Slaughter of the Canaanites

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

That is precisely my point; who are God's people?; on whose hearts and minds has He written His law? Has He written His law on my heart and mind? Or Wicknight's, Soul Winner's, yours?

Or is it all mankind? And how do you know?

All who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. The rest remain in their sins, with darkened hearts and minds, opposed to God.

You will find this clearly laid out in the NT, many times. It is not a side-issue for the gospel.

***************************************************************************
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

All who repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord. The rest remain in their sins, with darkened hearts and minds, opposed to God.

You will find this clearly laid out in the NT, many times. It is not a side-issue for the gospel.

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

I think you're rather spectacularly missing the point here.

The Old Testament wasn't broken and discarded. It was fulfilled in that it had achieved its purpose and prepared the way for the coming of Jesus.

The fact that brother still teaches brother etc. demonstrates that the New Covenant has not been fulfilled yet. It is still in force and will remain so until God and man dwell together in the New Jerusalem with a new heaven and a new earth.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

I think you're rather spectacularly missing the point here.

The Old Testament wasn't broken and discarded. It was fulfilled in that it had achieved its purpose and prepared the way for the coming of Jesus.

The fact that brother still teaches brother etc. demonstrates that the New Covenant has not been fulfilled yet. It is still in force and will remain so until God and man dwell together in the New Jerusalem with a new heaven and a new earth.

Oh! Have I?

The Old Testament covenant was unmeetable and this brought about the New Covenant. That is what the Bible says.

As far as:

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

is concerned, who observes this?

I say the world is as God-less now as it was at the beginning of time.

I am not saying that there is no God but I am saying that God is invisible to man.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Oh! Have I?

Yes, you have.

The writer to the Hebrews is making the point, one made in Paul's epistles as well, that the Old Covenant was insufficient for the purpose that contemporary Jews were trying to use it. It could not bring them to salvation without the New Covenant.

As far as: ...... is concerned, who observes this?

Just about no-one, because that is describing the final results of the New Covenant, and we aren't there yet.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you have.

The writer to the Hebrews is making the point, one made in Paul's epistles as well, that the Old Covenant was insufficient for the purpose that contemporary Jews were trying to use it. It could not bring them to salvation without the New Covenant.

No! The point is; God made a deal with the Israelites that could not be done.

PDN wrote: »

Just about no-one, because that is describing the final results of the New Covenant, and we aren't there yet.

So when will God's patience, again, be stretched so as to make Him to decide that another 'newer, improved' covenant will be required?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

No! The point is; God made a deal with the Israelites that could not be done.

Which brings us to an impasse as to whether this forum is the right place to discuss your idiosyncratic beliefs that have little or nothing to do with Christian belief.

The Christian belief, which is what this forum exists to discuss, is that the Old Covenant fulfilled its purpose by demonstrating that the Jews could not be justified by the keeping of the Law and so preparing them for the coming of Jesus Christ.

So when will God's patience, again, be stretched so as to make Him to decide that another 'newer, improved' covenant will be required?

Again, the Christian belief is that the New Covenant will continue until its fulfillment with the return of Christ.

If you want to to find anyone willing to discuss your own non-Christian beliefs then I suggest the Spirituality Forum.

This thread is still open for business for anyone who wants to discuss the OP's subject of Christian opinions about the slaughter of the Canaanites.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

And yet brother teaches brother; neighbour teaches neighbour; the New Covenant is broken.

Who are the next chosen ones?

If I may be permitted to give a brief response, even if off-topic?

As I understand the promises of the New Covenant, it is not absence of its members instructing one another that is in view, but the fact that the Covenant includes only those who know God - unlike the Old Covenant.

That is what is being emphasised - the difference between the covenants. Under the Old, converted and unconverted lived as members together. The converted engaged in evangelising the unconverted members of the Covenant. The New Covenant has only converted members. They do not evangelise one another, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’. They instruct and encourage each other as fellow-members.

*****************************************************************************
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Soul Winner

Scenario number 1:

If God exists then He is the definer of what is right and what is wrong. There is no higher objective standard of morals than that. If you disagree with that then please tell us what moral standard is higher than that and why.

Therefore not adhering to this God's definition of right and wrong will have to be accounted for at some time.

That being so, then obeying a command that this God supposedly commanded you to do is fulfilling your moral responsibility.

