so we no longer need to punish for them.
For Biblical sins yes, He has spared us from the penalty of God's judgement. Note whose judgement we are discussing.Mark Hamill wrote: »If this applies to 2 of the commandments (working on the sabbath and respecting your parents) then surely it applies to the rest.
Yes, concerning God's judgements it does.Mark Hamill wrote: »Is it no longer a sin to steal or kill etc because even if you do its automatically forgiven because of the crucifiction?
No, it's still a sin. We've been given the opportunity to wipe the slate clean. Sins are still sins, and if we are made clean we should be dead to sin and rise to new life in Christ as the New Testament suggests.
As for being automatically forgiven, one has to be genuinely sorry. God will know true repentance from false.
Jesus said in the Gospel of Luke chapter 7, "The one who has been forgiven the most loves the most". Through this love because of our salvation we aim to follow his law as best we can before the final judgement and where failing to seek forgiveness.
Or is it a case of the sin still exists, but because of the crucifiction we shouldn't punish someone who kills or steals etc because they already have forgiveness from god?Mark Hamill wrote: »Should all the christian prisoners in jail be released because they have already been forgiven?
Christians are told to heed the civil law of the State, except in cases of persecution for their beliefs pretty much.Matthew 5:25-26 wrote:Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.Romans 13:1 wrote:Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.Mark Hamill wrote: »And what about other, non commandment sins? Are we automatically forgiven for rape? Or violence? Or not believing in God?
If one believes in Jesus Christ, one can be saved. Didn't Paul not kill Christians for a living? Yet, he became an apostle of God through grace.Mark Hamill wrote: »I'm curious as to what exactly you think deuteronomy means when it says "seizes her"?
Ever thought that it could also be consensual? I posted a link in my last post explaining the Hebrew words used in the passage. It might be good for you to take a quick read of it.0 -
uncleoswald wrote: »But this is the same God that you worship right? The same God that believers accross the world say guides them and their moral codes? So presuming that God hasn't suddenly changed his ways in the last few thousand years these stories are still relevant to any moral claims based on the Bible that are made today.
They are relevant to what is moral for God to do, not advocating something for anyone else to do.
Mao's "Little Red Devils" were indulging in similar behaviour as Elisha's tormentors back in the 1960s when they ganged up on elderly Christians and paraded them through the streets in dunce's caps for refusing to convert to atheism. It wouldn't have been moral for you or me to set bears on the little brats, but it would have served them right if God had.0 -
I see. So God is, by definition, morally correct? Is there anything he can do wrong? Like, apparently attacking children with bears is just fine...so what...if he personally slew them with lightning? Raped them? Destroyed their whole city? Cursed them and their families for three generations?
Or does God truly get a get-out-of-jail-free-card when it comes to moral judgements?
(Also, no, I don't believe in God, so when we discuss such things we're not discussing God...we're discussing you, and your attitude towards authority and morality)0 -
I see. So God is, by definition, morally correct? Is there anything he can do wrong? Like, apparently attacking children with bears is just fine...so what...if he personally slew them with lightning? Raped them? Destroyed their whole city? Cursed them and their families for three generations?
For God, attacking young hooligans (not children) with bears is morally OK. That is the debate I am having with you.0 -
Advertisement
-
They are relevant to what is moral for God to do, not advocating something for anyone else to do.
This is the bit I have trouble with. I don't see a difference in what is moral for a God to do and what rules the rest of us have to follow. The actions of Mao's LRD's is no different to that of God in the Bible (apart from the fact the LRD's were only children,) both reprehensible actions in my opinion and therefore makes any moral claims based on the Bible questionable.0 -
-
For God, attacking young hooligans (not children) with bears is morally OK. That is the debate I am having with you.
Now, let's be clear on our definitions here. These young "hooligans" are guilty of mocking an old man for being bald. Anything else you add to this is your own personal bias. They didn't threaten him or attack him in anyway, they merely insulted him.
For which they, apparently, deserve to be mauled by bears. Your serious? This isn't a clever troll you're pulling on the A&A forum?
Also, why are you ignoring my previous questions that uncleoswald just alluded to?0 -
uncleoswald wrote: »This is the bit I have trouble with. I don't see a difference in what is moral for a God to do and what rules the rest of us have to follow.
