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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

1246

Comments

  • #152
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    PDN wrote: »
    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.


  • #153
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #154
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #155
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    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)


  • #156
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zillah wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    PDN wrote: »
    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.


  • #158
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    PDN wrote: »
    Mao's "Little Red Devils" ...

    Backed into a bit of a corner here are we PDN? So time for the heavy artillery, out comes Mao and his band of atheist persecutors, in the hope you can derail this into another Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot were evil-atheists thread?

    *yawn*


  • #159
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    PDN wrote: »
    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?


  • #160
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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.


  • #161
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Exactly. You see, God is really really powerful and therefore is justified in anything he does.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zillah wrote: »
    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.
    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?

    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.
    Also, why are you ignoring my previous questions that uncleoswald just alluded to?
    Because I entered this thread for two reasons:
    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.


  • #163
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    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.


  • #164
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #165
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    PDN wrote: »
    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?


  • #166
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Christians are told to heed the civil law of the State, except in cases of persecution for their beliefs pretty much.
    Originally Posted by 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.

    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?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?


  • #167
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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)
    Long story short, if we had lived in ancient Israel during the Torah times, yes our sins would have been deserving of death
    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?
    Actually 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, 14
    The 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!)


  • #168
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Naz_st wrote: »
    (Also, now that I think of it, same question & issue with Noah's children since everyone else was killed in the flood!)
    "And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood." (Genesis 7:7)


  • #169
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?


  • #170
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    PDN wrote: »
    "And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood." (Genesis 7:7)

    Fair enough. Cousins marrying still seems quite a small gene pool though! (And doesn't address the original question...)


  • #171
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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?
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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?
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    In fact, most of Deuteronomy 22 is pretty morally abhorrent to be honest.

    I'd disagree with you yet again.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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 good


  • #174
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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.


  • #175
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    Of course it sounds like rape to you, because that is what you want to gather from 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.
    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.
    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.
    That was from your own link - please read what you link to.
    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.
    As I said, supporting the context argument of Deuteronomy 22:28
    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.
    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?

    This "debate" is now just becoming a "banging head against wall" session I fear.


  • #176
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    PDN wrote: »
    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 obviously


  • #177
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    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?


  • #178
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Am I treating my dog with 'a lack of respect' or am I simply recognising that he has different abilities and responsibilities to me?
    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."


  • #179
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #180
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    PDN wrote: »
    He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading.
    That is ridiculous.

    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 for


  • #182
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    PDN wrote: »
    Those with greater power and authority do have the right, morally, to do things that the rest of us don't.

    You do realise that power and authority are different things, right?
    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.

    He has that right because he was democratically elected, he acts with our consent. If he had seized power using force then no, he does not have the right, he has the power. God has the power to attack children with bears, burn cities from the sky and drown all life on earth, it doesn't mean that those things are just.
    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.

    The fact that God sees more than we do does not mean he is incapable of committing evil. A thief who steals money from a charity, knowing full well that the charity helps others, is still a selfish thief. God can see all things and still do horrible unfair things.
    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.

    This is curious. You are, once again, assuming that Elijah was going to be beaten to death by these young people who were mocking him. Which I can only interpret as a rational part of your brain rebelling against the absurd proposition that a bear attack is a fair response to mocking him. It's quite understandable...you have faith, which means that you can't concede that God is evil, you can't dismiss it as a bullshit story in a bullshit book...so you end up in this very awkward situation.

    As a hypothetical, let's assume that the Bible did not forget to mention that the young people were going to attack Elijah, they were simply going to mock him some more and then go away...was the bear attack justified? Also, you haven't commented on my point that there were plenty of other options left open to God other than rending their flesh via bears. In much the same way that I don't have to kick a toddler in the ribs when they bully my son.


  • #183
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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.

    You've effectively answered your own question.

    Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

    What's the difference? God wants us to do this because He wants what is best for us. As the creator of the world I somehow think that He knows how best to live in it.


  • #184
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    I'll leave the canine mind-reading to your good self.
    No doubt, but you didn't answer the point :)
    PDN wrote: »
    He can, quite righteously, nip a mob attack in the bud with a couple of bears because he can see where it is leading.
    So, in the grand scheme of things, a deity will righteously send a bear to attack a group of youths who slagged off an old bald guy, while the same deity will stand idly by and let 55 million people die in WWII.