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

Scenario number 2:

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

As for WLC's remarks on the subject. Probably the worst he's ever made on any subject, which is surprising because he is usually pretty sharp. He should have just used the argument I gave above :pac:

Robert ninja

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

So ultimately if god says something is right, it's right and following that if god says something is wrong, then it's wrong. Why? Because it's god and it can F you up. So in even simpler terms... might makes right, do as you're told. It's right because I say it's right and it's wrong because I say it's wrong. Now go chop off your foreskin, have a nice day.

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly. Even if god came to me personally and proved to me it was the christian god and that I wasn't living the life it told me to live in its bible, then said it would forgive all my sins if I just did one good deed by its command and that deed was to muder my family - BUT IT'S OKAY! God is making it a good thing because it says so. I would not obey this god, I would say no and I believe killing my family is a bad thing no matter how many times a god (or in reality, people claiming to know god) say it's right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Indeed, we won't be accountable to anything that doesn't exist. But here's the flip side... we exist, and we will be accountable for our actions towards each other, from each other.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

So we don't listen to inane commands from voices in our heads and instead listen to each other about the standards of morality and measure it in the here and now and with a rich history of many changes in moral standards to study and understand.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

Therefore it's not actually a god commanding you since in no.1 of scenario 2 we conlude there is no god and that the only one commanding you to kill (in most cases) is yourself, for whatever reason it is at the time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

... okay.

Fanny Cradock

Robert ninja wrote: »

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly.

Great! That makes you and the rest of us Christians. Still, I wonder what you think "right" and "wrong" is grounded in if not a transcendent source?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, I wonder what you think "right" and "wrong" is grounded in if not a transcendent source?

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

So ultimately if god says something is right, it's right and following that if god says something is wrong, then it's wrong. Why? Because it's god and it can F you up. So in even simpler terms... might makes right, do as you're told. It's right because I say it's right and it's wrong because I say it's wrong. Now go chop off your foreskin, have a nice day.

Yes that is more or less it.

Robert ninja wrote: »

This horrible form of dominance means that ANYTHING can be right as long as god says it's right. I disagree wholly. Even if god came to me personally and proved to me it was the christian god and that I wasn't living the life it told me to live in its bible, then said it would forgive all my sins if I just did one good deed by its command and that deed was to muder my family - BUT IT'S OKAY! God is making it a good thing because it says so. I would not obey this god, I would say no and I believe killing my family is a bad thing no matter how many times a god (or in reality, people claiming to know god) say it's right.

Doing a bad thing for your own sake and doing a bad thing because God told you are two different things. The first is done for selfish reasons and not doing the second one is also done for selfish reasons. Both are self serving and not God serving. Whereas if you do the thing that you don't want to do because God told you then you are fulfilling your moral responsibility. But like I said, this only works if God actually exists. If He doesn't exist then neither action has any ultimate meaning or value, both are equally pointless.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Us.

Who's us? Who's standard do we follow? Who's version of right and wrong to we adopt? Is there a universal definition of right and wrong in the absence of a God who holds you morally responsible for doing actions that are outside His will for you?

Robert ninja wrote: »

Indeed, we won't be accountable to anything that doesn't exist. But here's the flip side... we exist, and we will be accountable for our actions towards each other, from each other.

That's all fine and dandy but what if God does exist? Then what? How do you account for not doing the things that He has said you must do? Claim ignorance? That won't wash. Part of keeping God's law is to know it perfectly and to do it perfectly. If you fall short in this regard then you are a sinner and in need of His grace and forgiveness. He has provided this in Christ and if you reject that then you will be held to account for your short falling condition yourself.

Robert ninja wrote: »

So we don't listen to inane commands from voices in our heads and instead listen to each other about the standards of morality and measure it in the here and now and with a rich history of many changes in moral standards to study and understand.

Why should we live like that? What if people tell you to shove your standard up your wazzoo and start making their own rules on the way everyone should live and behave? What if people decide that they want to live like hippies? That if they want to do something then that means they ought to do it? What then? Should they be left alone to do what they want to do? Who's law do we adapt?

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

So killing other tribes is OK once it benefits the survival of your tribe? Is that what you are saying?

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Scenario number 1:

If God exists then He is the definer of what is right and what is wrong. There is no higher objective standard of morals than that. If you disagree with that then please tell us what moral standard is higher than that and why.

Therefore not adhering to this God's definition of right and wrong will have to be accounted for at some time.

That being so, then obeying a command that this God supposedly commanded you to do is fulfilling your moral responsibility.

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone cannot be held against you as doing something wrong no matter what the world He created thinks of it, because He told you to do it.