I have sympathy with your trouble, but if you can't distinguish between the concepts of what is right for the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe and what is right for you and me then I can't help you with that.0 -
Exactly. You see, God is really really powerful and therefore is justified in anything he does.0
-
Advertisement
-
Yes, and having 42 (possibly many more) youths following you down the road shouting insults at you has no potential to escalate into violence, has it?Now, let's be clear on our definitions here. These young "hooligans" are guilty of mocking an old man for being bald. Anything else you add to this is your own personal bias. They didn't threaten him or attack him in anyway, they merely insulted him.
I have been in similar situations (back in the days when being a punk in 1970s East Belfast was very hazardous to your health) and they always ended up in violence.
Because I entered this thread for two reasons:Also, why are you ignoring my previous questions that uncleoswald just alluded to?
a) To support Jakkass in his argument that slavery in the OT was very different from that of the Transatlantic slave trade.
b) To point out that the usual atheist portrayal of the bears event as the killing of 42 children is not supported by the biblical text.
I can certainly appreciate that you want to change the subject from that, but I have no intention of helping you dig yourself out of that particular corner.0 -
What ever happened to lead by example? I'll have to start bringing a bear around with me when I walk around. Kids do have a habit of making fun of my hair (excess rather than baldness) - glad to know it's ok to set a bear on 'em.0
-
The Mad Hatter: That would be the error of reading out of context.
Elisha was in Bethel, the area in which Jeroboam had placed the 10 golden calves for worship claiming that they were the gods which had led the Israelites out of Egypt, check out 1 Kings for that.
Elisha as a Jewish prophet had a bald head, as was the decree when taking the Nazirite vow as in Numbers chapter 6.
As such Elisha was being persecuted for his Judaism by a mob which numbered far more than the amount that were actually killed as the words say "of them".
So in effect God was saving His chosen prophet Elisha from destruction from those who hated him, and hated the God who had in reality led them out of slavery in Egypt.0 -
Yes, and having 42 (possibly many more) youths following you down the road shouting insults at you has no potential to escalate into violence, has it?
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, the Bible doesn't specify. It only deigned to say that they insulted Elijah, for which he cursed them to a bear attack. I won't assume the bears killed all of them if you refrain from assuming the young people were violent. Let's just deal with the facts, shall we?
Anyway, God could have just created a forcefield between them and Elijah, couldn't he? Or he could have teleported them all back home to their beds? Or created the illusion of a bear attack, which could not actually tear their flesh but scare them away. But he chose to send actual bears to actually tear their flesh. A bit like if I came across some toddlers bullying my son; instead of simply diffusing the situation I choose to beat the shit out of them. But the power gap between me and a toddler doesn't come anywhere close to that of a human and God, does it?I have been in similar situations (back in the days when being a punk in 1970s East Belfast was very hazardous to your health) and they always ended up in violence.
The aforementioned scenario for which you were bitter in my theory.I can certainly appreciate that you want to change the subject from that, but I have no intention of helping you dig yourself out of that particular corner.
Just lol. Is this your equivalent of digging up?0 -
For Biblical sins yes, He has spared us from the penalty of God's judgement. Note whose judgement we are discussing.
Is there such a thing as non biblical sin?Jesus said in the Gospel of Luke chapter 7, "The one who has been forgiven the most loves the most". Through this love because of our salvation we aim to follow his law as best we can before the final judgement and where failing to seek forgiveness.
Surely the one who has been forgiven the most has sinned the most and probably isnt very sorry if they keep sinning.Christians are told to heed the civil law of the State, except in cases of persecution for their beliefs pretty much.Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
You just quoted a piece that states that governing authorites have been put in place by god and yet these governing authorities are the same ones that put people in jail for crimes that they have already been forgiven for by god. Has god knowingly given authority to a governing body who will just contradict him?If one believes in Jesus Christ, one can be saved.
Ok, you seem to be saying that as long as people believe in Jesus they are forgiven of their sins and thats why we know longer need to use the old biblical punishments, am I right?
Well what if someone doesn't believe in Jesus? What if your (non-Christian) buddhist brother works on the sabbath, or your atheist child disrespects you? Should they be put to death for sinning, seeing as they wont be saved in the long run as they deny Jesus?Ever thought that it could also be consensual? I posted a link in my last post explaining the Hebrew words used in the passage. It might be good for you to take a quick read of it.