    Seems an extravagantly capricious deity to me -- not exactly the kind of god you'd want around your house or near your children, I have to say.


  • #185
    uncleoswald
    Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭uncleoswald


    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    Would your dog like to pay my mortgage?

    I just couldn't justify a God who seems to think that just because he created the universe he has the moral right to do as he pleases with it and us. I particularity have a problem with Him if he was going to damn me for all eternity in Hell because I didn't pass some abstract belief test in a life I didn't ask for. Even if I were to have belief in this God I would also believe that he has given me a consciousness and the ability to decide what I feel is right and wrong and this God would fail MY test, so how could I worship him unless he could explain why this hypocricy is ok? So therefore my lack of faith in the morals of the biblical God automatically makes any morality claim based on scripture seem irrelevant to me.

    I understand that a believer will feel that I'm just not quite grasping the meaning of an All-Powerful God and perhaps they would be right but I still think we should expect a bit more respect from this God.


  • #186
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You've effectively answered your own question.

    Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

    What's the difference?

    That is like saying the best thing for you to do is to give the robber with a gun all your money, therefore the robber with the gun has the right to take your money.

    Again, simply because God is powerful does not mean (or should not mean) that he has the right to do what ever he likes with us.

    The right he has to do something to us must be based on what he is doing not simply who he is and how powerful he is.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Zillah wrote: »
    Exactly. You see, God is really really powerful and therefore is justified in anything he does.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    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.

    I think you'll find this is always the case, although getting PDN or Jakkass to admit their views of morality are messed up is another mountain to climb altogether.

    How we define good and bad for ourselves as humans has no effect on how a Christian defines how God is good and not bad.

    I'm sure PDN would be happy to say that a person who witnessed a child being raped and proceeded to do nothing about it would be morally wrong. But God sees all the children in this world being raped and is doing nothing about it, yet he is morally right. Under all definitions God does not fit any of them as being good, his actions clearly show this. If Christians are redefining "good" to accommodate his authority, then what else can be redefined by God due to his authority?

    Which leads to the Euthyphro dilemma, are morals above God or is God above morals?

    I'd say Christians would, in general, accept the latter. That, being all powerful, God defines morality and not vice versa. This being accepted, God can not be said to be good in any sense known to man, as regardless of his actions he can define them as "good". i.e. God is good because he allows children to be raped, it matters not that we find this wrong as God is perfect and if he has no problem with it then it must be good.

    I understand why PDN and Jakkass have no problem with Gods horrendous (in)actions towards humanity because it is my main motivation for wanting this warped sense of justice and morality to be removed from this world. It is from this that people find the motivation to take on Gods sense of right and wrong and act on his behalf.


  • #188
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is like saying the best thing for you to do is to give the robber with a gun all your money, therefore the robber with the gun has the right to take your money.

    You claim that God in Christianity is robber, despite being depicted as having given us the world, everything that is in it, forgiveness for our transgressions and eternal life should you choose to accept Him? Surely this doesn't make sense.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again, simply because God is powerful does not mean (or should not mean) that he has the right to do what ever he likes with us.

    Who said this? He has the right to punish others for their wrongdoing however, as is said "Vindication is mine, says the Lord" (Romans 12). God created the universe and we are under His juristiction, hence He has the right to judge us as His creation. We are the citizens of the State, the State governs us, we are under the States juristiction, hence the State has the right to judge us as it's citizens.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The right he has to do something to us must be based on what he is doing not simply who he is and how powerful he is.

    I haven't argued this, and I don't think PDN has either. However, God has created the world and everything in it, what He has commanded us through Christ is more in our best interests rather than anything else.


  • #189
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    From the back and forth posts on Divine vs Human Morality, it reminds me of the same questions raised by the Book of Job. I'll summarise the story since it's 40 or so chapters long (cue posts on various interpretations and the semantics of certain words and context etc):

    There was an very pious man named Job who was very prosperous and had seven sons and three daughters. Constantly fearing that his sons may have sinned and "cursed God in their hearts" he habitually offered burnt offerings as a pardon for their sins. And he's so spotlessly good, even God admits "There is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil". So what does God do to this pinnacle of faith & loyal believer? Well he basically has a bit a wager with Satan to see if Satan can inflict so much suffering on Job (short of killing him) that he will eventually turn away from God, freely admitting that this is pointless suffering "thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause".