Scenario number 2:

If God doesn't exist then He can't be the definer of what is right and what is wrong. Therefore who can be?

Not adhering to this non existing God's definition of right and wrong will not have to be accounted for at any time.

Therefore obeying a command from this non existing God is not fulfilling one's moral responsibility, because what are morals without a truly right standard to measure it by?

Therefore God commanding you to kill someone is self delusion for personal gain.

If God doesn't exist then the Israelites only did what every single nation in history that ever coveted land and power did, the Persians, Grecians, Romans, the British, French, Dutch and Germans, so why single the Israelites out? Because they tried to justify it by saying that they had God on their side? Which of the aforementioned empires didn't do that?

As for WLC's remarks on the subject. Probably the worst he's ever made on any subject, which is surprising because he is usually pretty sharp. He should have just used the argument I gave above :pac:

Which like most of your arguments is not an argument at all.

As far as scenarios 1 & 2 are concerned, how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? I mean, if someone is 'divinely inspired' to commit murder, shouldn't they get themselves checked out for paranoid schizophrenia, or something, just in case they are actually mad?

I can just imagine it; a man goes to the doctor and says, 'Voices in my head tell me to kill; am I sick?'. The doctor says, after conducting extensive tests, 'Nope, you are not sick, God really is telling you to kill so off you go and Godspeed you lucky chosen one.'

... Then there is a murder trial and the doctor performs as an expert witness giving evidence to exhonerate the killer. 'He really is doing God's work,' he says, 'and to interfere with him would be an act of great evil.'

Such a doctor would be thought mad and would probably end up being committed himself.

Obviously we are assuming that God would never choose a paranoid schizophrenic to do His work. Imagine how confusing it would be if God did contract His work out to megalomaniacal madmen; we'd end up with wars based on whimsical-ness....

...wait a minute!...

How can one tell; is the American administration mad or is it simply the dutiful servant of God?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Survival of the species in this realm is where "right" and "wrong" are grounded.

That doesn't actually mean anything, does it? Survival isn't necessarily a factor in issues of morality. And prioritizing species isn't a given in a purely materialistic universe driven by impersonal natural forces.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which like most of your arguments is not an argument at all.

As far as scenarios 1 & 2 are concerned, how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? I mean, if someone is 'divinely inspired' to commit murder, shouldn't they get themselves checked out for paranoid schizophrenia, or something, just in case they are actually mad?

I can just imagine it; a man goes to the doctor and says, 'Voices in my head tell me to kill; am I sick?'. The doctor says, after conducting extensive tests, 'Nope, you are not sick, God really is telling you to kill so off you go and Godspeed you lucky chosen one.'

... Then there is a murder trial and the doctor performs as an expert witness giving evidence to exhonerate the killer. 'He really is doing God's work,' he says, 'and to interfere with him would be an act of great evil.'

Such a doctor would be thought mad and would probably end up being committed himself.

Obviously we are assuming that God would never choose a paranoid schizophrenic to do His work. Imagine how confusing it would be if God did contract His work out to megalomaniacal madmen; we'd end up with wars based on whimsical-ness....

...wait a minute!...

How can one tell; is the American administration mad or is it simply the dutiful servant of God?

Please stick within the boundaries of the argument. Let's assume for one minute that a supernatural God does exist and did tell you to do something, not voices in your head, but a real Entity that has demonstrated His existence to you by performing many wonders and delivering you and your people out of bondage in Egypt by actually parting the Red Sea. Now I know you don't believe this happened but just for the sake of this argument assume that it did. Now read my scenarios again with this assumption made and come back to me.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Whereas if you do the thing that you don't want to do because God told you then you are fulfilling your moral responsibility.

No, you would be fulfilling God's moral responsibility.

Why does an all-powerful God need men to do His killing for Him; isn't that just laziness?

God to Moses: "I give you the land of Canaan but before you move in, you must exterminate the current tenants who refuse to be evicted and I don't want to get my hands dirty. They refuse to believe in me and to live by my rules so I'm going to prove to them that I exist by having them slaughtered by a marauding barbarian army that will steam-roller right over them. Then they'll be sorry."

Robert ninja

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes that is more or less it.

Then my point is proven. It's a might make right situation with your christian belief and my moral standard is higher. For me, might does not make right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Doing a bad thing for your own sake and doing a bad thing because God told you are two different things.