If it was concensual, why would the man need to seize or lay hold of her? The link you gave has 22 translations of that passages and all but the last (the contemporary english version which doesn't actually seem to be based on any translations of the word taphas, given earlier in the link) use the words "seize", lay hold on" or "take" as well as the words lie down. Why would the divinely inspired version of the bible you hold too (KJV i presume) use a turn of phrase that so unambiguously points to rape if that isn't what it means?0 -
If you actually read the New Testament you will see how Christians understand the Torah. Good rule of thumb to practice first before making inaccurate points about said understanding.
First off, I love the implicit condescension, which seems to be a standard defence mechanism deployed by Biblical apologists. It goes along the lines of:
"The reason you have these ignorant questions is because you don't understand the bible". The only problem is that "understanding the bible" the way you seem to, requires selective hearing, strained interpretations and a lot of glossing over the really crazy stuff (as aptly demonstrated by this thread as it happens).
Now, to address some of your "arguments" (I have to delineate between what you seem to think constitutes an argument, and what I do)
So it was morally ok then to kill somebody who was working on the Sabbath? And, were it not for the New Testament, you would still think it morally acceptable because a different holy book hadn't told you otherwise?Long story short, if we had lived in ancient Israel during the Torah times, yes our sins would have been deserving of deathActually Deuteronomy 22:28 doesn't describe rape
I think I need only quote the same line as you did:
"If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act."
A man seizes a virgin and has sex with her. Sounds like rape to me.
Also, on the link you posted, there are reams and reams of this sort of stuff, where the biblical nonsense is defended by specifying slightly different possible interpretations of certain words or phrases. They all essentially raise the same issues:
a) If so much of this book is open to this type of interpretation, what's the basis for its moral authority (You are essentially arguing that some phrase "can't mean x, because x would be immoral" - how are you making that determination of immoral?
b) How can the need for this sort of "defence by interpretation" be considered supportive of the concept that this book was written by, or divinely inspired by, an all-knowing, all-powerful being?
It seems to me that everything on the page you linked to is geared towards finding a way around the obvious interpretation so as not to contravene pretty fundamental modern human values. It further demonstrates than modern human morality has evolved despite the holy books, not because of them.
Finally, I could just as easily point out that in the contrived interpretation you link to, there are still glaringly questionable morals: A father "owns" his daughter and should be "paid off" if her "bride price" has been affected by "potentially consensual, (but not necessarily)" sexual relations. It also implies that if a woman is raped in an urban setting but doesn't protest enough (as defined by whether she "cried out" sufficiently to be heard) then equal blame is apportioned to the woman (c.f. Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
In fact, most of Deuteronomy 22 is pretty morally abhorrent to be honest.Under the law yes, under grace no
What does that even mean?Are you speaking of the crucifixion when you talk of human sacrifice or are you talking of Abraham and Isaac, which was to make a point that human sacrifice amongst the Israelites would not be acceptable.
Some further examples of human sacrifice in the bible, aside from the biggie, that being the need for Jesus' own sacrifice on behalf of future generations of unborn sinners (this was the best option available to an all-powerful God btw!?):
Genesis 22:2, Exodus 22:29, Leviticus 27:28-29, Numbers 31:25-29, Judges 11:29-40, 2 Samuel 21:1, 8-9, 14The Bible doesn't mention. So nowhere in the text itself is incest encouraged, particularly for us today.
Ok. This is just pedantic. Who do you think Adam & Eve's children procreated with given that Adam & Eve were the only 2 humans on the planet prior to their offspring? This argument is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I can't hear you".
(Also, now that I think of it, same question & issue with Noah's children since everyone else was killed in the flood!)0 -
-
The Mad Hatter: That would be the error of reading out of context.
Elisha was in Bethel, the area in which Jeroboam had placed the 10 golden calves for worship claiming that they were the gods which had led the Israelites out of Egypt, check out 1 Kings for that.
Elisha as a Jewish prophet had a bald head, as was the decree when taking the Nazirite vow as in Numbers chapter 6.
As such Elisha was being persecuted for his Judaism by a mob which numbered far more than the amount that were actually killed as the words say "of them".
So in effect God was saving His chosen prophet Elisha from destruction from those who hated him, and hated the God who had in reality led them out of slavery in Egypt.