    So, marauders steal his oxen, asses, and camels, and slay servants. Fire from heaven consumes his sheep and more servants. A great wind destroys the house in which his children are feasting. All perish. Job is inflicted with “loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." And when Job finally gets to put his case to God as to how come all of these things have happened to him, God simply points out that he's the divine one can can basically do what he wants: Can Job lay the foundations of the earth? Fashion the ocean or the sun? Create snow and rain? Send forth lightning? Make an ostrich or a wild ass? Design the Behemoth or the Leviathan? Vanquish death? No, unfortunately he can't, he's merely a lowly mortal so tough sh*t.

    In the end though, God relents and restores Job's riches & "replaces" his children with prettier ones (to make up for the senseless deaths of his uglier original children).

    Ah yes, God is a paragon of moral rectitude.


  • #190
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    No doubt, but you didn't answer the point :)So, in the grand scheme of things, a deity will righteously send a bear to attack a group of youths who slagged off an old bald guy, while the same deity will stand idly by and let 55 million people die in WWII.

    Seems an extravagantly capricious deity to me -- not exactly the kind of god you'd want around your house or near your children, I have to say.

    Which says more about your limited knowledge and understanding than it does about God.

    We are not equipped to judge whether one act is more dangeroussignificant than another. For example, 80 years ago a fat English eejit escaped death by a fraction of an inch on the streets of New York because he was stupid enough to look the wrong way while crossing the road. He ascribed his survival to divine providence - which would seem a rather outrageous claim given that providence allowed thousands to die in apparently much more significant earthquakes and floods that very same year.

    However, with the benefit of hindsight, we may well agree that Winston Churchill's survival was indeed the more important event because he would later play a key role in preventing most of the world coming under the control of Hitler.


  • #191
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Which leads to the Euthyphro dilemma, are morals above God or is God above morals? I'd say Christians would, in general, accept the latter.
    I think it's less subtle than "accepting the latter".

    Seems to me that most religious assert the latter, and so we find a deity conjured up who defines what is morally good and bad and whose actions are the principal guide to what he views as morally good and bad. In such a case, as deity cannot, by definition, do anything which is morally bad. It's rather like the "lives outside of time and space" escape clause that's built into many religions regarding the beginning of cause and effect, whereby the religious believe that they can ignore the logic that they believe nobbles their opponents.

    But as you say, the main problem with all of this is that people believe it and are prepared, frequently ecstatically so, to act as their deity's executioners, doing whatever they like for no reason other than they agree with themselves that it needs to be done.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    We are not equipped to judge whether one act is more significant than another.
    You seem quite sure about abortion and homosexuality though?

    And whatever about Winston ascribing his life to a deity reaching a finger down into a New York street and grandly pushing him to safety, one really has to wonder long and hard why the same omnipotent finger failed to cause a certain Austrian corporal to die from inhalation of poison gas, or from a shell splinter that could have become gangrenous, but sadly didn't.


  • #193
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You've effectively answered your own question.

    Accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, and putting yourself right with God is considered the best thing for you.

    What's the difference? God wants us to do this because He wants what is best for us. As the creator of the world I somehow think that He knows how best to live in it.

    So when god sent the bears to maul those youths that where mocking elijah, he was doing that because that was what he thought was the best for them?

    PS: you seem to have missed my last post, post 166, can i get some responses, thanks.


  • #194
    jimbling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭jimbling


    wow.... just wow :eek:


  • #195
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Is there such a thing as non biblical sin?

    I just said that to make clear what I was discussing. Non biblical sin could be disobeying the law of the State, although the Bible says to do this, the legislation is set by parliament.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Surely the one who has been forgiven the most has sinned the most and probably isnt very sorry if they keep sinning.

    I'd argue that if someone who has a lot of sin, is forgiven they would make a more ardent effort to seek God and to put themselves right with Him before the judgement than someone who has been forgiven something that they consider relatively minor and as such value their forgiveness less.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?

    Different leaders could have different purposes in certain populations even if they are transgressing God's commandments. For example Nebuchadnezzar encouraged people to worship idols in the book of Daniel and even committed three of Daniels Jewish friends to fire for not bowing down to a golden statue. Yet Nebuchadnezzar was sent to bring punishment on Judah for their sins in the land of Israel. However this is certainly another field of discussion that could be had in the Christianity forum.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?