Yep, the difference is... one you're doing a bad thing... and the other is you're doing a bad thing under orders. Both of them... you're doing a bad thing and that's the end of it for me. Don't do bad things, no matter who tells you to. Whether it be that voice in your head (god) or your own mother.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who's us?

You're really hopeless. I'm convinced you're actually trying to be annoying. Us... me, you, everyone. The human race as a species. Us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is there a universal definition of right and wrong in the absence of a God who holds you morally responsible for doing actions that are outside His will for you?

No there isn't a universal right and wrong. Culture and time define the standard of morals. In the days when humans didn't live very long, having sex when you were 14 wasn't bad... it was survival and the ordinary. These days it's considered bad because our environment and culture is different.

As for who holds us morally responsible... once again: Us. I and everyone else will hold you responsible for your actions if you ever do wrong. Which is what we do in reality by the way. Your god has never rewarded or punished anyone... unless you mean after we're dead where it's so conveniently impossible to tell if it really has or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy but what if God does exist? Then what? How do you account for not doing the things that He has said you must do?

If that's the case, I don't need to justify why I didn't follow its commandments. It is all-knowing, right? It will know why... it will know that I didn't follow any of the lame stuff in the bible because I wasn't convinced it (god) existed... which is its own fault. Having the ability to let everyone know you exist yet not leaving any real evidence that you do is your own fault especially if you can do literally ANYTHING.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you fall short in this regard then you are a sinner and in need of His grace and forgiveness. He has provided this in Christ and if you reject that then you will be held to account for your short falling condition yourself.

Says you. And everything you just mentioned is all fear-mongering that obviously works for you and has you scared enough to believe in such things but not me. I don't fear your god or any other.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why should we live like that? What if people tell you to shove your standard up your wazzoo and start making their own rules on the way everyone should live and behave? What if people decide that they want to live like hippies?

You can go ahead and do that then. And if it turns out awesome, people will follow and agree with you. So far, cities with common law and respect for each other's physical and mental condition is turning out grand. If anyone harms another... we have ways to deal with that. Basically, if you don't obey the set rules in a society the general rule is then that you don't get to be a part of that society.

So you go ahead and try kill someone because they were working on a Sunday. The secular society you currently enjoy the fruits of would come down on your head.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who's law do we adapt?

Whichever one we decide to be fair and the best, typically. That doesn't mean it's perfect, far from it in today's society... but at least we're trying unlike useless people like priests who contribute nothing to society (as far as I can see).

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He doesn't exist then neither action has any ultimate meaning or value, both are equally pointless.

One again, so you say. You can go ahead and tell me the action has no ultimate meaning or value and I can continually give you the finger. In a vast space of mostly nothing... I have enjoyed music and made the ones I love laugh and I'm still young with a lot more experiences ahead of me. That is meaningful to me. I know you need to think you can suck the dick of god for eternity after you die and that'll be great but I don't need that to enjoy and value things in my life. If it's the god of the bible... and the events in that book are true, I'll happily spend eternity in hell just to stay away from that monster and all who follow it. Mind you, that's not the reason why I don't believe any of it. I was an atheist for a good while before I actually read the bible and then I was actually happy that none of it had any evidence to support it.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That doesn't actually mean anything, does it?

LOL. Of course it does. All the seven sins provide a survival edge:

Anger is intimidating and can drive off competition for food or mates,

Jealousy causes food and mates to be guarded,

Sloth saves energy,

Gluttony considers the opportunity to consume resources,

Greed excludes others from those resources,

Lust drives procreation and

Conceit develops and maintains physical appearance and prowess.

All of these 'evolved' tendencies aid survival in the material world; not one has evolved in response to the requirements of the 'next' world which indicates that the 'next' world is invisible to nature and natural selection.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Survival isn't necessarily a factor in issues of morality.

Yes it is.

People with dubious moral standards are thought of as wierdos and this does effect their chances of survival; they become outcasts and consequently the transmission of their genetic material is threatened.

If personal morality is in conflict with social morality then society will seek to supress, through law for example, the personal morality. Questionable morals suggest questionable character and affect the ability to be accepted by society or a prospective mate.

The higher the standard of social morality, the deeper the sense of security and this resonates with the persuit of happiness. Shared values give rise to a 'hive-mentality' and this benefits the survival of the society.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And prioritizing species isn't a given in a purely materialistic universe driven by impersonal natural forces.

What prioritisation are you talking about? Do you think nature operates a handicap system on the survivability of a particular species, that nature has a 'favorite' organism that has been 'picked' to win some kind of race?