...ok...is that an attempt to provide context?0 -
-
First off, I love the implicit condescension, which seems to be a standard defence mechanism deployed by Biblical apologists. It goes along the lines of:
"The reason you have these ignorant questions is because you don't understand the bible". The only problem is that "understanding the bible" the way you seem to, requires selective hearing, strained interpretations and a lot of glossing over the really crazy stuff (as aptly demonstrated by this thread as it happens).
It wasn't my intention to condescend. The question of how Christians view the Torah and the Law of Moses is however dealt with repeatedly particularly in the apostolic writings of Paul, but also in other New Testament scriptures. Christians take this understanding, and apply it to the Torah in order to discern according to the Spirit what remains to be followed. I'm merely saying that if you weren't flicking through the Torah to find odd passages to criticise Christians with you could be seeing how Christians actually understand them in practice. I just want you to be able to open your mind somewhat instead of thinking that you already have all the answers concerning God, and I will be open to your criticisms in return.Now, to address some of your "arguments" (I have to delineate between what you seem to think constitutes an argument, and what I do)
Hm, condescension? I thought we weren't to do that? The hypocrisy has seeped in already?So it was morally ok then to kill somebody who was working on the Sabbath? And, were it not for the New Testament, you would still think it morally acceptable because a different holy book hadn't told you otherwise?
Yes, God has the right to create life and to take it away.I think I need only quote the same line as you did:
"If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act."
We have no evidence to suggest that this line isn't referring to consensual sex. Are you suggesting that people don't sieze onto eachother in regular relations?A man seizes a virgin and has sex with her. Sounds like rape to me.
Of course it sounds like rape to you, because that is what you want to gather from it. The Hebrew word which is used is used in several other passages which don't have any forceful intention involved. What evidence do we have to say that it is in this instance. The harsh opposition that the Israelites had towards rape in the historical books and in the Torah even (Genesis is a part of the Torah) seemed to indicate to me that it was a moral no no.Also, on the link you posted, there are reams and reams of this sort of stuff, where the biblical nonsense is defended by specifying slightly different possible interpretations of certain words or phrases. They all essentially raise the same issues:
It isn't nonsense to try and discern what the original meaning of the writer was using the Hebrew text instead of the English rendering. Much meaning is lost from passages in translation due to the lack of words to express certain things. Like the word "righteousness" was coined by Tyndale during his translation of the New Testament because there was no equivalent word in English.a) If so much of this book is open to this type of interpretation, what's the basis for its moral authority (You are essentially arguing that some phrase "can't mean x, because x would be immoral" - how are you making that determination of immoral?
How much of this book is open to using the original languages to try and find the best rendering of the passage in common interpretation you mean? Yes, all of it, that's what theology is about. I'm making that determination of immoral from what is the attitude towards rape in the rest of the book. You would have to make a clear and consistent case that that passage explicitly refers to rape.b) How can the need for this sort of "defence by interpretation" be considered supportive of the concept that this book was written by, or divinely inspired by, an all-knowing, all-powerful being?
It's not defence by interpretation, it's more defence by actually looking into what the passage says rather than what you or other people have speculated on top of it. You have speculated that the word "seize" (as in the NRSV translation I use) means rape. This isn't what is in the text however, as such it should be discounted. If the text had said a word that actually means rape in Hebrew, I might entertain your argument on a more serious level.It seems to me that everything on the page you linked to is geared towards finding a way around the obvious interpretation so as not to contravene pretty fundamental modern human values. It further demonstrates than modern human morality has evolved despite the holy books, not because of them.
I don't agree that it is obvious that the word seize means rape. That's like saying that grabbing someones hand actually mean breaking it. That would be speculation on the top of the text "grabbing" however. There is no advocation of rape in Torah that I know of, and I'd be glad to go through all the examples you can provide if necessary.Finally, I could just as easily point out that in the contrived interpretation you link to, there are still glaringly questionable morals:
How is it contrived to actually look to what is written on the page instead of listening to distortions that you have contrived? Infact that's the only thing that is contrived about what we are doing surely. What the author of that piece is saying is, hey let's look to the Hebrew and see if you have a case. The answer was a resounding no. However it is to be expected that the hard hearted such as yourself, and those who find every excuse to reject God will reject even the most clear of explanations.A father "owns" his daughter and should be "paid off" if her "bride price" has been affected by "potentially consensual, (but not necessarily)" sexual relations. It also implies that if a woman is raped in an urban setting but doesn't protest enough (as defined by whether she "cried out" sufficiently to be heard) then equal blame is apportioned to the woman (c.f. Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
You are discussing two separate passages here. Please cite the one concerning the father and the bride price as I'd be interested in discussing that a bit more.