    Believe and repent of their sins truly in their heart.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?

    No, the Torah law was the civil law of the State at the time. There is no Sanhedrin, and no High Priest in Christianity except Christ alone. Christ will return to judge the world, and we will all come before His judgement seat (2 Corinthians 5). Vindication is God's. We are under grace, therefore we must have mercy for other people. Hence the teaching by Christ, "Forgive so that you may too be forgiven". An explanation of this is in Romans 12 after dealing with what the signs of being a good Christian are.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    What reasoning do we have to suggest that it is to do with rape. The term can also have numerous other renderings such as wield. It is very easy to believe that that could describe consensual sex. The word "seize" could very much be a normal action in normal relations. The punishment for rape is dealt with in the previous verses so I don't see why on earth they would need to repeat themselves later on down the page. The first part concerns rape, the next part concerns premarital sex / having relations with the fiancée of another.

    Even reading the clause "and they are caught in the act" implies that they are both involved, rather than one person raping another who doesn't consent at all.

    Deuteronomy 22 effectively deals with 3 different scenarios:
    1) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in an urban area.
    2) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in a rural area.
    3) A man meets a virgin who is not engaged to anyone, if they have premarital sex they are to be arranged to be married.

    So why on earth when rape has been addressed already in the first two, would it also be dealt with in the third.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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?

    I have a couple of Bibles that I use, I mainly use the NRSV which is the advised translation of Anglicanism, I also have NIV also commonly used amongst my friends and in church, Good News, and finally the King James Version. The KJV as good as it can be is rather archaic and new Bible codexes have been found since then, the modern translations are more likely to be accurate. So, I'm not a KJV-aloner, I respect developments in archaeology and in translation since then. Asides, the KJV language can be a bit heavy at times, so it's best to have another Bible also, and a commentary just incase. I'd use the New Jerome Bible Commentary which is more geared towards Catholicism but would be a pretty strong source to use.

    Actually it might be profitable to quote from it on Deuteronomy 22:28:
    virgin (betula) more precisely, a sexually mature female. Onece again the main concern is with the economic rights of the father. The penalty for the seducer is the same as in Exodus 22:16-17, except the bride price is now fixed at 50 shekels, and the father may no longer veto the marriage: cf the similar Assyrian law

    Interesting that it mentioned the cross reference with Exodus 22:16-17, it might be good to cite that too:
    Exodus 22:16-17 wrote:
    When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.

    Now interestingly, this involves seduction, leading towards having sex. Now if this law is a repetition of the law in Exodus, why on earth would it be dealing with a different context.

    You mightn't be aware that the theological position on the Torah is that there were 4 writers. Moses didn't write the Torah, but rather 4 different sources did. Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians hold the view that Torah was written by Moses, but textual research indicates that this really couldn't have been the case. How possibly can you write about your own death? How commonly do you write about yourself in the third person? Kind of like how the Gospels are. Namely, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Source (Leviticus). So a few incidents are repeated in them like in the Gospels, the recounting of the complaining at Meribah and Massah when the Israelites complained about water, as well as the way the laws are written down. So it is reasonable given this research in theology to suggest that the same context from Exodus 22 can be applied to Deuteronomy 22 on premarital sex.


  • #196
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Different leaders could have different purposes in certain populations even if they are transgressing God's commandments.

    So god sometimes wants people to violate his commandments? How do you know when?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What reasoning do we have to suggest that it is to do with rape. The term can also have numerous other renderings such as wield.

    Maybe the term can have numerous other meanings, but the meanings given in 21 out of 22 of the translations given by your link are seize, take or lay hold on.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is very easy to believe that that could describe consensual sex. The word "seize" could very much be a normal action in normal relations. The punishment for rape is dealt with in the previous verses so I don't see why on earth they would need to repeat themselves later on down the page. The first part concerns rape, the next part concerns premarital sex / having relations with the fiancée of another.

    Here is deuteronomy 22:22-29 [KJV]:
    22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

    26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

    27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

    28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
    So you have what to do with a married woman having an affair (22) an engaged virgin having an affair(23,24), a man who rapes an engaged woman in the countryside (25,26 & 27) and a man who rapes a single woman in the countryside. So its actually extramarital sex in the first part, followed by rape.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Even reading the clause "and they are caught in the act" implies that they are both involved, rather than one person raping another who doesn't consent at all.