Prioritisation in nature is not even a suggestion, never mind a given.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

Then my point is proven. It's a might make right situation with your christian belief and my moral standard is higher. For me, might does not make right.

Who are you though and why should I listen to you?

Robert ninja wrote: »

Yep, the difference is... one you're doing a bad thing... and the other is you're doing a bad thing under orders. Both of them... you're doing a bad thing and that's the end of it for me. Don't do bad things, no matter who tells you to. Whether it be that voice in your head (god) or your own mother.

Soldiers do bad things under orders all the time. Should we not have armies now?

Robert ninja wrote: »

You're really hopeless. I'm convinced you're actually trying to be annoying. Us... me, you, everyone. The human race as a species. Us.

Perhaps if you read the rest of that part of my post you would have understood. Here it is again.

Who's us? Who's standard do we follow? Who's version of right and wrong to we adopt?

Robert ninja wrote: »

No there isn't a universal right and wrong. Culture and time define the standard of morals. In the days when humans didn't live very long, having sex when you were 14 wasn't bad... it was survival and the ordinary. These days it's considered bad because our environment and culture is different.

So killing tribes that got in your way was OK at one time? So why are you picking on the Israelites?

Robert ninja wrote: »

As for who holds us morally responsible... once again: Us. I and everyone else will hold you responsible for your actions if you ever do wrong. Which is what we do in reality by the way. Your god has never rewarded or punished anyone... unless you mean after we're dead where it's so conveniently impossible to tell if it really has or not.

Assuming God exists then it will be God who will hold everyone ultimately responsible for their actions. If He doesn't exist then there is no ultimate accountability. The only people that will be punished for their bad deeds are those who get caught down here.

Robert ninja wrote: »

If that's the case, I don't need to justify why I didn't follow its commandments. It is all-knowing, right? It will know why... it will know that I didn't follow any of the lame stuff in the bible because I wasn't convinced it (god) existed... which is its own fault. Having the ability to let everyone know you exist yet not leaving any real evidence that you do is your own fault especially if you can do literally ANYTHING.

According to God He left enough evidence for His existence in the general revelation of the creation itself. Even primitive peoples the world over can see that and give thanks and praises to who they believe was the Creator of it all.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Says you. And everything you just mentioned is all fear-mongering that obviously works for you and has you scared enough to believe in such things but not me. I don't fear your god or any other.

I don't care, that's your decision.

Robert ninja wrote: »

You can go ahead and do that then. And if it turns out awesome, people will follow and agree with you. So far, cities with common law and respect for each other's physical and mental condition is turning out grand. If anyone harms another... we have ways to deal with that. Basically, if you don't obey the set rules in a society the general rule is then that you don't get to be a part of that society.

So what if your society was under threat by another society, would you create and army to defend yourself or would you just let them kill you?

Robert ninja wrote: »

So you go ahead and try kill someone because they were working on a Sunday. The secular society you currently enjoy the fruits of would come down on your head.

Why would I want to kill someone for working on a Sunday?

Robert ninja wrote: »

Whichever one we decide to be fair and the best, typically. That doesn't mean it's perfect, far from it in today's society... but at least we're trying unlike useless people like priests who contribute nothing to society (as far as I can see).

I think that a lot of priests contribute many good things to society. Some are bad I agree but you can't tar them all with the same brush, that in itself would be a wrong thing to do.

Robert ninja wrote: »

One again, so you say. You can go ahead and tell me the action has no ultimate meaning or value and I can continually give you the finger. In a vast space of mostly nothing... I have enjoyed music and made the ones I love laugh and I'm still young with a lot more experiences ahead of me. That is meaningful to me. I know you need to think you can suck the dick of god for eternity after you die and that'll be great but I don't need that to enjoy and value things in my life. If it's the god of the bible... and the events in that book are true, I'll happily spend eternity in hell just to stay away from that monster and all who follow it. Mind you, that's not the reason why I don't believe any of it. I was an atheist for a good while before I actually read the bible and then I was actually happy that none of it had any evidence to support it.

If you were so happy with life then what the hell are you doing blogging negativity in a Christianity forum? If you were really happy with your life you wouldn't be doing that.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Please stick within the boundaries of the argument.

Priceless. :rolleyes:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let's assume for one minute that a supernatural God does exist and did tell you to do something, not voices in your head, but a real Entity that has demonstrated His existence to you by performing many wonders and delivering you and your people out of bondage in Egypt by actually parting the Red Sea. Now I know you don't believe this happened but just for the sake of this argument assume that it did. Now read my scenarios again with this assumption made and come back to me.