As for Deuteronomy 22:23-24, it concerns the rape of a woman soon to be engaged to another man, and what the redress should be incase another has relations with someone elses fianceé. The penalty is death unless there was clear evidence that the woman had resisted the assault. If there is no evidence to suggest that it wasn't consensual what else do we have to go on. Infact I'd say there was much less abuse of rape laws like in the West today.
How convenient that you ignore the rest of the passage which concerns what happens if a woman is not heard in the case of rape. The previous passage only concerns what happens to someone who is raped in an urban setting where there are people to defend her in this case.Deuteronomy 22:25-27 wrote:But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offence punishable by death, because this case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbour. Since he found her in the open country, the engaged woman may have cried for help, but there was no one to rescue her.In fact, most of Deuteronomy 22 is pretty morally abhorrent to be honest.
I'd disagree with you yet again.What does that even mean?
If we have been forgiven by Jesus Christ, we have no right to put others to death for transgressing God's law. We are under the grace of Christ's crucifixion, he took the punishments that we truly deserved. So if we punish others according to the law, we to be punished under the law also.Some further examples of human sacrifice in the bible, aside from the biggie, that being the need for Jesus' own sacrifice on behalf of future generations of unborn sinners (this was the best option available to an all-powerful God btw!?):
Genesis 22:2, Exodus 22:29, Leviticus 27:28-29, Numbers 31:25-29, Judges 11:29-40, 2 Samuel 21:1, 8-9, 14
I'll deal with these on a case by case basis later, I have some reading to do for an assignment for university first.Ok. This is just pedantic. Who do you think Adam & Eve's children procreated with given that Adam & Eve were the only 2 humans on the planet prior to their offspring? This argument is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I can't hear you".
(Also, now that I think of it, same question & issue with Noah's children since everyone else was killed in the flood!)
You're asking me to speculate on what hasn't been revealed. I can't write a supplement to the Bible. This argument is actually more akin to me saying, I can't add to the text.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »...ok...is that an attempt to provide context?
Well I'd argue that it actually is providing context as the circumstances have quite a large bearing on the situation itself.0 -
I have sympathy with your trouble, but if you can't distinguish between the concepts of what is right for the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe and what is right for you and me then I can't help you with that.
That is sort of the point
You guys seems to think of right and wrong simply in terms of authority, ending at the top with God who can do pretty much anything.
You divorce the action from the morality completely
It becomes simply a case of does X have the authority to do Y. What Y is, what ever harm or suffering it causes, becomes irrelevant.
You can't kill your brother not because killing your brother is wrong in of itself, but because you have not been given the authority to kill your brother by God. God can kill your brother because he has the authority. Your brother himself, his rights, wishes or value, becomes irrelevant.
Your way is worrying because it leads to excusing the most harmful and hideous actions if the authority is in place, as this thread and others like it on the Christianity forum demonstrates.
The reasons these threads go on for ages and loop all over the place is because seriously people on this forum do not view morality like this. The idea that it should be self evident that God has the "right" (ie the authority) to do anything he likes to us is alien to most of us here because we don't view morality in those terms, something I think a lot of you don't understand.
The idea that all these horrible things are morally ok for God to do but we shouldn't worry that you believe that because you also believe that God hasn't given you the authority to do them is cold comfort because unfortunately history demonstrates that the jump from I haven't been given the authority to I have been given the authority is much shorter than the jump from This is morally bad to This is morally good0 -
That is sort of the point
You guys seems to think of right and wrong simply in terms of authority, ending at the top with God who can do pretty much anything.
You divorce the action from the morality completely
It becomes simply a case of does X have the authority to do Y. What Y is, what ever harm or suffering it causes, becomes irrelevant.
You can't kill your brother not because killing your brother is wrong in of itself, but because you have not been given the authority to kill your brother by God. God can kill your brother because he has the authority. Your brother himself, his rights, wishes or value, becomes irrelevant.
