Fanny Cradock wrote: » I believe this is called the scatter-gun tactic.
marienbad wrote: » I think you have the wrong poster here Fanny ?
Zombrex wrote: » Is it wrong for any reason other than God says so? And if it is only good because God says so why does that make it good?
But punishment falls into the realm of morality. Was it moral for the ancient nation of Israel to stone people to death.
why is it not moral now to stone to death people who deceive their husbands.
It is odd that moving away from God has greatly reduced the amount of harm we do to each other, and greatly improved the lives of most people.
For the example the odds of you dying at the hands of another person are significantly less than the odds of an average Israelite.
How often do you hear leaders, particularly in western countries, call on their soldiers to go back to a captured city or country and put everyone to death?
Again do you not find it odd that our standards for how to conduct a war (whether the individual soldiers adhere to them or not) involve a lot better treatment of those we inflict war on than in Israel where they were following the direct instructions of God?
What do you mean "broader sense"? I thought there was just right and wrong. Are you saying that something immoral could be moral local to the Israelites?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Given their context wherein stoning was considered just how can you say that they were wrong? Indeed, if you existed back then you might well have felt passionately that stoning was an appropriate sentence for X,Y or Z. They lived in different times, under different circumstances and had different values.
Masteroid wrote: » And there you have the full extent of your argument? Your God would be so pleased at how little you know of your own religion.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Thanks for the Asimov tip. I'll check it out. The funny thing, marienbad, is that I had you in mind when I type that post. On a number of occasions I believe that you asked Philologs whether certain social/ moral prescriptions in the Bible would be considered moral today. If you aren't interested in applying contemporary moral standards to the past then why ask the question? Furthermore, how can you admit to being a moral subjectivist (and I assume we both understand the term in the same way and that you accept the label) without pulling the rug out from any notion that you can level a valid moral criticism at people living in other times or other places? They did what they thought was morally correct. You do what you think is morally correct. People in the future will do what they think is morally correct. And all of them might have different notions about what is morally correct. OK, so you think it is immoral to stone someone to death. Great. I'm happy to hear it. However, in a similar vein to my text above, if someone 3,000 years ago considered stoning members of rival tribes, spies, adulterers or whoever else to be both moral and just then what do you say about that? Given their context wherein stoning was considered just how can you say that they were wrong? Indeed, if you existed back then you might well have felt passionately that stoning was an appropriate sentence for X,Y or Z. They lived in different times, under different circumstances and had different values. Similarly, if people in the future look back in horror at some of your moral choices then what? It seems to me that all you have said is that people have or will do stuff that you don't like and vise versa. A particular deed is not wrong in any grand or external sense. It is wrong only for the subject given their situation, and it is therefore possible that somebody opposed to stoning would think that stoning is right given the correct circumstance.
JimiTime wrote: » As I said to you already, there is only right and wrong. There is no earthly wrong and heavenly wrong. What you are asking, is for me to reduce it down to a level that will appeal to your subjective interpretation of what makes something right or wrong, and then you can then subjectively pick what is and what isn't harm and so on and so forth.
JimiTime wrote: » I would not use the word moral, nor immoral tbh. I can't imagine stoning someone to death and thinking, 'this is so moral isn't it'. I don't have a moral objection to executing someone in principal(a guilty person of course), but I wouldn't describe it as moral. I think justified and regrettable would be the more appropriate term.
JimiTime wrote: » Because we are not living in a geographical nation under God or the Law, but are rather scattered through many nations and living under the Law of Love which Jesus instituted. Israel was put aside from other nations as Gods people through the promise he made to Abraham, and who his Son and our Messiah would come from. As such, evil was to be purged from it was the instruction. Sin being as pervasive and destructive as it is.
JimiTime wrote: » Well, the Israelites, when loyal to God prospered, as per his promise.
JimiTime wrote: » I didn't realise you had the stats from ancient Israel. Please share. Also, could you stipulate if these stats you have are from their times of obedience, or their times of rebellion? Also, are you comparing them to the world in general? Dublin? Ireland? And are you referring to the average Joe, or are we comparing the fate of criminals?
JimiTime wrote: » Also, what do you mean by 'moving away from God'? As far as I can tell, the closer we got to Christianity, the more humane and less harm we cause each other. Of course, we'll never get it right fully.
JimiTime wrote: » On a side note, I would not be so naive as to think that somehow we are more humane in waging war these days. We just see it happen in a much more cunning and deceitful way. Taking a nations resources, poisoning their waters, reaping the rewards of child labour etc etc. We are adept at talking out of both sides of our mouths.
JimiTime wrote: » Ravaging nations, while patting ourselves on the back and thinking we are great and moral. War is brutal! It has never changed in this.
JimiTime wrote: » No, I'm saying it was good for Israel that God fulfilled his promise.
JimiTime wrote: » I would not describe as good, that people reject God, and receive the wages of their shortcomings. Its a shame. Something regrettable.