If I 'knew' God, as per your 'assumption', and He directed me to commit genocide then I would try to calm Him down. I'd say something like, 'Someone needs a hug', or, 'You'll regret this when you sober up' or, 'You do realise that this will go on the record of the Israelites and will not show us in a favorable light' but I can tell you for certain that I would not support such an agenda.

It's a pity Moses wasn't more like Lot and didn't attempt to appeal to God's mercy; I would have, then I would have made Him do it Himself. How many lives could have been saved if Moses was a humanitarian? We could have all celebrated him then. As it happens, he was single-minded and ruthless like Oliver Cromwell. Those poor Canaanites.

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

So killing tribes that got in your way was OK at one time? So why are you picking on the Israelites?

Why are you singling them out for preferencial treatment?

No-one is justifying the Roman persecution of Christians; no-one is providing justification for the Holocaust; no-one condones what Cromwell did at Drogheda.

No-one should be justifying genocide at all; ever.

Apart from the Israelites, is there any other nation which you can justify in the committing of genocide?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

LOL. Of course it does. All the seven sins provide a survival edge:

Anger is intimidating and can drive off competition for food or mates,

Jealousy causes food and mates to be guarded,

Sloth saves energy,

Gluttony considers the opportunity to consume resources,

Greed excludes others from those resources,

Lust drives procreation and

Conceit develops and maintains physical appearance and prowess.

I have no idea why you mention such a list. However, I do know why you attempt to apply such a peculiarly arbitrary out-working to it. You might be in a stronger position if you didn't try to hammer a square peg in a round hole. For example, slothfulness is not encouraged (I'm guessing that this is taken from Prov 19) and so can't be considered a natural evolutionary advantage as you would have us believe. Given what the text says, I think you will find that you have shot your own argument in the foot. It is clear that you have ignored what the text is saying and twisted it to fit your argument. A case of eisegesis if ever there was one.

People with dubious moral standards are thought of as wierdos and this does effect their chances of survival; they become outcasts and consequently the transmission of their genetic material is threatened.

If personal morality is in conflict with social morality then society will seek to supress, through law for example, the personal morality. Questionable morals suggest questionable character and affect the ability to be accepted by society or a prospective mate.

The higher the standard of social morality, the deeper the sense of security and this resonates with the persuit of happiness. Shared values give rise to a 'hive-mentality' and this benefits the survival of the society.

It would have been quicker to say that the mores of society dictate morality. Which really doesn't give you any right to judge the actions of those outside your particular circumstances. Thank God people like MLK Jr didn't share your view. Perhaps in 1000 years time there might be some dreadful mass infertility scenario. Perhaps then society will looks back at abortions in our time as damnable atrocities. Moral relativism sucks, eh!

Tellingly enough, your own bizarre reading of the hidden motives of self-interest that lie behind the "seven sins" contradicts the "hive-mind" shared values you laud. I think that you probably haven't bothered to read much about the self-sacrifice preached throughout the Bible, including Proverbs mention this - the very same book that discourages laziness and fecklessness despite how you might read it.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What prioritisation are you talking about? Do you think nature operates a handicap system on the survivability of a particular species, that nature has a 'favorite' organism that has been 'picked' to win some kind of race?

Prioritisation in nature is not even a suggestion, never mind a given.

I'm saying the opposite. Given your naturalistic paradigm there is no reason to assume that our species' needs should take precedence over that of apes cats or eagles. Indeed, one would have to conclude that our continued existence is probably one of the greatest threats to life on this planet. You brought species into this and I questioned why.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Priceless. :rolleyes:



If I 'knew' God, as per your 'assumption', and He directed me to commit genocide then I would try to calm Him down. I'd say something like, 'Someone needs a hug', or, 'You'll regret this when you sober up' or, 'You do realise that this will go on the record of the Israelites and will not show us in a favorable light' but I can tell you for certain that I would not support such an agenda.

It's a pity Moses wasn't more like Lot and didn't attempt to appeal to God's mercy; I would have, then I would have made Him do it Himself. How many lives could have been saved if Moses was a humanitarian? We could have all celebrated him then. As it happens, he was single-minded and ruthless like Oliver Cromwell. Those poor Canaanites.

God was going to wipe His own people and Moses did appeal for mercy, and got it:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Exodus 32:10-14

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why are you singling them out for preferencial treatment?