Your way is worrying because it leads to excusing the most harmful and hideous actions if the authority is in place, as this thread and others like it on the Christianity forum demonstrates.
The reasons these threads go on for ages and loop all over the place is because seriously people on this forum do not view morality like this. The idea that it should be self evident that God has the "right" (ie the authority) to do anything he likes to us is alien to most of us here because we don't view morality in those terms, something I think a lot of you don't understand.
The idea that all these horrible things are morally ok for God to do but we shouldn't worry that you believe that because you also believe that God hasn't given you the authority to do them is cold comfort because unfortunately history demonstrates that the jump from I haven't been given the authority to I have been given the authority is much shorter than the jump from This is morally bad to This is morally good
Those with greater power and authority do have the right, morally, to do things that the rest of us don't.
For example, the State has the right (some would say the duty) to force my neighbour to make sure his children receive a decent education. I don't have the right to force him to do that. If I tried to do so then I would be acting immorally.
The Minister for Finance has the right, in the budget, to impose a tax in order to increase Ireland's giving to the developing world. I would find that a very moral thing to do. However, if I personally start taking forcing everyone to give a percentage of their money for the same cause then I would be stealing - which is immoral.
Furthermore, Christians also believe that God is omniscient. I did mention this in my previous post, but you guys conveniently ignored it because it didn't suit the silly straw man you were constructing in order to pretend that I was equating morality with power. Since God is omniscient He can judge our thoughts, motives and intentions and so is more righteous than you or me in His judgements. He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading. We, however, would have to wait until after a crime was committed and then pick up Elisha's corpse after the fact. This is because we might guess at where something is leading - but we can never be sure that our guess is correct.0 -
I'm merely saying that if you weren't flicking through the Torah to find odd passages to criticise Christians with you could be seeing how Christians actually understand them in practice. I just want you to be able to open your mind somewhat instead of thinking that you already have all the answers concerning God, and I will be open to your criticisms in return.
That's kinda my point: it's easy to "flick through" the Old Testament at random and find morally repugnant or irrelevant passages, but you have to seach out and specifically find, and subjectively interpret, the Old Testament to find morally acceptable or relevant passages.Hm, condescension? I thought we weren't to do that? The hypocrisy has seeped in already?
It's not hypocrisy, I fundamentally believe we have different views on what constitutes an argument. You think quoting a holy book in a certain way makes you right. I believe that there is more to an argument than that. I'm sorry if you find that condescending.We have no evidence to suggest that this line isn't referring to consensual sex. Are you suggesting that people don't sieze onto eachother in regular relations?
You are the one talking about quoting things in context. The previous lines and are dealing with rape & punishment (you confirm this later on in your post). This line certainly sounds like it is also, and the context supports it.
I don't want to gather anything from it - I think the whole thing is exactly as it appears: anachronistic nonsense. You are the one who wants to "gather" something from it and pin your morals to it.Of course it sounds like rape to you, because that is what you want to gather from it.There is no advocation of rape in Torah that I know of, and I'd be glad to go through all the examples you can provide if necessary.
Actually I never said it advocated it, I merely said that how Deuteronomy deals with it & the "punishment" for it was morally wanting.However it is to be expected that the hard hearted such as yourself, and those who find every excuse to reject God will reject even the most clear of explanations.
It's quite demonstrably not "the most clear of explanations" or we wouldn't be having a debate on it.
That was from your own link - please read what you link to.You are discussing two separate passages here. Please cite the one concerning the father and the bride price as I'd be interested in discussing that a bit more.
As I said, supporting the context argument of Deuteronomy 22:28As for Deuteronomy 22:23-24, it concerns the rape of a woman soon to be engaged to another man, and what the redress should be incase another has relations with someone elses fianceé. The penalty is death unless there was clear evidence that the woman had resisted the assault. If there is no evidence to suggest that it wasn't consensual what else do we have to go on. Infact I'd say there was much less abuse of rape laws like in the West today.
It seems an inescapable conclusion, regardless of whether the details were specifically "revealed". Do you believe in anything that wasn't specifically "revealed" in the bible btw?You're asking me to speculate on what hasn't been revealed. I can't write a supplement to the Bible. This argument is actually more akin to me saying, I can't add to the text.
This "debate" is now just becoming a "banging head against wall" session I fear.0 -
I have sympathy with your trouble, but if you can't distinguish between the concepts of what is right for the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe and what is right for you and me then I can't help you with that.
I fail to see how been all powerful, all knowing and been the one who created everything (which as an aside must have been fairly easy been all powerful) means that he doesn't have to live by the same moral codes that his subjects have to less they be damned to eternity. This attitude portrays a Being with some of the less pleasant character traits of an average human- hypocrisy, childishness, pride and irrationality. All character traits that are just as likely to be present in a supremely intelligent human as it is to be one as thick as me, and I believe could also be present in any conscience being even with the power of a God.
Does it not show a massive lack of respect towards us that a God would ask us to live by a set of moral codes that he himself does not and fail to explain this beyond "because I am God"*
* I'm paraphrasing God here obviously0 -
uncleoswald wrote: »Does it not show a massive lack of respect towards us that a God would ask us to live by a set of moral codes that he himself does not and fail to explain this beyond "because I am God"*
* I'm paraphrasing God here obviously
Depends what you mean by a lack of respect. If you mean that He doesn't treat us as equals - then that's fine, because we are nowhere near being His equal.
I don't allow my border collie to drive my car, to pay my mortgage, or to give my wife medicine when she's sick. Neither do I allow him to sit on my recliner or to help himself from the fridge every time the munchies strike.
Am I treating my dog with 'a lack of respect' or am I simply recognising that he has different abilities and responsibilities to me?0 -
If (s)he could speak, I'm sure that your dog would like to hear you explain your reasoning with something more convincing than "I can do this, because I don't think you're responsible enough to decide what you can do yourself and anyway I'm bigger than you and I can do what I want."Am I treating my dog with 'a lack of respect' or am I simply recognising that he has different abilities and responsibilities to me?0 -
Actually robindch, I think the justification for following God's precepts would be that we were living in His creation which He knows intimately. Hence one could assume given God's existence that He would know more about His creation than the people living in it. Then we have the whole omniscience factor to take into account.
If you are discussing the relationship between the man and the dog. The man did not create the world, hence does not know exactly although could make a reasonably good guess about how one could live in the world. The man also is not omniscient.
Think about the differences between the two scenarios and see that although there is an affinity between the first and the second, there is also a rather large difference between the first and the second also.0 -
If (s)he could speak, I'm sure that your dog would like to hear you explain your reasoning with something more convincing than "I can do this, because I don't think you're responsible enough to decide what you can do yourself and anyway I'm bigger than you and I can do what I want."
I'll leave the canine mind-reading to your good self.0 -
Advertisement
-
Those with greater power and authority do have the right, morally, to do things that the rest of us don't.
Not because they have great power. Again this is a some what perverse way of looking at authority and morality.
The State doesn't have the right to send people to school because it has an army and a police force and can send people to school if it wants to. The State has the right to force your parents to send you to school not because the State is powerful and can therefore do what it wants, but because going to school is considered the best thing for you.
The State doesn't have the right to beat you while you are in school. It has not lost any of its power between dragging you to school and beating you in school, which highlights that it is not a question of power.
Again, following on from the last post, it is as much what Y is (ensuring that children have an education) that is important, not simply who X is who is carrying it out.
The justification for the States action comes from what it is doing, not who it is nor how powerful it is. You cannot divorce the action from the morality. What someone is doing is as important as who they are.
This though completely falls apart when you guys talk about God because under your system the only thing that matters is the authority of the person.
God can do what he likes, what he does doesn't matter. God can grant authority to others to do things, what they do is irrelevant because they have god given authority.
What they are doing doesn't matter so long as they have the authority to do it.
That is ridiculous.He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading.
Leaving aside the nonsense that God had to send bears to break up a "mob attack" (why not just ensure the children were never born?), are you arguing that the youths would have done something that did serve a mauling from bears if God had not sent the bears? Isn't that an admission that what they were doing didn't deserve the punishment, and what do you think they were going to do apart from calling names that did?
That is some what clasping at straws there PDN,
Never mind the fact that God is punishing the youths for something they haven't actually done yet. If that is the way God is supposed to work why does he not just kill all foetus in their wombs? Why wait until they have done half the thing and then have them mauled? How can they learn a lesson if they haven't even done the thing they are being punished for0
Advertisement