    Deuteronomy 22 effectively deals with 3 different scenarios:
    1) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in an urban area.
    2) What happens when a young woman who is to be engaged has sex with another man or is raped in a rural area.
    3) A man meets a virgin who is not engaged to anyone, if they have premarital sex they are to be arranged to be married.

    So why on earth when rape has been addressed already in the first two, would it also be dealt with in the third.

    Again, you have it wrong, there are 4 scenarios. The first was a married woman having an affair, the second an engaged woman, the third an engaged woman being raped and the last a single woman being raped.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have a couple of Bibles that I use, I mainly use the NRSV which is the advised translation of Anglicanism, I also have NIV also commonly used amongst my friends and in church, Good News, and finally the King James Version. The KJV as good as it can be is rather archaic and new Bible codexes have been found since then, the modern translations are more likely to be accurate. So, I'm not a KJV-aloner, I respect developments in archaeology and in translation since then. Asides, the KJV language can be a bit heavy at times, so it's best to have another Bible also, and a commentary just incase. I'd use the New Jerome Bible Commentary which is more geared towards Catholicism but would be a pretty strong source to use.

    I cant find the New Jerome Bible online, but deuteronomy, as translated in the NRSV goes
    Deuteronomy 22:28,29 NRSV wrote:
    If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
    (site here) which uses the word "seizes" and the NIV says:
    Deuteronomy 22:28,29 NIV wrote:
    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.
    (site here) The NIV even uses the word "rapes", it doesnt look like you have much of a leg to stand on.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Interesting that it mentioned the cross reference with Exodus 22:16-17, it might be good to cite that too:
    Exodus 22:16-17 wrote:
    When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.

    Now interestingly, this involves seduction, leading towards having sex. Now if this law is a repetition of the law in Exodus, why on earth would it be dealing with a different context.

    You mightn't be aware that the theological position on the Torah is that there were 4 writers. Moses didn't write the Torah, but rather 4 different sources did. Many Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians hold the view that Torah was written by Moses, but textual research indicates that this really couldn't have been the case. How possibly can you write about your own death? How commonly do you write about yourself in the third person? Kind of like how the Gospels are. Namely, the Yahwist, the Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly Source (Leviticus). So a few incidents are repeated in them like in the Gospels, the recounting of the complaining at Meribah and Massah when the Israelites complained about water, as well as the way the laws are written down. So it is reasonable given this research in theology to suggest that the same context from Exodus 22 can be applied to Deuteronomy 22 on premarital sex.

    So a divinely inspired text not only has repetitions, but repetitions inaccurate enough to cause two completely different readings of the same situation? Not very reassuring.


  • #197
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So god sometimes wants people to violate his commandments? How do you know when?

    I don't think I said that. I think I said that God in the Biblical text uses rulers to punish people who had violated His law consistently, particularly the covenant nation of Israel who had been bound to His law. I think God would have wanted for all nations to come to Him. The Psalms and particularly Isaiah speak of the nations (the Gentiles) coming to faith in Him. I believe this was fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

    I don't think that God wants people to violate His law, however when they do it can often turn out for good as is written in Romans 8:28.
    Romans 8:28 wrote:
    We know that all things work together for good[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.

    Now, one would assume that all things mean both good and bad. In the context of the passage it goes on to say that nothing can separate a true believer from Christ Jesus.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Maybe the term can have numerous other meanings, but the meanings given in 21 out of 22 of the translations given by your link are seize, take or lay hold on.

    Indeed 21 out of 22. This is rather important to note as I go through your quote.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Again, you have it wrong, there are 4 scenarios. The first was a married woman having an affair, the second an engaged woman, the third an engaged woman being raped and the last a single woman being raped.

    Apologies. People do make mistakes occasionally.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I cant find the New Jerome Bible online, but deuteronomy, as translated in the NRSV goes
    (site here) which uses the word "seizes" and the NIV says: (site here) The NIV even uses the word "rapes", it doesnt look like you have much of a leg to stand on.

    Indeed, NRSV does use the word seizes. I have yet to see the significance though to your argument.