JimiTime wrote: » Its nuanced I suppose, in that its good that the unrepentant wicked are destroyed
Peregrinus wrote: » Actually, the word “carnally” isn’t used in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text just uses a word which means “to know”. And the early English translations, e.g. the King James, follow this. It was, of course, a euphemism. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word was “to know”, but the euphemistic meaning was “to have sex with”.
Peregrinus wrote: » You - and many others - assume that the euphemistic meaning of the word is the only relevant one here. I agree with you, as it happens, that in this context the euphemistic meaning is invoked; the citizens did indeed want to have sex with the angels. Nevertheless, this isn’t a story primarily or mainly about sexual morality. I suggest that the use of “know” here is very deliberate; it evokes both the direct meaning - the angels are strangers, and therefore unknown to the citizens - and the sexual meaning - because strangers are hated and feared, the citizens want to inflict humiliating violence on them, and what better way to do that than with spot of gang rape? (The “know carnally” translation tries to preserve both of these nuances, which would be lost if a more idiomatic translation like “have sex with” were used.)
Peregrinus wrote: » We moderns are obsessed with sex, and we can’t conceive that a moral story which involves sex isn’t about sex. Indeed, when we hear the words “moral” or “immoral”, sexual connotations are the first things that come to mind. But that’s our problem. We have no reason to impute that attitude to the authors or editors of these texts, or to the original authors. And we have two powerful reasons for thinking that, in fact, they didn’t understand the text as making a point about homosexuality. The first, as I’ve already pointed out, is that the story of Sodom in Gen 19 is very deliberately contrasted with the story of Abraham in Gen 18, and the contrast is between the hospitality to strangers shown by Abraham the poor nomadic grazer, versus the hostility shown to strangers by the rich and powerful city of Sodom. As it happens, the hostility took the form of a threat of sexual violence, but obsession with the fact that it was sexual is our obsession; we’re bringing that to the interpretation. The sexual aspect of the Gen 19 story doesn’t contrast with anything in Gen 18; the violence and hatred certainly does. The second thing is that we know how the Israelites understood this story because this, too, is recorded in (later) scripture. Ezekiel, writing at a time when the story of Sodom is already an ancient and hallowed one, invokes it in his own writings, and says “this was the guilt of Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things.” Now, you can read “abominable things” as referring to sexual violence, or homosexual violence, but it’s clearly at most a minor theme in the condemnation of Sodom; the focus is on Sodom’s wealth, and its disdain for others. And all the classic rabbinical commentaries take the same line; this is a story about the ethical imperative of hospitality (which, don’t forget, is a constant preoccupation of the OT moral codes). It wasn’t until a couple of thousand years had passed that modern Europeans began to read this as a story mainly about The Gay. Quite why our culture came to take a different view is a subject for another discussion, but obviously it’s tied in with our preoccupation with sex.
JimiTime wrote: » Ouch, my feelings.:rolleyes: Admittedly, I am a mere babe in knowledge and wisdom, full of ignorance. However, I'm honest, which allows me chip away at my ignorance and gain knowledge and wisdom ever so gradually.
tommy2bad wrote: » Hell, I can't comprehend how someone who proclaims to e a christian cannot include killing people in their moral landscape! Jimi you need to clear this up The rest of ye need to realise that the bible is 'our' side of the story, when it says that God said it should be read as we think this is what God would want. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
Masteroid wrote: » Personally, I'd like to check the credentials of those who would gain my soul. What would Satan want? Rape, murder, genocide? Exactly what the OT prescribes but would these things be considered worse for being Satan's will? Is it okay for Richard to butcher Muslim women and children but sinful when done by Saladin (which he didn't). Fact is, if Satan preached the opposite of the OT then the world would have been a better place. Now that is irony.:rolleyes:
Worztron wrote: » Why were trillions of extra planets created? That does not sound like a divine plan. If humans are so important - why then did we come along a long time after other life forms and when the sun is half-way through its lifespan? The Sun will be around for about another 5 billion years but in about 1 billion years it will be too hot to live on Earth. That does not sound like a divine plan either.
robp wrote: » Anyway if there is a high amount of certainty about it looking like a divine plan there would be little free will.
MrPudding wrote: » So what if there was little free will? My understanding is that once the whole heaven thing kicks in there will be no free will. This has been discussed before, Wolfsbane was explaining that there would be no sin in heaven, the earth reborn I believe, and this would be achieved by removing everyone's free will. So you have a stupid test, life on earth, which is completely disproportionate to the prize or punishment, but we have to have free will during the test, because otherwise we could not love and we would be like robots, but when we get to heaven we get a lobotomy and have to spend eternity in some kind of robotic sycophantic trance. not my idea of heaven. MrP
tommy2bad wrote: » As you have so well shown the logicality of this idea(in bold), isn't it obvious that Wolfsbane is just wrong on it?
tommy2bad wrote: » See thats why I find it hard to call myself a Christian, the amount of badly thought out ideas and plain guessing instead of just admitting theirs stuff we don't know. Thank God we have the expression "it's a mystery"
Masteroid wrote: » Genesis 38:26 So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again. Judges 11:39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. Judges 19:25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go. 1 Samuel 1:19 Then they rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord, and returned and came to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her. What does the word 'knew' mean in the passages above?
Masteroid wrote: » And why do you assume that the concubine was raped when the author quite clearly does not specify rape?
Masteroid wrote: » In fact, unless you include the homosexual aspect there is no moral issue for those whom the story concerns.
Masteroid wrote: » Firstly, the men of the city turned up because they wanted to know the strangers(s). How do you work out that this is an act of inhospitality?
Masteroid wrote: » The man doesn't want to share his new friend so he sends them away and sarcastically offers to let them take his daughter out. She is a virgin and there is legislation that applies to her defloration and since the mob don't want to be compelled to marry the girl and pay compensation to the father that offer was never going to be accepted. And indeed, according to the story, there is no question that the daughter is safe. However, the guys want to get to know the old man's new friend but the Levite is tired. And cranky. Because of the hardship she has caused him lately, the Levite is displeased with his concubine and he presented her to the mob as a gift. Obviously he was able to do that because she had no value as a person and therefore the mob broke no moral code that the Levite hadn't already shattered when they 'knew' her but perhaps they went a little far by abusing her. And the following morning the Levite treats her with disdain. 'Come on you, Let's go,' he tells her. There is no mention of the poor sick girl receiving hospitality from the Levite who the cuts her up into a dozen pieces by which time, presumably, she is dead.
Masteroid wrote: » In order to shoe-horn your preferred narrative into the text you have to infer much more than I do.
Masteroid wrote: » If strangers are routinely gang-raped in Sodom then why is there no mention of Lot being raped when he arrived there as a stanger? Why would he have stayed and raised a family there if he was 'hated and feared' and subjected to 'humiliating violence'?
Masteroid wrote: » And is the hypocrisy of the Israelites completely lost on you? How can a nation whose mantra is 'enslave or destroy all the cities that are far away' complain about hospitality?
Masteroid wrote: » We moderns are obsessed with sex'? More than we were three-thousand years ago? Yeah right. Have a read of Jacob's love-life. Can you imagine if they made a film about it? There would be loads of sex in it.
Masteroid wrote: » Okay, so the authors of the bible didn't think it immoral to use women as bargaining chips but did consider it immoral not to invite a stranger into your house.
Masteroid wrote: » Okay, so sexual deviancy is not an abomination but not looking after the poor and needy is.
Masteroid wrote: » So let us imagine that the Mosaic law concerning sex, marriage and adultery have nothing to do with morality.
Masteroid wrote: » And let us focus on Sodom's wealth. How does a city that hates and fears strangers become prosperous?
Masteroid wrote: » How do people who routinely subject strangers to sexual violence manage to trade outside themselves in order to attract wealth?
Masteroid wrote: » If it wasn't sodomy that made them an abomination against God then what specifically did?
Masteroid wrote: » The whole story is simply a justification for genocide and so is the one in Judges.
Masteroid wrote: » If you thought that anyone but God inspired the bible then I think that you would consider it as a horror story.
robp wrote: » Well you are arguing from a linear scale time perspective.
robp wrote: » I can't speak about any afterlife but a great description I heard as why there is hell is you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Remember that hell is defined as separation from God's love and is meant to be a consequence of refusing God's love.
Zombrex wrote: » Why though? Why would God wish to punish people who refused his love, refusing his love being defined as people who don't believe the claims of a 1st century cult leader. Christianity has a habit of claiming God is all about "love" and then describing some very unloving things. I mean you can slap "love" onto anything, but that doesn't make it so. I can beat my wife while claiming I do it out of love, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to marvel at how deeply I love my wife when I put her in the hospital.
tommy2bad wrote: » I duno, calling an ambulance and getting her to a hospital? sounds like love to me! :P God might not be as into punishing people as people are. Their's a certain satisfaction in knowing that the people you hate will suffer for all eternity while you rest easy on a floating cloud. You can see how it might be thought of that way while God never intended it as such. But this is old well plowed ground, no point going back over it.
robp wrote: » That isn't really true is it? For instance the CC emphasises that talking about certain people going to hell or heaven is extremely presumptuous and beyond what we aught to do. Secondly many of the mainstreams churches such as CC believe non-christians can reach heaven.
Zombrex wrote: » That is some what missing the point. If God actually loves us why does anyone have to "reach" heaven, and why have a hell at all? If he loves us why would God punish people for either not loving him or simply not believing in him in the first place. All sins are paid by Jesus apparently but God is still going to send you to hell simply for non-belief. I mean I don't feel any particular desire to punish those who don't love me, and I'm just a flawed mortal, nor do I claim to love these people. It seems Christians have taken the need to be worshipped and loved coupled with a desire to punish those who don't, the sign of a petty and insecure being, and slapped the term "love" on it simply because the being is God. You can call something "love", but that doesn't make it so, particular when the actions run counter to the concept.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning!