No-one is justifying the Roman persecution of Christians; no-one is providing justification for the Holocaust; no-one condones what Cromwell did at Drogheda.

No-one should be justifying genocide at all; ever.

Apart from the Israelites, is there any other nation which you can justify in the committing of genocide?

I'm not trying to justify anybody. I agree that what they did was a terribly evil thing to happen to anybody. And if they were doing it under the pretense of acting on behalf of a supposed benevolent God then their deeds were even more evil. Just like Hitler or Stalin who also appealed to a higher good than themselves for rationalization for their deeds, but in their case it was their state or their ideology, not a God.

But if they (the Israelites) were acting upon the commands of an actual God who actually exists then all they were doing was fulfilling their moral responsibility to their Creator. Now you might not like a God like that but if He exists then He put the breath that you have in your lungs also and gave you everything that you hold dear and He is not too impressed when His creatures are quick to question His motives in such cases especially when they rarely if ever thank Him for all the good that He has done for them in their lives.

God hates hypocrites.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have no idea why you mention such a list. However, I do know why you attempt to apply such a peculiarly arbitrary out-working to it. You might be in a stronger position if you didn't try to hammer a square peg in a round hole. For example, slothfulness is not encouraged (I'm guessing that this is taken from Prov 19) and so can't be considered a natural evolutionary advantage as you would have us believe. Given what the text says, I think you will find that you have shot your own argument in the foot. It is clear that you have ignored what the text is saying and twisted it to fit your argument. A case of eisegesis if ever there was one.

I didn't take it from anywhere, I was writing 'on the fly'.

The reason I mention it is because Nature does not seem to care about the spirit realm, if you will. As far as Nature is concerned, any punishment or justice issue is either addressed or not addressed. Nature recognises no difference between life and death; living or inanimate; Nature recognises no religion. Does nature not know that it was created? And does nature have no moral accountability?

Why does natural selection favour 'evil' traits? Isn't nature acting against the will of God?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It would have been quicker to say that the mores of society dictate morality. Which really doesn't give you any right to judge the actions of those outside your particular circumstances. Thank God people like MLK Jr didn't share your view. Perhaps in 1000 years time there might be some dreadful mass infertility scenario. Perhaps then society will looks back at abortions in our time as damnable atrocities. Moral relativism sucks, eh!

Well, to be honest, maybe.

But how did such a 'perfectly designed creation' come to such a state that nature provides so much support for evil? It seems that 'goodness' is an endangered commodity in the universe but evil is in abundance.

Again, is nature acting against God's law? It seems to be.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tellingly enough, your own bizarre reading of the hidden motives of self-interest that lie behind the "seven sins" contradicts the "hive-mind" shared values you laud. I think that you probably haven't bothered to read much about the self-sacrifice preached throughout the Bible, including Proverbs mention this - the very same book that discourages laziness and fecklessness despite how you might read it.

That's the thing about humans; we're complex.

Sometimes we behave like predators, sometimes we behave like prey. Sometimes we operate as a hive and sometimes we act on our own agendas.

Sometimes acting as a hive member can promote self-interests. We're chameleons; changeable, adaptable. We want to fit in but we want to be noticed.

Morality provides the simplest language of behaviour and social morality is a hugely powerful force. Good and evil are simply terms of acceptibility and morality is the sensory organ through which we perceive righteousness. And it can be trained.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm saying the opposite. Given your naturalistic paradigm there is no reason to assume that our species' needs should take precedence over that of apes cats or eagles. Indeed, one would have to conclude that our continued existence is probably one of the greatest threats to life on this planet. You brought species into this and I questioned why.

The reason I brought species into it was to try and circumvent you from avoiding my point by saying that humans are a special case.

Fanny Cradock

I didn't take it from anywhere, I was writing 'on the fly'.

On the fly! Okaaaay... You still managed to make some clangers.

Why does natural selection favour 'evil' traits? Isn't nature acting against the will of God?

After being here for a number of months it appears as if you have missed the basics. Read up on The Fall.

I don't believe that the universe favours evil. It must be a dark world that you inhabit if you think it is saturated by evil. But let's be clear, to talk about evil in a naturalistic sense is to talk about a human convention that might change given shifts in time and circumstance. Some people are kind to their neighbours, others eat them.

In a materialistic world "right" and "wrong" are notional moral terms. In an amoral universe nothing is absolutely right and nothing is absolutely wrong. Saying otherwise is at root an attempt to elevate a human illusion to the point of an absolute. That's why you have to put words like "evil" in inverted commas. That is also why you and Robert Ninja don't have any obvious right to criticise anyone outside your particular society or time.

But how did such a 'perfectly designed creation' come to such a state that nature provides so much support for evil? It seems that 'goodness' is an endangered commodity in the universe but evil is in abundance.

When you say a "perfectly designed creation" I wonder what source you are quoting. It wouldn't be Genesis.

The reason I brought species into it was to try and circumvent you from avoiding my point by saying that humans are a special case.

As a Christian who believes in the concept of Imago Dei I would obviously believe that humans are a special case. Read or listen to a little of Vinoth Ramachandra (see the Enhancement thread I started) if you want to know more about this. It makes no sense to try to and stop me from expressing this view by introducing a species distinction into your argument. You began this discussion by making such a distinction and now you say that humans are not a special case. Strange that!

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On the fly! Okaaaay... You still managed to make some clangers.

No I didn't. You have refuted nothing effectively. The seven sin as depicted in my list are functional, naturally selected responses.

What the Bible says is irrelevant to nature; she can't read. You have to stop putting the cart before the donkey.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After being here for a number of months it appears as if you have missed the basics. Read up on The Fall.

Another diversionary tactic?

I have not met any two Christians on this forum who interpret The Fall, or, for that matter, any part of the Bible in the same way.

What I have found is an unforgiving Christian attitude towards the plight of Adam, Sodom and Gemorrah, the Canaanites, etc. and in fact, Christians seem to revel in the human tragedy as lauded by the authors of the Bible, to glorify it.

It disgusts me that adherents of Christianity, a religion of love and peace, refuse to sympathise with the victims of what amounts to the wholesale slaughter of human beings by God. In this respect, it seems that Christians do agree.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe that the universe favours evil. It must be a dark world that you inhabit if you think it is saturated by evil. But let's be clear, to talk about evil in a naturalistic sense is to talk about a human convention that might change given shifts in time and circumstance. Some people are kind to their neighbours, others eat them.

You think that my world must be dark? That is pure irony right there.

You call them 'the seven deadly sins' and I call them 'naturally selected survival tools'. Your position carries much darker connotations than mine.

Nature helps those who help themselves. 'Goodness' is unnatural, a contrivance of man that allows him to get fat off the backs of others. Goodness has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with profit. That is why 'goodness' has such a struggle against evil; it runs contrary to nature and nature will win in the end.

If 'goodness' is in opposition to nature, what does that say about the nature of nature?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In a materialistic world "right" and "wrong" are notional moral terms. In an amoral universe nothing is absolutely right and nothing is absolutely wrong. Saying otherwise is at root an attempt to elevate a human illusion to the point of an absolute. That's why you have to put words like "evil" in inverted commas. That is also why you and Robert Ninja don't have any obvious right to criticise anyone outside your particular society or time.

You are not often right Fanny but this time you are wrong.

Who are you to arbitrate the rights of Robert Ninja and me? Who arbitrated in favour of you?

Whether God exists or not, good and evil are human constructs. The universe, like Christians, doesn't care about the slaughter of the Canaanites but those of us who are progressive in our thinking and desirous that such slaughter doesn't occur again regard the slaghter of the Canaanites as an act of evil.

To say that sometimes genocide is justifiable is to provide a psychological loop-hole that can be used to justify a future, similar act.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

When you say a "perfectly designed creation" I wonder what source you are quoting. It wouldn't be Genesis.

God didn't create evil and yet it grew to be stronger than God's will. God seems to be in conflict with nature; they are not one and the same. Nature seems to be a saboteur of Gods work.

Sinful nature? Surely it's just nature.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As a Christian who believes in the concept of Imago Dei I would obviously believe that humans are a special case. Read or listen to a little of Vinoth Ramachandra (see the Enhancement thread I started) if you want to know more about this. It makes no sense to try to and stop me from expressing this view by introducing a species distinction into your argument. You began this discussion by making such a distinction and now you say that humans are not a special case. Strange that!

*sigh*

Which is precisely why I put the whole argument in a human context - because you think you are a special case.

Feel free to engage with any of the actual points I have made as opposed to indulging in obfuscation. At least until the novelty has worn off.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

To say that sometimes genocide is justifiable is to provide a psychological loop-hole that can be used to justify a future, similar act.

Maybe one day we can have a thread where we can discuss this subject rationally without this hysterical red herring.

Thread closed.