    As for the NIV, didn't you say that 21 out of the 22 translations use the word "seize", or "take". Yet because one says "rapes", you accept it blindly. I don't think that's good research somehow. We've already gone through what the Hebrew word is, and if most English modern day translations render it as "seizes" or "takes", I think one would deem that most reasonable. Actually it should cause you to question why does the NIV use the word "rapes" rather than the other common translations.

    BTW as for the New Jerome Bible Commentary, it isn't a bible in itself, it's just a reference when you get stuck for anything. It's quite a hefty one at that (5,000 pages).
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So a divinely inspired text not only has repetitions, but repetitions inaccurate enough to cause two completely different readings of the same situation? Not very reassuring.

    I don't really think they are all that different:

    Exodus 22 says that when a man seduces a young virgin and has sexual relations, he shall give the bride price to her father and they shall be married if the father approves, but if the father does not approve he will keep the money.

    Deuteronomy 22 says on the same issue, that the man who has relations with the virgin, shall pay the bride price of 50 shekels, to the father and they shall become married.

    There are two differences:
    1) The bride price in Deuteronomy 22 is 50 shekels, in Exodus 22 it merely mentions the bride price. Logically could one assume after reading it that the bride price in Exodus 22 could well have been 50 shekels?

    2) The fathers consent isn't included in Deuteronomy 22. Exodus 22 provides extra information in this regard. I'm starting to see why the Jewish Rabbinate saw that it was necessary to include the other Torah writers when they were compiling it.


  • #198
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    You seem quite sure about abortion and homosexuality though.

    What on earth is the relevance of that?

    I point out that we can't tell which historical events are more significant than others, so you try to somehow link that with the fact that I interpret Scripture as teaching that certain acts are wrong?

    Is this some kind of word association game? I can't see any other reason why you would make such an irrelevant comment. :confused:


  • #199
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You claim that God in Christianity is robber
    No, my point was that simply because God holds torture in a lake of fire over us, and because it would be in our best interests not to end up in a lake of fire, that doesn't mean it is moral, any more than it being in your best interest to follow the instructions of the robber makes it moral for him to rob you.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    , despite being depicted as having given us the world, everything that is in it, forgiveness for our transgressions and eternal life should you choose to accept Him? Surely this doesn't make sense.
    The robber doesn't shoot you if you choose to do as he says. That doesn't mean it is moral for him to rob you.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who said this? He has the right to punish others for their wrongdoing however, as is said "Vindication is mine, says the Lord" (Romans 12). God created the universe and we are under His juristiction

    Again that is not how most of us here view morality. Having jusristiction over something does not nullify rights.

    For example a woman has the right not to be raped. That is a right because of what she is, and based on the idea that rape is cruel and unusal punishment that is never justified.

    The right of protection against this is based on what she is and the action involved.

    Notice that who is punishing her by raping her is utterly irrelevant. The authority or jurisdiction of who has decided that rape is a punishment is irrelevant.

    It is not that a woman has the right not to be raped by someone who does not have the authority or jurisdiction not to rape her, but she can be raped by someone who does.

    That is not what we consider to be rights.

    So ultimately there is a fundamental difference here, and to be honest your way of viewing how morality and rights work is rather worrying.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    , hence He has the right to judge us as His creation. We are the citizens of the State, the State governs us, we are under the States juristiction, hence the State has the right to judge us as it's citizens.

    No the State does not have the right to judge all it's citizens. The State can no more decide that a woman should be raped as punishment for a crime than you or me can, or God for that matter.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I haven't argued this, and I don't think PDN has either.

    That is exactly what you have argued, that God has the right to do with us as he pleases because of who he is. What he does is irrelevant.


  • #200
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,478 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    hang on now,there's no logic to any of these arguments, are you saying that someone in a position of power/authority can do whatever the hell they like and be answerable to nobody over the moral implications of anything they do??


  • #201
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    hang on now,there's no logic to any of these arguments, are you saying that someone in a position of power/authority can do whatever the hell they like and be answerable to nobody over the moral implications of anything they do??

    I definitely haven't said that anyway. I have argued on the following line of reasoning:

    1. God created the world.
    2. God is omniscient.
    3. God knows how what he created works.
    4. Therefore given that we live in the earth He created, and He knows how what he created works, we trust that He knows what is best for us.

    I don't think that is an argument from power, but rather an argument from superior knowledge.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement