The 10 commandments
- Rad Manposted 11 years ago
0Are the 10 commandment applicable today? Are they applicable to non-Jews? Are they applicable to women? I ask because the bible says Jesus said one needs to follow them to get into heaven, but when I read them a few things stand out that makes me think they are not applicable to non-Jews or women.
Example:
For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Not millions or billions but thousands
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Clearly this is directed directly towards men, It doesn't say to not covet your neighbour or your neighbours husband.
What do you guys think?This is a very good discussion topic if addressed as such. Also a bit of a loaded question though not in a bad way. Let me formulate a thought on it and will answer probably when I get off work and can refer to my materials
I am not trying to make a point with this at all, it's more of an ethical question rather than a religious question.
Maybe:
* Adultery is adultery: end of story. Women did not have the status they have today. The omission of women is just an indication of the customs or ways of that time.
* A thousand: This amount was a lot in those days.
* Jealous: I want your love, so don't give it away to idols etc.
* Iniquity: The consequence of grossly unfair and immoral behavior on the part of parents (of either sex) will affect future generations. It is an aspect of child psychology in that children learn what they live.Covet means to want.
So do you think they just got the language wrong? It would have been very easy to direct the language to all people, do you think it was simply an error.
Do you think it's appropriate to punish generation of someone for not liking them. There must be someone who doesn't like Kathryn, they are some who don't like me, is it appropriate visit their families with iniquity (grossly unfair behavior)? I'm asking what you think not what the bible says.*Covet: Desiring that which someone else possesses and could lead to all sorts of negative consequence. Men and women did not have equality at that time. ( I guess the women were fine with that... ) so, nowadays covet and all other laws should be applied equally. (It seems to me that God plays it by ear.) The laws were to guarantee a happy life. We follow the instructions to build an unassembled piece, otherwise it won't come out right... but instead a jumbled mess. I see the laws as a practical matter...so, things will go right for us while here on earth.
*The language: The Bible was originally in other languages and passed down through verbal tradition. Maybe it was hard to decipher or translate. However, the gist of the message is still there. The laws are practical and helpful toward peace in one's daily life. They will bring mankind to Heaven which to me is peace of mind and love for reality.
Visiting the inequity: It is a matter of c o n s e q u e n c e, not punishment. To illustrate: if my son hated me, he would pass it on to his children and they would pass it on to their children. And none of them would benefit from knowing me, which would be unfortunate for them and and for me.
(PS Luckily my son loves me and his wife is pregnant. If my son did not love me and I were to be cut off from my grandchild, I would be really sad....which is an understatement.)
TWISICongratulations!!!!!!!
If your son didn't like you it would be no loss to him or his family to not know you and they already don't like you. The only person punished would be you. And you would be punished for something you did or said to your son.Sometimes people hate each other for bad reasons.
But in my experience these preferences do not cross many generational lines. I would never say I "hated" a person I had never met.Her scenario doesn't make sense to me because if the son hates his mom and didn't allow the mom access to his children he would be the one punishing her and not her punishing the grandkids. Where in the case of God he appears to be saying he will purposely punishing generations for anyone not liking him.
Thank You, Rad Man.
*Punishment: A deliberate action intended to hurt someone in effort to force that person to never do it again.
Anything I said, as a mother was just an error on the side of ignorance, stupidity, anger, or unwanted wise counsel.
Does God ever act like a human?
(Sounds like a good Forum discussion...)Well, why would someone hate him. I personally don't hate him as I don't think he exists.
I'm trying to illustrate the difference between punishment and consequences. If there is a God he does not punish. If there is a God, he allows us to learn by
1. The school of hard knocks, i.e. consequences.
2. Instructions (through those who wrote in the Bible) regarding how to avoid consequences by being proactive.
For instance, my brother disliked/ misunderstood (I agree, hate is too strong of a word) my mother and blamed her for his unhappiness. He passed that attitude on to his wife who passed it on to their kids. They have nothing to do with my mother. The point is, she would have, could have been a great joy in their lives; because she was not as bad as my brother thought. My mother did not punish. My brother did not punish. But the consequences were that his kids did not have the benefit of my mother's love and wisdom in their lives. (As my kids, thankfully, did.)
PS My mother still wonders why they don't call or visit.
TWISIBut he does punish, the words are very clear. He says he is jealous and will punish generation for one person who doesn't like him. Never mind what you think God is, look at the words in front of you.
"For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me,"That is just dramatization for the sake of advising us in regards to the seriousness and negativity of the consequences.
- as in:
* If Thou shalt Covet a puppy in the pet store, and dare to bring it your place of Abode, It shall surely become a barking Hellion who will never leave you in Peace... especially while Keyboarding in Righteous Defense of God.
And here is a clearer explanation of the r e s u l t of not loving God:
If you don't love Me and pass that attitude onto your children, (and their children,) they will become Selfish and Arrogant...what 's to stop them?I don't love nor hate God and am not selfish or arrogant. I find Christianity starts with an arrogant idea, when it says God made all this for us and continues when it says humans are special.
Humans are the most amazing, talented and gifted of all his creations. I don't see any whales, dolphins, chimps or elephants keyboarding here. (Although, on the internet I saw an elephant paint a picture of a flower very carefully and deliberately! Yes, and some chimps can paint abstracts, as well. But, I don't see them painting amazing images on ceilings, or sculpting in bronze, or observing the nuances of light and depicting shadows in cool tones in oils on canvases.) Considering the vast achievements of mankind, we are pretty special.
It seems like God did make all this for us, (and all the animals and creatures in nature): Trees are tall enough to give us shade. Flowers are small enough to pick and put in vases. Corn is just the right size for us to eat, as all the other vegetables/fruits... yes, including bananas. It seems the world was made for us (and all creatures big and small and Mother nature has designed such beautiful creatures, nothing like the first strange looking creations, the dinosaurs. Even those were pretty darn spectacular!)
Anyway, without keeping God in mind, we do tend to become arrogant. I know this for a fact. I am the queen of arrogance. But not when I remind myself of God's vast magnificence.
Just Me, I SupposeIf you would think about your place in the cosmos, and do it honestly, it will very quickly disabuse you of any notion of being arrogant. No god required - a god that created the cosmos, trees, flowers, etc. just for man (or you) is, in fact, detrimental to losing that false sense of arrogance.
And yet, you probably don't do any of the those things, either. Can we therefore conclude you and the chimp have achieved the same things?
That has to be one of the most ridiculous things you've said today, and the day isn't out yet. You sound just like the Banana Man...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4What came first the koala or eucalyptus leaves? What came first the monkey or the banana?
LOL You're losing it if you would ask rad man THAT question!
Humans, of course. A necessary per-requisite to man's imagining any god, let alone God.Except of course that God imagined man, then made them. Simple!
You wished it was more whimsical? How? "I didn't wish *it* (God's ability to imagine us)... was simple, I wish(ed) it was whimsical." In the past? when?
I wished, wanted (what have you) for the explanation for life, the universe and everything (which, by the way, is 42) to be whimsical.
That doesn't mean that God is incapable of whimsy, but He is not in and of Himself a whimsical notion or idea.Ref: Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. (Douglas Adams 11 March 1952 – 11 May 2001 )
Answer to the big question of life, the universe and everything = 42.Umm... According to me? I don't recall ever offering an answer to questions of the Universe...or to Life...other than life is meant to be lived...
In "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" (or maybe The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, or Life, The Universe and Everything, or maybe So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, I don't remember which one) when the aliens learn the answer to it all, which is 42, they construct the ultimate computer to learn what the answer means. Unfortunately just as the answer is about to be learned, the Vogons demolish the Earth to make way for an interstellar interstate highway. It was all very legal.
It is originally referred to in the first book. It is then subsequently referred to in all four of its sequels. Interesting thing is, I've met plenty of people who revere Adams' masterpiece trilogy (in five parts) much the same way believers revere the OT, NT, Koran and so on. And I'm pretty sure most of what is described in Hitchhikers' Guide and its sequels is not literally true.
Interesting. Before I became I Christian I used to hang out at SF Conventions (we simply call them 'cons') and knew a lot of people who really liked the Hitchhiker series (book five had not come out yet and we were all pretty well agree that So Long and Thanks For All The Fish was a letdown from the previous three) which included myself and not one of them revered the series in anything like the degree that believers revere the Bible or the Koran.
Humans and then Harry Potter and or God or any other fictitious characters humans invented to entertain and distract.
I want to ask you a question. You've stated you don't believe in God... that's obvious. It's a given.
My question is, if there was a God... would your "Harry Potter" remark be disrespectful? I don't have a comeback, I'm not setting you up... I'm just simply wondering... if God was real, would your comments be rude and disrespectful?Not to an all knowing and all powerful God who would understand my connection. You think a God like i've described would understand that we have equal evidence that both of the two fictitious characters exist, none. But I do understand why you would find that upsetting and it is evidence that I don't believe an all powerful God exists because if I thought that an all powerful God exists that was overly sensitive I wouldn't have made that remark.
Sure, in the same way it would be rude and disrespectful to say that leprechauns ride unicorns, especially if leprechauns rode pixie fairies, instead, and considered unicorns their mortal enemies.
Look ATM You have special powers too! Your thoughts traveled outside your skull and now unicorns, pixies fairies, and leprechauns exists before our very eyes! Yay You!
But Unicorns are real...Everyone knows that...
Or maybe I am just not understanding what a unicorn is?...maybe we are not understanding what God is?
I can prove Unicorns exist though...
At least if a Unicorn is an animal that naturally grows a single horn...centered on its head...How?
BTW A true unicorn is not a goat that accidentally grows a single horn due to genetic misfiring. A unicorn is a pure white horse, a smallish horse, featuring a single horn with magical powers.
As Far As I Know… But, it is mentioned in the bible.Of course! I never knew they could swim (in icy cold water) and have blow holes! Thank you for sharing this proof!
Or maybe they are proof of mercorns. They are also proof that God is Whimsical, Chris!
Ahh...did you define a unicorn as a horse with a single horn?
This is the example of placing "labels" on things is all...hmmmm God should not be labeled or is beyond labels?
And without a label, it makes for difficulty in proving.
Also if God is not to be labels or is beyond them...Then why do so many Place labels on Him..?
No, my thoughts did not travel, they were written down in these forums. You might assume it's all magic, but it's actually all about science. Yay science.
Well, to be very clear: Imaginary God came first and you are just a figment of His Imagined Imagination. Thank you for bringing us to this Very Astute Imagination. We have the ability to imagine because we are his imagination!
I am starting to sound like a broken record. Can I get banned for that? I think I will ban myself for that.
Good bye. I'll be back with a new record.Looks like I shall never return to the religious forums again. Unless I happen to bump into Jesus, himself. Or Krishna...
You show how the point of Jesus' message is easily missed. What was the purpose for the commandments? If you understand why the law had to be written, if you understand what the law hoped to accomplish, you'd understand why it applies for then and always. But, you get bogged down in the letter of the law.
They say when he was very young he impressed the rabbis with his understanding. I doubt this meant he was adept at theology. He probably understood why. What the law meant to accomplish. We can all roll a collective eye at the harshness of the laws written, but the intent was to do no harm. Don't covet things that don't belong to you. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Be kind to your parents. Take a day off once a week to rest and be thankful for what you have. Don't let manmade things become so precious that the love of them stops you from remembering to follow the simple rules that make you a good neighbor to others.
Sometimes, in our mad rush to tear down we neglect to see the good we hope to leave by the wayside.I think I get what you are saying. It's not the letter of the law, we should ignore how badly it's written and get what we need to from it. That's all good, but one needs to understand who wrote those laws and who they were written for. This is where it all started and if that is tainted the whole is tainted.
"For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God"
Do you think the God we think of in the bible would say that? It implies he is imperfect and it implies there are more than one God.Well, yes and no. There being more than one god has nothing to do with divinity on some cases. Sometimes a god is also seen as something you worship above everything else.
So there could be many Gods. If that's the case why chose this when when we don't know if it's the best one.
There are several reasons. You will not get the same answer from all believers. its like a thumbprint. There may be similarities but no two are exactly the same
I get that everyone has a different version of what God is. That makes perfect sense to me, but are they open to the idea that there may be many Gods and they picked the Jealous vindictive one. Notice that a few people have already told me that I don't understand him and that this is my problem? "Who am I to judge a God, I'm only a person." They are not looking at the words. They have their own version of what God is and nothing will shake it even the words that think God gave us himself.
That would contradict the need for any god or any set of scriptures or any wrath a god would have on its followers for not actually adhering to scriptures. If everyone had their own version of a god, like a thumbprint, then there are obviously no such thing as gods.
I think I get what you are saying. The thing I slightly disagree with is that as depending on ,as you put it, what God an individual believer created for themselves there is also a mindset created to go along with that creation that can lend itself to a need within that individual. For example, someone that has a fearful image of God need that fear to keep them from doing wrong. For those who take on the image of loving, they need that God in order to feel unconditional love from in a world where love needs conditions.
What I find is that people don't always get the version of God they need to make them better people, they get the version of God they want. For example one might get a version of God that doesn't mind them having multiple children from multiple men without ever being married. Ethically there is nothing wrong with that (except that the children may not understand what it means to be a man), but I think it's pretty clear what the bible thinks of that and somehow their version of God is Good with it.
It's not so much the thought that God is okay with it. Yes there are some that think that forgiveness means that everything is a ok , but as I remember from my days of thinking this way that even though I might get a small punishment that I was still forgiven as long as I repented. Unfortunately, I had the wrong idea of what repentance truly meant.
So, what is wrong with reason and rationale? Having those images only serves to not allow the person to use reason and rationale to keep them from doing wrong or feel unconditional love.
Of course, God's love is under a set of highly restrictive conditions, hence that doesn't work, not to mention the atrocities caused by God that would negate any fear of doing wrong. You got it all backwards, my friend.There is absolutely nothing wrong with using reason or rationale. We've been over this before, but the bible does speak of using reason when living, it also speaks of course being moral and ethical in your behavior and your treatment of others.. That's kind of an issue on both sides of the spectrum. A lot of people spend more time in the old testament than in the portion of the Bible that actually centers around the man the belief is named for.
No disagreement there.. I used to have the mindset of each of those examples and I understand now what I had given up living in fear as well as the religious depression experienced by some. I'm so much happier now.
Again, I see where you are going from your perspective, but as someone who again used to think in both of those arenas, I also can recognize the other perspective thought on these mindsets.. When I lived in fear, the thought and picture of those things were what kept me in fear of wrongdoing.Yes, the Bible does not speak of using reason, that is the problem in a nutshell. And, if there isn't anything wrong with using reason and rationale to figure out morals and ethics, why would you need a religion to tell you that?
Of course, your religion doesn't tell you that because it actually doesn't teach morals and ethics, it teaches obedience and worship.
Well, let's think about it. We sit around pondering whether or not God exists. People of that time didn't stop to think: they believed every nation had a God. If I were a one God attempting to help a people come out of savagery into a civilized society I might make the same statement.
Either way, built on a false premise or not; the intent of the whole is too valuable to throw out even if there is no God.True, I loved the Harry Potter series. But we need to understand that it's fiction if it's fiction.
Just finished watching 'Life of Pi' again. It's appropriate to this conversation. You can certainly believe it to be fiction. It doesn't make it fiction for those who believe it to be true.
I loved that movie. He fooled himself to believe a separate reality just to survive. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Sometimes reality sucks so we invent a separate reality to cope, but it doesn't make it reality.
You can certainly believe it to be reality. It doesn't make it reality for those who don't believe it to be true.
Great great movie.The book delves even deeper, actually, stating that taking a real event and making it into a work of fiction can bring out more truth and more meaning than simply recounting the truth often can.
So, that is what you believe. Fine. Would you sit in his living room and attempt to dog him into believing the version that makes you most comfortable? The one you find more believable? The one that makes you most comfortable?
Nope, he needs to survive. But reality is reality. We have a big percentage of people not able to deal with reality.
No one deals 100% with reality rad man. We perceive how we choose to perceive. You can claim you deal with reality, it doesn't make it so, primarily because we have not answered all of the questions as to what reality is. In the interim, complaining that some don't deal with reality implies you don't either.
You sounded like you really do understatement the meaning of this last statement ... but a lot of people that say it a lot ... don't really mean it cause they don't understand past the surface.
I agree with YA a thousand %. Nobody really knows what reality really is?Reality
• a thing that is actually experienced or seen, esp. when this is grim or problematic: the harsh realities of life in a farming community | the law ignores the reality of the situation.
• a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: the paperless office may yet become a reality.
It's not so hard to understand. Real(ity)
If something only exists in ones mind it's not reality. Unless you have some evidence that show God exists outside of ones mind...Lets just leave these words ... (Unless you have some evidence that show God exists outside of ones mind) and discuss your statement....
• a thing that is actually experienced or seen,
By that definition ....You have experienced and seen things I haven't! Which is your reality .. not mine. Which means our realities are different though we share a few basic commonalities. Does that mean that everything outside of our commonalities can not be said to be real?
And about those people whose experiences are not common to ours in any way?
They must be way outside of reality .....Rad man, rad man. What are you doing in a religion philosophy forum? You think in a one dimensional way. You are a flat earth guy in a room full of people who imagine what lies beyond the horizon. A black and white guy in a shades of gray world. You don't get it, and possibly never will.
But that's ok. It takes all kinds. Without you there wouldn't be infinite variety.Actually, Rad thinks in four dimensions, it is you believers who are unable to think beyond one dimension. And, you don't imagine what lies beyond the horizon, you make up nonsense that fits with your one dimensional worldview and pretend you have special powers.
Special powers? I don't have special powers. I've been ripped off. Where does one go to get these special powers? Does one get to pick their power or does it simply pick you? I'm pretty old now, but I've always been a late bloomer. Is there still hope? Please, ATM, please; tell me there's hope. I want a special power, too. Preferably the ability to fly, but I'll take anything. And be grateful for it. Unless it's something stupid like the ability to turn into a rodent. But, considering my luck my power would be along those lines.
Maybe I should just be thankful I don't have powers and your particular delusion is to think I think I do.Emile, you sometimes say the funniest things. And your last two or three posts are cracking me up. First you claim that I lack your ability to think dimensionally because I can't see what you see and then you claim to have no special powers. If you can see beyond the event horizon than that makes you special or a liar.
I spend my days getting paid for my creativity, I've studied it and understand how and when to use it. What you may not understand about creativity is that it's primarily problem solving. It's gathering the information you have and solving a problem using the tools given. There is nothing creative about imagining a giant sky daddy, in spite of the information given. Here in this forum I looking at the information given to see if it adds up to a giant loving sky daddy, but we can't creatively find a solution if we don't look critically at the information given. If a client asks me design a brochure I first have to understand the purpose of the brochure before I creatively solve the problem of designing the brochure. If the brochure is for health care I don't use a bunch of images of Black Sabbath because I'm listening to that music and I wan't to be "creative". Creativity is understanding and problem solving. But if you think you know better than by all means use your superior intellect to solve this problem. Why does the bible say that God is a jealous vengeful God?I've never said you can't see what I see. Nor have I claimed to be able to see over the horizon. That's your tunnel vision hampering your ability to understand the written word. Please, point to a post where I have claimed special powers and I'll show you where you didn't understand. Or, better yet, take the time to think. I certainly wouldn't begin to believe you are lying or purposely posting false information.
Edit. You may have someone else paying you for your creativity. It's my creativity that has gotten me self employed. I'd go head to head with you on problem solving and bet money I can come up with a more cost effective and efficient solution. I'm just that good.
Edit to my edit. The vengeful God thing. Don't know, don't care. The question is why is this so important to you? Why do you need me to solve your problem? I don't rail at the fates rad man. What's the point?All right...
So I'm the only guy who can't see over the horizon.Oh Honey, I've been a self employed graphic designer/creative director for the last 16 years. Before that I worked for one of the largest package design companies in North America. My current clients are J&J, Kraft, 3M and Xerox. Your idea of creativity is your imagination.
You're hilarious. You complain about beliefs of theists and your comments are riddled with ego driven beliefs. Just because the word God isn't factored in you think you are better than them. Sometimes, I think their distancing themselves from admitting it is their own ego talking is preferable because when an atheist displays their own ego driven behavior patterns and can't see it themselves you have to wonder how blind a person can be. You don't know me from Adam. Yet, you make foolish statements you have convinced yourself are true, in order to use another person's back as a stepping stool to convince yourself you are better. Sad, really, that people prefer their delusion complaints about others instead of looking into the mirror.
I love the way you go on about how much better you see the world and how narrow minded and uncreative we are and then when someone puts you in your place you claim they have a ego problem. You really should read some of your own posts.
And those are little nuggets of this one page.I don't remember saying the way I see the world is better, but I suppose it is better to attempt to live and let live. I simply don't follow that philosophy when I encounter people such as yourself who arrogantly (and rudely) insist you are better. When in Rome. And I stand behind every word. I could copy and paste comments you've made but it wouldn't serve any purpose. I've done it before and you still deny posting it. In denial much?
I've never insisted I was better in any way. You have a number of times insisted that I'm inferior. Notice how Chris and I can carry on a conversation coming from completely different perspectives and understand and agree with each other.
Maybe I just don't like SOME girls. I seem to get along fine with those that can have a discussion without making it personal.
You don't get along with ATM very well, is that because you just don't like men?That's never been an issue. lol
(Sorry if I offended you)Not offended, just wondering why you never join in any discussions?
I do, but for some reason you don't recognize my points. It's as if saying "good morning" or putting the discussion into relate-able terms disqualifies me... So I say what Im thinking and if it turns ugly, I take my leave. I am pretty sure I could win many debates, but does that show you the love of God? It is a terribly fine line for Christians. We want to prove our points, but it really shouldn't be about us looking good... so sometimes we walk away, which may look weak or what have you. I don't always do my best, I fail sometimes, but I'm trying to be genuine. That's the most I can hope for in this kind of setting.
Well, I don't read your conversations with Chris. Is that a requirement?
But, honestly rad man; what does the exchange between a theist and an atheist have to do with the question at hand? I have read your posts to some theists and I find your complaints against me a pot kettle thing. With that in mind; what could compel me to take this little 'woe is me' seriously? Session
I missed this and I'm also missing the point. If you knew the business we are in and the business model I developed you wouldn't be confused. It is entirely unique and the entire industry in our area is talking about us. Good things. I've had competitors copy the website I developed and we are truly one of a kind. I seriously doubt anyone could duplicate our model if they tried. Sorry if that offends you, although I have no idea why you appear to be scoffing.
I didn't know a laughing smilie was equivalent to being offended? Maybe, that's why you believe you're so good.
Being offended, according to Emile --->
Hmmmm. I am pretty knowledgeable about who and what I am. I don't hide the faults. So I'm good at something. I'm bad at other things. I'm balanced.
Incidentally, if the statement doesn't offend you in some way why are you going on and on about it? What does it matter?
And, honestly you make me wonder. I only said that because another hubber was insisting his creativity was some badge of honor, of sorts. I was simply giving an eye roll in a round about way. I don't see where you wasted a laughing face on his comment. Did you read it, or is it simply OK for an atheist poster to appear to have an ego where an agnostic shouldn't?Actually the other hubber was being told by you that he or she only thinks one dimensionally and felt the need to disagree.
Oh. Was that you? Well, I don't know whether you've noticed this, or not, but creative thinking on one level doesn't ensure the ability to think creatively on another. I'm not saying I don't agree with you that all of these claims people make about 'relationships' with unseen beings...special powers granted to them by unseen beings and some mystic knowledge of things we obviously can't corroborate seem over the top in the imagination department; but, the core premise they begin with (that there is more to the universe than we can currently understand) is valid, imo. They are simply doing the same things atheists do concerning the mystery. Claiming they know something they don't.
Exactly, so you need not pretend that you do.
Yes Emile, we all deal with reality the same, it is you believers who pretend to have special powers to perceive things beyond reality, which is just so much hogwash.
I'll agree there appears to be a great deal of ego driven behavior in the discussion. But, 'you believers' is an interesting claim. What claims have I made which lead you to include me in the accusation? I see your beliefs as more ego driven than mine. I claim no knowledge on a cosmic scale. I accept that we simply hold opinions which change slightly on a daily basis as we continue gathering information on the nature of existence.
You, too, are dogmatically stuck in your delusion. Unable to think beyond it. That's ok too. Infinite variety on all levels of existence is part of what I see. Your behavior pattern simply fits nicely into the model. Thanks for the input ATM.This discussion has nothing to do with ego. We are talking about some ancient text that describes God in an unloving manner. Can we have that discussion without you making it personal please.
That's one right there. I hold no beliefs.
But, your opinions are based on beliefs, not facts. You don't gather information, you find things that support your beliefs.
Yes, I understand you believers believe reality is a delusion. That's what creates so many problems in the world.
Are you speaking to Rad Man or some Christian evangelist your reality tells you has taken his place?
What was the purpose for the commandments?
God knew when he gave Moses the ten commandments that no one could keep them. They weren't given so some perfect people could keep them and earn their way to heaven. They were given as an eternal statement and reminder to humanity that because we are sinners no one could ever keep all of these commandments and because of that humanity needed a savior to pay the price of our sins so we can spend eternity in heaven with God. Just as God had the Jews perform the ritual sacrifice of the unblemished lamb as a foreshadowing of the coming messiah (lamb) who had to be slain to save the world God gave the ten commandments as a template and constant reminder to convict the lost and believers of their sin nature and therefore their need of a savior. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" save Jesus who btw is the only human to ever have kept all ten commandments.So the Jews of Moses' day, sinners all and without Christ to save them, were given a set of rules that guaranteed they would end up in Hell.
It's a different concept, I must say...well maybe you shouldn't be commenting about things you know nothing about - this is a basic elementary fact of theology and plain reasoning confirms that if all humanity from the beginning is fallen and in sin so in need of a savior to pay the price of their sin (another basic tenant of the faith) then how could someone make their way to heaven by following 10 commandments...there is no other explanation for them and read them - no one on earth could ever keep them all - break one you've broken them all in God's eyes. I suppose you believe you could keep them all if you wanted to? Just as the sin of one man, Adam condemned humanity to be sinful so does the price being paid by one perfect man Jesus provide salvation for all humanity who repents from his sin and accepts God's sacrifice of his only (perfect) son. Those of Mose's day who repented from their sins and accepted God were saved by Jesus's sacrifice in the future because he was "slain from the foundation of the earth". The Bible itself says these things are not understandable unless you believe in the God of the Bible -and I'm certain you do not or you wouldn't be making such comments as you do.
I took my understanding from your words. Did you lie? No? Then I understood fine. All Jews were condemned to burn forever because they all sinned, a result of overly complex laws designed to produce that very result. Laws given by the loving god sentencing them to eternal fire for being His creation, humans.
Except that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the earth" - those words, strung together in that order, are without meaning. Are you trying to sound mystical or something? Better to stay in the real world, I think...Does that really make sense to you? The God you believe in knows the laws he has given us are impossible for us to hold and therefore needs to sacrifice a human like a lamb in order for all of us to get into heaven? Why would someone else's brutal death relieve sin? Did you ever think that there is a reason why the bible says it's impossible to understand? Do you claim to understand but really don't understand and that's why you can't explain it?
NT - Jesus came to reveal God's love for his creations who were misusing free will…. actually abusing it: As in, not guiding their free wills to their best advantage and benefit... at all!!! Mankind was going wrong in the days when He sent Jesus.
OT - History: He had to wipe out mankind in the flood for some good reason…. genetic problems, detrimental habits, evil customs: All not conducive for human joy. Mankind had gone so wrong that he had to flood out the bad and keep the very few good. But, he said he would never send a flood again.
So, the next time he wanted to get humans back on track, God sent Someone willing to show erring mankind how much He loved them with a reminder to please follow the commandments, but with a new understanding: Love yourself, your neighbor, and most importantly, love God, (Omnipresent Spirit) the source of all reality.
TWISISo. God makes man with free will. He designs and constructs the innermost workings of the creature called "man". He knows exactly how man will behave, what man will do and what man will think, and constructs them to His master plan.
Then He says "No, you can't use the free will I gave you unless you want to burn forever" and assigns penalties beyond belief for being His creation called man instead of a perfect god.
Not good enough, He then murders 99.99999% of the species, along with a similar percentage of all other plants and animals, including every last one of most species. Because man is man, not god, and was constructed to be imperfect.
Still not good enough, He tortures and murders His son in a murder most foul again because He made His creations to be man, not gods. And, He says, because He loves the creatures he screwed up so badly when He made them.
Interesting concept...Jesus was willing to do God's will. He loved God that much. He had been Elisha in his last life. Check out his devotional nature in that lifetime. We were meant to be gods, but we forgot and lost touch with our spiritual realities. Sin means to be ignorant of… in our cases our true natures. He sent Jesus to get us back in touch with our true natures which is love, devotion to our Spirit Creator, and to help us get back to Him. Hint: Yoga means Union. We are from God. We go back to God. Spirit cannot be destroyed. (It stands to reason, that after he flooded out mankind, they probably did a lot of whining and complaining on the astral plane.)
BTW Where do you get that master plan stuff? We have freedom (to guide our own wills according to our interests and talents and motivations) within boundaries. When the boundaries are broken, things start to go wrong. Following the ten commandments gives us perimeters. Within them
WE HAVE FREE WILL!
TWISI
I'm starting to see that THE disagreement between atheists and theists IS the result of ONE opposing viewpoint: God hates vs God loves.
Which is it?- You jump from one irrational bit of nonsense to the next, making stuff up as you go along. Hilarious stuff, Kathryn.
Once again the the difference is one group believes God exists and the other doesn't. If I don't think God exists I don't think him evil no more than I can think the tooth fairy is evil.
If we were meant to be gods than God messed up pretty badly. Not conducive to the concept of being omnipotent.
God sent his son to be tortured most hideously. The concept is not conducive to think of God as love.
Unless you think God took a handful of raw materials and threw them into the air in the hopes it would make a man, He had a plan to construct us.
You are badly mistaken in that theists and realists are about love vs hate. It's still about reality vs imagination; about existence vs make believe. Some of these things (hate vs love) are expressed because the theist claims God is love while also claiming that He acts in abominable, hateful ways. The two don't agree with each other - the conclusion is that He does not exist at all. At least not as the Christian concept of God. Perhaps the Norse concept of Thor, god of war and to whom mankind were no more than ants, but not the Christian god of love and creation.
Misusing Free Will? It's not free if he has to tell us what to do with it.
Dude, don't you get it?
Free Will means being free to be enslaved to my will!Sometimes the most simple concepts get lost. "I've given you free will to do as I say".
You are simply not paying attention. Freedom within boundaries. freedom within boundaries freedom within boundaries freedom within boundaries freedom…. two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
get it?Ten commandment gives you a lot of leeway! For gosh sakes! Being on earth is an amazing opportunity with so may joyful endeavors!
Joy of life is IT!
Yes, we are enslaved by our free will. Thats why we can get relief by just going home… when you are ready, until then, practice being ready.
learn Yoga, Tai Chi, Kung Fu. Travel by (book or plane) to Japan, China and/or India and get some exposure their (old school) Eastern philosophies and Spiritual Understandings: Just to a great way to open one's mind to metaphysical REALITIES!You mean, a way to let one's imagination run amok.
The Christian bible is open for interpretation so long as you are Christian. If they choose to say well of course that means women too, then that's what they will believe. If the bible was not interpreted to fit the needs and wants of the people following it, they wouldn't follow it.
Literal interpretation of that exact passage implies it is perfectly fine for me to sleep with my neighbors husband. However I am sure that same commandment is worded differently in some bibles.Therefor that particular commandment doesn't apply to you?
If you know it is a sin for your neighbors husband to lie with you, you should not let him do it.
So women could be seen to be covered in that sense.Covet means to yearn for or crave. So the husband wanting his neighbours wife or goat or something is a sin. The wife doesn't know or can't control what in her husbands mind so she is not covered. She can want as much as she wants without sin. This is clearly directed only to men.
"If you know it is a sin for your neighbors husband to lie with you, you should not let him do it." is clearly referring to the wife he sleeps with (not the one he is cheating on). I suspect she would know that was happening. If not, the dude has some problems beyond the 10 commandments
It's not talking about sleeping with anyone, it's talking about wanting to. How can she be responsible for what anyone thinks?
I would have to say Rad, If how the bible describes this is true, then these people should not be guilty...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … CALLY.htmlI always assumed the problem with coveting was a tendency to follow through. But then I wasn't raised Catholic.
She is not responsible for what he thinks. He thinks what he thinks and thought police though out the centuries have tried and failed to force people to conform to what they "should think." She is, however, responsible for what she does.
Yeah, the Commandments were 'addressed to men' but that doesn't exempt women from following them. It is more of a sign of the times, when men had all the power and it was rare (though not unheard of) for a woman to be head of household, which meant having the power over the money and the land as well as being the provider. Women still needed to not commit adultery.
The Commandments were also meant as a way of showing the perfection of God, who did not covet stuff. This is why the sacrifices were instituted, because everybody, including God, recognized that even the 'best' people were going to think impure thoughts. And why the ultimate Sacrifice was made, because those that came before were insufficient.I like your honestly Chris, you are the first to admit that these laws were written for men only. A few things come to mind however… If these laws are applicable to us why didn't an all knowing all powerful God that sees the future and past not include all of us? I think it's clear evidence it was written by people pretending to be Gods. Let's not forget the word thousands was used, not millions or billions, these guys were thinking small and trying to get their group a sense of entitlement.
Why would you say your God is perfect and covets nothing? He first admits he's a jealous God and then admits he's vengeful when doesn't get his way. And guess what his way is Chris… He wants all of our love and attention. So he is coveting our love and attention and when he doesn't get it he will ask us to go against his own commandments and kill those who aren't giving him the attention. I'm not saying that your God isn't all loving I'm saying this one described here isn't and I'm saying it's evidence that this story is a fake.His statement said that the laws were "addressed to men" not "written for men" There is a difference between the two statements. We can be addressing a person or a group of people, but then have the word spread to others. That one particular (in this case men) is addressed does not mean that it is meant solely for that one group.
If he was speaking strictly to one group of people and only mentioned half of them. (thousands rather then millions) (men rather then people) why would you think you were included? If a teacher takes 5 kids aside in a school yard and tells them to spend the day cleaning up the school yard. Do you include yourself with then and not go to your class when the bell rings? If an office board room meeting is call and you don't participate but the boss instructs only the men in the board room to fire half of there managers. Do you upon hearing this fire half of your managers?
If that one group was then instructed to spread the word, then it could be reasoned that some of that may include me.. It's like a commanding officer only talking to his officers.. He tells them what to do, they implement it in the manner they see best.. If I don't listen to my officers who are following the orders of the commanding officer, I'm insubordinate.
For me, that depends.. If they are being punished for something I also was involved in, then yes. If those 5 were then given a list of people to round up to help and I am on that list, yes. If that was strictly for those 5 kids, then it depends on if I feel like offering to help them or not (I do that sometimes.. help others because I like to help them, not because I was told)
If I was supposed to be included in that meeting but didn't for whatever reason, then yes. Not being part of a meeting does not exempt you from doing what the boss says you are supposed to. You weren't there when the Canadian laws were created. The only people told the laws of the land were the men in the room. Does this mean that you shouldn't follow the laws because you weren't in the room when they were given?"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."
See the danger here? Don't drink the cool aid.
In the case of the school yard, you wouldn't know why they were told to stay outside can clean up and you are expected to be in the class room. If the teacher wanted you involved she would have asked you.
In the case of the boardroom meeting the boss didn't instruct you do anything, meaning you have no instructions.
Much of the OT talks about Jewish traditions, when to eat and what to eat, circumcision and all that stuff. Do you feel that is directed towards you? Why would you just pick some instructions and not others?So if I see that the teacher just asked for help and I just want to help because I like helping people and I see that she needs it, I shouldn't offer to help because she did not ask for my help??? So We are only to help those who ask for help? Sorry.. If I see someone that needs help, I am going to offer to help because it is the right thing to do. If they refuse the offer, that's one thing. But to walk past someone that obviously needs help and not offer?? that's not right to me. If the teacher is asking the students to clean up even if I don't know the reason for it I am going to at least ask if she needs my help.
That's not entirely the case. What if I was supposed to be part of the meeting but couldn't make it because I had a deadline to meet or we lose a client? Regardless of if he said those in the boardroom are to fire people, I was supposed to be in that boardroom.. Now of course even given that situation, I was ask the boss if that meant me as well because even if I wasn't in the boardroom I was supposed to be..
The schoolyard reference goes back to me asking because it is nice to do when you see someone needing help.
The boardroom reference goes toward clarification of intent because if you were supposed to be part of something but you couldn't for whatever reason, you are not exempt from the instructions given in the meeting..
Still goes back to my question: You weren't around when the Canadian laws were written. Are you exempt from them as a result?Okay lets try again.
The teacher asked five kids, you can ask if they need help, but in the case of religion you get no response. At least in the OT.
The boss never called you into a meeting, he called others and gave instructions to only half of them. You wouldn't fire a bunch of people without getting clarification. If he wanted you to fire people he would have told you directly.
The Canadian laws address me directly, but not you, unless your visiting. The American laws address you and not me, but when I'm in the states they address me. Many Americans are upset when they come here and have to live by our rules. The laws in the OT are not directed towards us, you can follow them if you wish and you can pick and choose which ones you like. Circumcision?Because there is a difference between the OT and new. The OT (When God was more hands on) was more black and white as far as doing what was told or God dealt with you (or had others do it). The NT (mostly after Christ's death) still has instructions, but also allow you leeway to use some reason in the best way to follow those instructions as we are under grace now
Now that is something entirely different.. Your original post didn't clarify specifically if I was supposed to be part of the meeting or not..
That is a new discussion altogether.. But as you stated, there are some of your laws that do apply to me in certain cases, but not in others. Even then, I can choose to follow the customs there or not but still follow laws that are applicable.Funny, how the new seems to contradict the old. Funny that. Of course, believers can spin the contradictions of the OT and NT as much as they want, but they should at the very least remember that we can read, too.
So, what you're saying is that God has different laws for different people, yes? And, could you then please explain those differences and how they are related to the different laws?What is there to spin? New laws and guidelines contradict old customs all the time. What's your point? If there weren't new laws that changed the way things are done, slavery would still exist.
We are aware that you can read as well. and anyone that can read can see that the new testament (especially after the death of Christ) is different from the old
Do you really want an answer to this question? If so, I'll need to go back over the Bible and look all of the different laws up and break them down (which I currently do not have the time to do) But I will gladly do it.Are you serious? You do realize we're talking about the alleged "Word of God"? Are you saying the word of god can change whenever humans decide to change it? That would make the word of god entirely and completely irrelevant and would sink every argument any believer could make in that regard.
Uh, we're not talking about human laws.
No kidding.
You don't need to do that, a simple explanation will suffice.Not entirely.. Especially when Christ was the one that came to fulfill the law and bring in the time of grace (as mentioned in the Bible)..
But we are talking about laws that, if true (for the sake of discussion) apply to humans.
With you, I've learned that in some cases there is no such thing.. For some things, I have to be as detailed as possible to make sure the point is properly conveyed.Yes, that would be the cop out answer, the one that makes no sense at all.
Another cop out. Oh well, I hadn't expected much.
OT = Owner ethics.
NT = Slave ethics.
Slave ethics makes more sense on paper, but unfortunately is not sustainable. The rich tend to not want to share. That's why Christians don't do as Christ directed. Ethical immaturity. That's why Obama has to force Christians to help their fellow Christians get health care.Man. I wish foreigners would mind their own politics and stop making ill informed comments about America. Why are you so damned interested? Do you think more than one or two Americans gives a rat's behind what goes on in Canadian politics?
That health care thing is rather touchy. Many people who could not afford health care before can indeed now get it thanks to government subsidies.
Many people who already have pretty good healthcare find that suddenly they are paying more and their deductibles are higher. And I don't mean twice as high, I mean five or six times as high. This is in direct contradiction to Obama's claim that those who like their healthcare won't have to change. The changes are being made.
And as far as your comment about Christians is concerned, the question still remains whether a country can have a Christian relationship for an individual. I know Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying something to the effect that taxing people in order to help the poor is what a Christian country should do, but can an individual truly have a relationship with God if the government is basically dictating what they do?And I forgot to put this into the post, but that story about people whose deductibles went way, way up is not hearsay or hyperbole. It directly happened to a friend of mine who still works at a place where I used to work, one that was known for having good health care. So if I was still working there, it would be happening to me as well.
That sucks, but it was what I was getting at. The NT slave ethics doesn't seem to work in practice so the government has to step in like a parent and force generosity. I'm not pretending as Emily might lead you think that I'm coming from a place of superiority. Our government had to step in and force the same thing years ago.
I know we keep going around about this and I'm not sure that your government's position isn't the superior one, it's just the whole "Christian" thing that bugs me. A government can be populated with Christians and even have Christian ethics and ideals but no matter what it does, it cannot make someone a Christian, not truly. Sure, it can force people to say they are Christians and behave in specific ways that might be considered "Christian" but in the end if the person resents what the government is doing and the government is doing it because it is the "Christian" thing to do then not only has the individual not been brought closer to Christ but in all probability the exact opposite has happened.
This is completely separate from whether the government 'should' extend universal healthcare. This whole conversation has many different facets that I've tried to cover at different times.Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. And this can be said about other religions as well.
Keith Green was fond of saying that going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger. It's all too true.
Me as well, and I think we are once again in agreement. I realize I may come across as judgmental, but that is not my intention. I'm saying the same thing as you I think. Slave ethics (NT) should work, but if you have to force it on people the people are not getting it.
This actually addresses the reason for another scripture you had an issue with on another forum
No argument
It is certainly true that God says He is "jealous" and "vengeful" but if all you do is:
A) Look at those words all by themselves and,
B) Use only a certain definition,
then you're missing a lot of the bigger picture.
The fact is that "jealous" is often thought of (by those who are believers as well as those who aren't) in the most negative modern sense, where a person is given to hair-trigger fits of jealous rage. But although this is one sense of the word, a related but not identical meaning would be like the jealousy that a spouse has to try to keep their house in order (and here, the church being the Bride of Christ is appropriate.) If you saw some guy paying inordinate attention to your wife, even if she wasn't responding, I'm pretty sure you would feel some jealousy. I certainly would. It doesn't mean that you fly into a rage and beat (or threaten to beat) someone but you do feel the emotion.
As for the vengeful part, while it's true that in the OT many of the disasters that happen to Israel are indeed seen as a result of God's wrath, the majority of them are hardly instantaneous or even very quick responses. Israel is allowed to go its own way for hundreds of years before bad things happen, and even then they get lots of warning.
Funny how that word (perfection) gets bandied around a lot, yet no one has yet been able to explain what it means in terms of their religion or god.
Well here are the Ten Commandments...Found in Exodus 34:14-26....Read Verse 28 carefully...
1. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the feast of the Passover be left until the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
So I would think most of these don't apply today...Jesus spoke of following the commandments...He didn't say the "TEN" commandments...He was talking about the commandments...and of which ones where the greatest of these...So if we look at the Commandments that the Jews follow...we have a pretty good Idea of wheich commandments jesus was speaking of...You've got the wrong list. Here are the Ten Commandments:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htmboth are lists of ten commandments, no? You found the more popular one, but who's to say that there is a right/wrong list?
No. There is only one list of the Ten Commandments. It is found in two places in the Bible. Here is the other record:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htmso what list of commandments is it in Exodus 34? The list of more ten commandments? There are 613 commandments in the old testament. Why choose ten?
It is the same list. It was chosen by God. There are actually thousands of precepts of law in the Covenant, not just 613. (There are more statutes in books of the prophets.) It is the way of life for people who love Him.
but it isn't the same list. Nowhere on the "popular version" do I see anything about boiling a kid in its mothers milk.
The Ten Commandments are the same in the two references I gave you. These are just the first ten laws, and they are the foundation upon which the entire relationship between God and humans is based. The food laws are given in another portion. Until you observe the first four commandments in your daily life, you will have great difficulty comprehending the rest of the laws of the Covenant.
I think you will find different religions will cherry pick
Religion is mans invention not gods.
According to the Bible...The list I provided is the only Ten Commandmants...As Verse 28 states as such and is the only place in the bible that says the TEN Commandmants...
Actually, that's not what the passage says. The word דְּבָרִים means words, sayings, utterances, or speaking.
The passage reads: "And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the Covenant, the ten words/sayings/utterances/speeches."
There is no word in Hebrew which specifically means 'commandments.' The closest word is מצוות, which means 'laws.'
When it was translated into English, a mistake was made. But the passage you cite refers back to the previous chapter (Exodus 20) where the first ten sayings were given. It is the list from the passages I gave you which was carved on the stone tablets and placed in the Ark of the Covenant, which is why those ten sayings have priority significance.
But don't be upset that you didn't know what the Ten Commandment are; most Christians cannot even recite them from memory so, in one sense, they don't 'know' them either.
1. I am not Christian
2. I hold a PHD in Biblical Studies...So trust me when I say.. the Commandments I refered to are the "Ten Commandmants" all other "Commandmants" are just part of the "Jewish Laws"...And I know my Hebrew as well..So you don't need to Copy and Paste the Hebrew for me...
And to clarify... The actual word used is
had-də-ḇā-rîm which does mean "Commandmants" (For the english speakers)No, you don't know Hebrew and you display not even a basic understanding of the Biblical text.
LOL.. This could be fun...
And your qualifications...??
Lets talk...This should be fun...
Again, you don't know Hebrew. You don't even know what הַ means. I wrote a Hub which teaches the Hebrew alphabet. Why don't you start there? You can find הַ from the Table of Contents.
Seriously...
And of course...When one word is taken and not context of the word within the "paragraph" as a whole...the meaning stays exactly the same, when translating?
The "Word" when used as a command, would translate to "Commandmant"There is no word for 'commandment' in Hebrew. It doesn't exist. I presume that your degree was not from an accredited university.
I didn't say that Hebrew had a word for commandmant...I said that the usage translates to the English word Commandmant.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
There is a great difference between "not liking" and "hate". Apparently the Creator will not tolerate those he has formed in the womb, brought to life, provided for and sacrificed for, hating Him. I don't think you have a healthy understanding of the difference between God and man.
As far as the issue of lust in the heart etc... God knows that what we are in our hearts is who we are. Would you want your child to stay at someones house if you knew they had a desire to molest children simply b/c they hadn't? God wants us to have clean hearts, not just "clean hands".Those are your thoughts, and again you make it personal by telling me I lack understanding, I'm asking you for your understanding of these words.
"For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands"
Are you okay with all of modern day religion being bast on that?Since non-believers don't hate or dislike God because they don't believe in any gods, they are not in that category and therefore that does not apply to them. It is only the believer who believes in God that could hate or dislike Him, hence they are ones not tolerated by God.
So if you don't believe... you could do something else with your time. Write a hub, build a birdhouse... if God is not real, then none of this is any consequence to you.
Again, personal. Please discuss the topic and don't highjack another forum.
Once again, Beth focuses on attacking the person, despite the fact we are engaging the subject matter.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
lol... and they accuse me of hijacking. I love that there's nothing men wont fight over. Hebrew letters... who would have thought.
This thread is about the Ten Commandments. Did you not know that they were written in Hebrew? Every other language is a translation and translations involve interpretation. If you really want to know what God said and what was written on the stone tablets, read the text in Hebrew.
I don't know Hebrew. Ive done words studies using Vines, but that is the extent. Im sure it does make the Bible come to life in an amazing way.
I just think it's interesting how we as humans tend to puff up when our knowledge is questioned... no matter the subject matter. Ill get out of the way though.
Agree with Fox on this...This would not be a hijacking as, he/she is correct in that the original language was Hebrew...
So now we are discussing the meaning of certain words contained within the "Ten Commandmants"
Respectfully, I have to say that I don't believe everything that is in the Bible, simply because those words were written, and re-written and re-written again by humans who wanted to make a point, and I believe the point was to have people believe what the writer believed. I truly think that if those words were inspired by God, they would not have any negativity in them.
God is put love. God is not jealous. God does not punish people. People punish themselves. I could never believe in a God that professed destruction or punishment.
To answer your question though, I think that those words in the 10 commandments were set up to keep people in line. And I think that it was done by people who were in the high levels of power like priests and politicians. I don't that God had anything to do with making people fear Him.
I do believe though, that there are basic principles in those commandments. Cheating on your spouse is bad, weather you're a man or a woman. Stealing and killing people is bad and going through life, making money your "god" is also bad.
God, who is pure love, would never spew vengeance on the children of the people who disliked him. What kind of a being would do that....take revenge on the innocent? Sorry, but that's why I don't believe every word that's in the Bible. Some of the things that are said there, paint God as someone who has the same faults and humans. To me, that is not God.
God is pure, God perfect, and God is love. There is NO negativity in God, such as the Bible describes...How do you know God is all love? Jesus didn't take any of the OT back and he told people to follow the commandments if they want to get into heaven.
Do you think God is pure love because you want him to be?If you read the Bible carefully, you'll see where the apostles ask Jesus what the most important commandment. His answer was, "Love each other as I have loved you." To me, that proves that God is pure love. Love is the most important thing that you can give. I believe that is was God is.
Also, I have read enough accounts of people who have had near-death experiences to know that to be true. (I also have had a near-death experience, so I can talk with assurance.) When you get to that other place, all you feel is how much love there is there. Everyone loves everyone else, and that feeling (some call it the breath of God) permeates that place.
There is no hate, no fear, no vengeance, only love. That's what I felt too, when I had the NDE.
I don't want to argue with you. You don't have to believe me. But you will find out the truth, when you pass over, yourself.You understand that a near death experience is just that right… near. But you do what you have to to get yourself through life. I don't need to pretend, I'm good with reality. It's not that I don't believe you and others had experiences, I just don't believe we can trust the experience and memories of an oxogen starved brain.
Sorry, but NDE's result in brain trauma, which makes the brain fire neurons randomly, which creates all kinds of hallucinations. You didn't actually see anything other than images in your brain.
You did not quote the Christian testament accurately. According to the CT, Jesus replied with the first of the Ten Commandments, in keeping with his roots:
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great foremost commandment." (Matthew 22: 36 – 40)
Jesus was quoting Hillel, the great teacher who died in Jerusalem in 10 CE. The Ten Commandments, as I noted above, are divided into two parts: the first four are the bedrock requirements for a relationship with God and the next six refer to treatment of one's fellow man.“The Bible was not given to increase our knowledge. It was given to change lives.” –DL Moody
"Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the LORD my God made, that you should observe in the midst of the land whither you go in to possess it. Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there, that has God so near unto them, as the LORD our God is when we call upon Him?" – Moses
Let's see here. Moses says that having a whole bunch of laws will show other nations that they are wise and that a god is near to them.
The US must have at least a dozen laws for every man, woman and child in the country, ranging from "do not kill" to "do not fish from the back of a camel". Even a lowly HOA has more laws that Moses did - we must have a hundred gods just off stage! Maybe a thousand! Plus be the wisest people on earth!"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."
Is this "Awesome" too, Beth?Was the incident great or is the word of God great?
I don't like holocaust stories at all. I can hardly tolerate them because they are stories of human suffering, but they are also stories of humans over coming great odds and survival...
So which would I rather hear, stories about Pearl Harbor, 911, and the holocaust or stories of inventors, scientists and humanitarians? The latter is obviously more palatable, but it is all history and therefore valuable for many reasons.You must have forgot to address the fact that this genocide was directed (according to the bible) by your God?
Is it great for a God to direct genocide? Notice that God didn't do the killing by himself, he just ordered it. He asks us not to kill and then tells us to kill innocent people. Great words?No arrest, no evidence, no trial. Just the word of a VIP politician that it needed doing. Experience is pretty extensive that when a government makes such a claim it has little to do with reality.
lol... Do you think God needs a trial to judge? He can see into our hearts and knows our very thoughts.
They were a stiff necked ppl. They were breaking the first commandment... that may not seem like a big deal these days, but back then... when God was still speaking audibly to mankind... that was a huge deal. He said to have no other gods before them and they were worshiping idols. I know we can't really imagine such thinking these days. We do as we please, every one his own way and nothing we do is wrong as long as we don't hurt anyone. Back then, there was no excuse for rejecting God or blasphemy. God gave them a chance, they wouldn't bend, he said, fine... if that is their choice, they can deal with the consequence of their sin. You may not like it, but then you've never created a star or a planet or an earth full of humans. When you do, you get to make the rules. I guess it's funny when Bill Cosby says "I brought you into this world and I'll take you out." But when God does it... you actually put yourself in the place of judging your own judge... that's a mistake.The mistake is not questioning authority. God never spoke directly to those people and as the story goes God was unable to kill them himself so he ordered it.
I've told this story before but a few years ago a man on a bus cut of a fellow passengers head because he thought he was directed by God to do it. Once he was medicated for his illness he realized God wouldn't have ordered a killing. Have you not realized that yet?What verse says God was unable?
No, I had not realized there was a man on a bus that cut someones head off b/c he thought he was instructed by God, but then later when on medication realized he was just crazy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean
I couldn't make that up if I tried.
But God didn't judge them - Moses did. The top politician in the country, claiming to speak ex-cathedra for God.
And even if they WERE stiff necked and worshipped some other god (we don't know, having only the word of the politician) it isn't a reason to murder them. For you are absolutely mistaken; I will (and you should) absolutely judge anyone or anything that demands my worship. If such creature does not measure up to MY morals it will NOT be worshiped, not at any cost. And the actions of the spoiled childish brat known as a god in the OT most definitely does NOT measure up.
Is that the proper way to treat people who don't come when you call them?
That's why you would deny God? Because you don't approve of the way He deals with His own defiant creation? There are so many things you could not know that God would, but you never let your mind pursue these thoughts... you just stop short and spit at Him.
Think about this... if their gods were going to lead them into a dark and ugly existence... such as Ra, I believe it was... where the ppl would sacrifice their children to him in a gruesome way... and if you knew how this was going to affect them, their children, future generations and anyone they might pull into their fold... would you allow it to continue? It's like a Spock kind of thing... sacrificing the few for the great.
Or in these terms... if you owned a dog... you liked the dog, but when you adopted a child and brought the child into your family... the dog attacked. The dog was tearing at the childs throat and would surely destroy the child if you didn't do something. You try to stop the dog, but it wont be stopped so you take its life to save the child.
This is that kind of philosophy. It might not make sense at first, but consider the many sides of why God might do something before assuming that a God, which the Bible claims is love, would do something evil.So you must also agree with Hitler, as he felt he was taking care of something that needed to be taken care of? Same thing, genocide.
You do understand that you are now condoning and recommending genocide?Hitler was not God. If God is good, his actions are just, if His actions are just and you disapprove there must be something you are missing.
We judge whether someone is good or bad by his actions. If someone commits genocide we decide whether they are good or bad based on those actions.
BTW, I'm not spitting on anyone. I don't think your god exists and I'm trying to show you why. Remember the guy on the bus thought he was doing what God asked of him. Understand the people who kill others in the name of God think they are doing what God asks of them. They commit genocide because someone told them that it was directed by God. Much like suicide bombers and the 9/11 high jackers.Assuming that He exists at all:
If His actions are not just then he is not good. If His actions are not just and you approve then you are missing something.
And from the viewpoint of humanity, His actions are not just. He acts in his own best interests, based solely on His desires and wants. Justice is irrelevant, what is good for man is irrelevant, what man believes is irrelevant. ONLY what God wants matters (and He won't tell that), and this is not the mark of "just" or "good".
God's minions claim He is Love, they claim He is good, they claim all sorts of wonderful things for God. Unfortunately none of those claims match with God's actions - when words and actions fail to match up and agree, it is actions that count more. Especially when it is only the word of minions, not God Himself.True, that I do not know what God knows. And the point is? (If the answer is that God will do what His privileged information says is in our best interests, we don't know THAT, either.)
Understood and I do understand. What you are missing is that God's desires do not necessarily coincide with yours OR with what is good for you. While you believe that to be true and will happily make the claim all day long, you actually have no reason to think God will do what is best for you. Only your desire that it be so.
Wrong. The actions (killing, in this case) are well understood. What is NOT understood is the "why", and as we both know that information is not forthcoming. That leaves judging the actions by the results, and the results are that countless peoples will burn eternally because God had a temper tantrum, refusing to use His abilities to do right.
Considering that the only people to claim that God is love (and in theory has knowledge on the subject) have been those earning their living or power from such a claim, I don't see it as much evidence that He really IS love or would not do evil.
Nor do I find it a reasonable response to wrong doing to simply kill and condemn to eternal burning. Certainly not for an omnipotent creature that has a great many other options.
Bottom line - someone is lying here. Maybe Moses, maybe the people that passed his words on, maybe God. I don't know who, but someone is lying.
You realize you just contradicted yourself. You can't actually know anything about God without the Bible.
The only relevant part of the Ten Commandments are the final few ("Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," etc.). And really, do we really need a plaque to remind us that killing people may not really be such a great idea?
On second thought, maybe we do, because God and his followers certainly had no qualms whatsoever with infanticide and genocide...Thou shalt not kill, unless otherwise directed by me.
Sounds like a government. Murder would get us imprisoned for life, unless directed by the government.Self defense killing is a different scenario than murder, as any lawyer will tell you.
Sorry, but invading an already inhabited area and then killing men, women, children and even ripping open the wombs of pregnant women and dashing the babies against the rocks and then slaughtering the cattle can in no way be called self defense.
Killing is killing. What happened to turn the other cheek? It's okay to invade another country to over through it's government killing innocent people along the way if it's sanctioned by the government, but try to do that same thing at home and where does it get you? Protecting yourself and family is one thing, and the laws a strict about how and what you can do to protect yourself. But invading an oil rich country to lower gas prices killing people along the way is something different.
Yeah, and what about governments that promote murdering and unjustified killing of the innocent through abortions!
Right guys?
Using a man is correct grammar! when you're using a person in a noun you are supposed to use him, his, he or man! instead of saying it....Plus do you think its ok for women and nonjews to kill? And btw that grammar rule has been updated, I think youre allowed to use "it " now but u used to not be able to! And God shows mercy to a few people, not everyone so maybe thats all that He was showing mercy to at the time! And it used to be that God only gave the jews the chance to be saved- with the exception of a few ppl- but after Jesus died on the cross God wanted the gentiles to hear the gospel also, because His people the jews rejected Him!
Whether there is a God or not, I do believe that , everything is going to work out for the best (for humanity) whether "I" like it or not.
@ Jerami: ...as long as we guide our wills according to the boundaries provided by The Ten Commandments.
(Maybe Jesus will return when all of mankind is in support of Him. He doesn't want to get crucified a second time.)
Furthermore, as I stated up there somewhere, The Ten Commandments give a lot of leeway. Being on earth is an amazing opportunity with so many joyful endeavors to pursue. Promoting *Joy of Life* is the reason for The Ten Commandments. Most people know this. The few that don't, keep keyboarding here.Calmness is a special power and probably the most useful of all special powers.
God is not whimsical. God is not definable. I do think we are getting somewhere. I am finally feeling some amount of peace.
I think a lot of things written in OT are indicative of the primitive ignorance of that particular culture at the time. For instance, coveting your neighbor's wife is bad. However, raping your neighbor's maiden daughter was perfectly okay so long as you married her right afterwards. A man could marry as many women as he could afford. Women were barely a step up from cattle in that society. A woman was basically owned by her father until she was more or less sold to her husband. I find it difficult to believe that the characters in the OT were truly communicating with an all-knowing, endlessly forgiving being. Take Jacob, for example: a spoiled brat who basically blackmails his brother out of his inheritance, marries four women, hates his wife Leah despite her bearing him six sons and loves her sister Rachel, his second wife, simply because she is physically beautiful. He even uses Leah as a human shield when he feels threatened. This is the man 'God' found the most worthy to seed his chosen people? Really?
So, yes, I find the OT to be extremely dated and am troubled by any person who interprets the work literally, let alone regards it as holy.It's odd to me how ppl will constantly twist the meaning of the Bible in order to cast aspersions on it. "raping your neighbor's maiden daughter was perfectly okay so long as you married her right afterwards."
It was not ok. No one said it was ok. This was a book of law. We have books of law we live by as well. Here's a modern day law for you. "In New York, it is against the law for a blind person to drive an automobile."
In that time, women had very little value to men. This was a daily prayer of a Jewish man during those times:
"Praise be to God. He has not created me a Gentile.
Praise be to God. He has not created me a woman.
Praise be to God. He has not created me an ignorant man."
If a man stole a woman's virginity, she was left with nothing... she would never be able to get married, and if she did, she would be publicly humiliated when it was revealed she was no longer a virgin. The law you mention tells a man that if he steals her value, he will then be responsible for her for the rest of his days. No where does it ever say it's ok to rape her.
We know how man has esteemed women through the years. Let's look at how God esteems woman.
Take the woman at the well. She was Samaritan. Jews did not associate with Samaritans... but the King of the Jews did. Men did not talk to women in public, but Jesus did. Upstanding citizens did not speak to women of ill repute, but Jesus made it personal... he told her how to be saved.
He told countless parables where women were the heroes... the widows mite, the woman with the lost coin, the woman with the empty jars and the olive oil.
God loves people... not Jew or Gentile, not rich or poor, not strong or weak, not male or female... people.
"God does not show favoritism." Rm 5:11You've missed the point. Why do you always make excuses for the laws in the OT?
Ask yourself a few simple questions and answer them honestly. Here I'll help you.
Do we have better laws to help protect rape victims and punish and prevent rape today? YES.
If God is perfect why didn't he give us todays laws?
Because a perfect God didn't write those laws. Men with little respect for women did.
A perfect God would have made it law to give women respect. Don't you see how deeply flawed that law was. Man likes girl but can't get her because her Dad and her don't like the man, man rapes girl to get girl. Man gets girl. Girl has no recourse because of the law.
Would a perfect God make an imperfect law?
Would slave owners with no respect for women make that law?If by 'perfect' you mean 'perfect according to what I think a perfect God should be' then you've actually missed the important questions entirely.
You should ask why God didn't just make us enlightened 21st Century people in the first place, instead of allowing people to find their own way in anything.
And by the 23rd Century, if we get that far, people will be wondering why people in 2013 were such unenlightened idiots and what was wrong with them.
Nice deflection, Beth. Notice how you immediately denied a fact by changing the subject.
Yes, it is implied that it is perfectly ok, because there are no consequences for the crime of rape. And, of course, what woman would ever want to be taken care of for the rest of her life by her rapist? Since you changed the subject above to modern laws, why have not mentioned the laws of rape that are in place today?
Again, you deflect from the issue, what does that have to do with women being raped?What is with the blue?
The reference should have been obvious, Beth. You denied the fact of what Jonathan Janco was talking about from the Bible, then you deflected by bringing up modern law.
Yes, you are defending the laws back then, you are not explaining anything because you keep deflecting from what is being said.
Yes, the issue was about women being raped, you yourself attempted to address that issue, but failed miserably.
Seriously Beth, your comprehension skills are abysmal."Seriously Beth, your comprehension skills are abysmal."
I get you.
I said no such thing. I am saying a just God could not have been involved in the making of the OT. And you finally agreed.
Did I say that God was not involved in the making of the OT? Or did I say that the men of law, during those times as now, made the laws? There are specifics that God gave... the 10 commandments etc. But Moses was credited by many for writing the laws, however many dispute that and say they were written by others. Either way, my point was, men of that time devalued women, God does not, He esteems them.
Then he should have and would made that apparent to the men he was instructing to give the laws. Instead we have a bunch of slave owners making laws to protect themselves. No just God is apparent in the OT.
From the things I have been stating this morning and since you've "known me," do you think I agree with you or am I simply avoiding a cyclical argument? Ive stated my positions, you and ATM will do with them as you please, but they're right there to be read any time you might not be sure concerning what I believe.
It seems you value my assertions as much as the men in biblical times valued their counterparts.
We then agree that the men in biblical times devalued women and yet you assert it was the time when God was instructing his people how to behave?
Did he instruct the men in biblical times to behave so poorly?
No, He instructed them to behave way better. It's a sign of free will that they kept on doing what they were told not to and not doing what they were told to.
Like this little instruction?
Colossians 3:22 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
It's almost like the OT was written by slave owners.Ha, wasn't paying attention. Just saw all that slaves stuff and assumed it was OT. So the point my error has made was that the NT is just as messed up as the OT.
What Paul was pointing out was that how we behave towards our bosses is a direct reflection of how we behave towards God.
Funny, boss = slave owner.
You'd think the message would have been to the owners, something along the lines of "don't have them, they are people not cattle". Bu that's just me I guess.I did actually deal with that whole train of thought in my hub.
Not wishing to interfere with your fine conversation here, but what or whom has given you the right or power to change "slave" to "employee" and "master" to "boss"? Holy scripture is holy scripture, the word of God, and not something for mere humans to trifle with and spin like a politicians speech to make God's actions more palatable or moral sounding.
If you want to paraphrase, that's fine, but you must at least keep the original meaning. "To those of you that are slaves and owned by someone else, use your fear of God to make sure you always please your slavemaster. Never assume that because your master is not watching that you can do as freemen do; let your fear of supernatural creatures guide your way to continual obedience."I'm gonna have to check my Greek Bible and see if that what was actually originally said.
"Slavery is when one person completely controls another person, using violence to maintain that control, exploits them economically, pays them nothing and they cannot walk away.
There are more people in slavery today than at any time in human history: 21-30 million.
Many are held in debt bondage slavery, a system in which a person (and often his or her family as well) are held as collateral against a loan. Because they are collateral, their work does not repay the debt but ‘belongs’ to the moneylender. Unable to earn money independently, the family is unable to repay the illegal debt and it is passed down from generation to generation, creating hereditary enslavement.
Free the Slaves’ best estimate, through a study we did with the University of California, Berkeley in 2004, is that there are at least 10,000 people in slavery in the United States at any given time. The US government estimates that 14,500-17,500 people are trafficked into the US each year."
http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=304I'm impressed. That is the first time you've actually used facts and figures when talking to me.
And I really am sorry that it has nothing to do with the conversation.
And yes, I am in favor of freeing the slaves. I am well aware that slavery is still very real and still exists today.No, it isn't, but I understand why you would say such a thing, being disingenuous as you are here.
It has plenty to do with the conversation, it is meant to educate you so you can comment intelligently rather than dishonestly.
But instead, slave owners to you are bosses, not slave owners.No, it really is. If you ever did in the past, please feel free to point out where and I will retract my statement.
Unless you really, really think that saying crap like, "So why don't you Christians use your brains?" constitutes facts and figures.Yes, I can understand how you would miss sources I have provided in the past, being ignored or rejected out of hand as they were.
Failure to provide is the same as admission.
Nice try though. I can see why you would like to think that if you just insult me enough I might actually take your word for it.
I stand by what I wrote. If you provide the past references (even just one!) I will retract my statement.And, how am I supposed to do that? Wade through all my past posts? Get serious, dude.
The issue here is your honesty, or lack thereof.Unless it's your honesty, or attempt to cover up by continually questioning mine.
I don't even really need a time and place. Just cite something that you've cited before. In my memory the one and only time that you cited a figure was that one, and I was genuinely impressed I was not mocking you when I said that.
Every other time, you run some variation on "Christians are dishonest/stupid/don't like to think" with no other statement at all, no matter how subjective, to back it up. Which is dishonest.Dude, I have provided sources for you before, the fact that you ignored them or can't remember does not equate to me not providing them.
Why are you even bothering with this? Is it to detract and deflect from the fact you've been caught in a lie?Dude, no you have not. You may have for other people, I don't know, but for me you have not. And if you're trying to adopt my thing about deflection, bravo for the attempt but that's way more you than me. What I am actually doing is trying to show, once and for all, that all the wild claims you make about my honesty are just that, wild claims. You claim over and over again that I'm not honest based one, you know I'm not 100% sure what it's based on. That I disagree with you? That you think all Christians are liars? That I won't shut up and go away? You haven't even really bothered to make that much clear. You just say it, and say it, and then act as if merely saying it were proof in and of itself.
I'm not being dishonest, I'm not lying, and if you're going to make a claim, back it up. Merely claiming I am dishonest as if that were self-evident is, in a word, dishonest. Whether intentional or not.
I will, however, say that I'm impressed you used the word 'disingenuous.'
I guess my favorable influence on you shows through after all!If by your dishonesty you mean being a favorable influence, not likely. Quite the contrary, actually.
Pfft. You look for honesty then laugh at it when you come across it.
But no, actually I was referring to your expanded vocabulary.
Of course you are in favour of freeing all slaves. But why (if you are in favour of freeing all slaves) would you justify slavery as it's taught in the bible? Why would anyone revere and praise a book that condones and tells slaves how to be good to their masters. This, I honestly don't understand as it should be a red flag to anyone reading the bible that no just God could have been involved in it's writing.
Exactly, the OT and NT didn't really condone or object to slavery simply because slavery was normal and quite moral back then, showing only to well that the Bible was not inspired by God, but was written by the "normal and moral" men back then revealing a snapshot of how people behaved. Many of the things considered normal and moral back then are no longer that way today, yet we still have folks who will defend the Bible and that normal and moral worldview of ancient times, despite the fact they themselves would never submit to slavery. Their hypocrisy has no bounds.
Hey, I handled this in the hubs, if you're really looking for the answer. However, I'm game. Just exactly how does the Bible "teach and condone slavery?
When it instructs the owners and the slaves how to be good owners and slaves.
Well, again, this goes back to a previous post. The question you seem to want to ask is, "Why didn't God just create us as good, enlightened 21st Century people in the first place?" The implication being that since we weren't born with 21st Century morays, then God must therefor not exist. One doesn't logically follow the other.
However, not ignoring what you actually wrote. The Bible was written in a time when masters and slaves existed quite apart from Christianity or even Judaism. The NT did indeed deal with how to be good master and how to be a good slave (including an admonishment for slaves to gain their freedom if possible) but this was also a way of showing non-believers in that society not only how Christianity was indeed different but also was an attractive philosophy. Had Jesus said to the slaves, "Revolt, you morons!" then he would have been as well known today as Bar Kokva, and just as much of a true Messiah.Once we have established that slavery is unethical and immoral then we must ask why an ethical and moral God didn't include statements against it in any of his instructions and why he left instructions on how to be good owners and slaves. Why would he instruct of not to steal, but not instruct us not to keep slaves? You have to allow yourself to ask these questions.
I think you already had that answered: because times were different then. Man is more powerful than God; God is constrained to add centuries of time to his orders and actions to give them more force. He may be able to change 1,000 per year, but it takes 1,000 years to change 1,000,000 people (pick your own numbers here - these are illustrative only).
As man wanted slaves in Jesus' time, he could not change it immediately. It required millenia to effect any real change, and it has not been completed even today.And men wanted to murder and steal back then as well so the bible instructed behaviour, but no instructions against slavery. I guess the south had the same problem, they didn't want to give up slavery because they thought it would ruin the economy, so they fought against the abolishment of slavery and they used the bible as inspiration.
The fact remains that slavery is unethical and immoral but the writers of the bible didn't think so. Most likely because they were the slave owners.But there were laws against murder and theft; Jesus could thus be of some good by complaining about them. People already understood that those were wrong.
As far as I know there were no slave owners in the council of Nicaea, but certainly slavery was common in the peoples that group was trying to control. Like Jesus, then, they could not make too big a fuss about it without losing what power they already had. Politics and maintenance of power will always take second place to morality. As we saw in the rationalizations of the South.All they had to do was say God said no more slaves. That's all, nothing more nothing less. So either slavery doesn't matter to God and he thinks it's okay to treat people like cattle or no God was involved in it's writing. The bible is a big book of instructions, when and what to eat, how to treat your neighbour, how to mutilate baby boys. Nothing but support for slavery.
No they couldn't. If they (the council) said that, then someone else will say that "God says it's alright" and as that was what people wanted to hear the council would inevitably lose power and control. You can, after all, only control those that allow or want it. Especially as the violence and fear of the inquisition was still far in the future.
You guys obviously don't get the whole thing Jesus was about. He wasn't there to tell people what to do. He wasn't there to tell them what to think. The whole thing was about teaching people to think. To understand their motivations and how their thoughts influenced their actions. That didn't change the world he walked in. It couldn't. How do you think a non Roman citizen could have changed that world? But, it slowly changed the world to come. Because all the excuses and all of the rationalizing finally ran their course and people had to face the fact that subjecting other human beings to such a life was wrong.
People use religion for bad, but it has also been used for good. In a world where slave ownership was the norm it taught people that slavery did not mean someone was of lesser value. Spiritually, they were equals. Whether people accepted that at the time, or not, it was a seed planted.Sometimes I think you were meant for great things...
You obviously did not read closely enough. I have not referenced what Jesus was about at all, just what the Christian religion and bible say about the subject. The little I have mentioned Jesus was intended to be religion's view of the man, not what he actually was.
Neither of those things represent well what Jesus seems to have thought - what he was all about - but that has little to do with religion and slavery.
I will say, though, that Jesus did not need to learn about humanity - as a god he already knew everything there is to know. He knew he could not affect mankind immediately (or had some other reason not to). And there is no reason to think that religion had much to do with the ending of slavery; in the US it was a political and financial thing, driven by the businessmen of the North, that put an end to it. Southerners, as has been pointed out here, used their Christian religion to provide proof that God intended slavery to be fine and good. That blacks were spiritual people (unproven statement) had nothing to do with ending slavery.
And yes, religion has, very occasionally, been used for good. Far more bad, but there has been some good in there too. And the more humanity advances morally and ethically, dragging religion along with it against all efforts to remain behind, the more good it does.Religion was as much responsible for perpetuating slavery as it was for ending it. The Battle Hymn of the Republic was the marching tune for the North. A one sided look at history serves its purpose, which serves little purpose.
The Civil War to the side, you speak of religion's view, but that is simply your view of religion. Your negativity does not mean anything more than this is your view.
The NT was slave ethics. Get through this life with nothing will get you into heaven. No question about that, but all it did was appease them.
You've missed it again. The point is not to get through this life with nothing, it's to get through this life with a dependence on God rather than things. God will provide the things we need, but if all we do is go after things then we lose sight of God.
Hilarious. We know for a fact that is entirely false based on how many people starve to death every day. Get a grip on reality, dude.
I do, dude. And yes, lots of people starve every day. If you think I don't think and wonder and grapple with those things, then you are everything that I've said you are.
Ah, then you admit your claim was entirely bogus. Thanks.
Back it up. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You twist (or think your twisting) what I say. No, I made no such admission. I did not.
Now, if you really want me to treat you like an adult (and you honestly may not care, but if you do) then back it up. If, and this is dodgy but if, you used facts and figures in the past, it was such a long time ago that I'm not even asking for a date, although an approximate would be nice. Just what it was in reference to. I've seen you have longer posts for others than you have for me, and I don't remember you ever citing anything before the statistics on slavery.
If I've been caught in a lie, then tell me what lie I've been caught in, since I haven't. But if you think you got something, it's recent, so what is it?And yet, your claim is entirely bogus, this one...
"God will provide the things we need"And of course it's bogus simply because you say so, right?
Actually, it's called "reality", come join it sometime so you can actually see it in action confirming your bogus claim.
Really? I've heard this claim several times - that God will provide - but have never heard of a car poofing into existence when one needed it most. Nor a rutabaga, not a steak, not even old fashioned manna has he provided since the tales passed down by mouth from millenia ago. Only when the individual does the work themselves does any god mysteriously kick in and give it to the person that already has it.
I hate to say it, but maintaining a pursuit of food, shelter and clothing seems wise, while depending a god, any god, for them appears to lead to starvation every time. Such dependence never has a happy ending...Maintaining a pursuit of food and shelter is wise, and the Bible does not say it isn't.
God has come through for me many times and for people I know. Now I am NOT talking about seed faith. I'm talking about money that I NEED coming through when I NEED it. Not luxuries. Necessities.
Seed faith, if you don't know, is that branch of "Christianity" that says if you sow the seed by sending in one hundred dollars (or whatever) to a certain televangelist, then God will give you lots and lots of money in return. That's not Biblical and I don't believe in it.Really? God has poofed money into your hand?
Because if it came through anyone else, even if dropped on the sidewalk, the claim that Goddunnit it is a tad bit suspect...I have had so many experiences like that I can't even name half of them. Forget my daughter's adoption where a $25,000 fee was brought down to maybe $5000 over a period of 3 years... I mean yes that was miraculous, but hey, that's an adoption right? God's supposed to meet those needs. This one Ive never forgotten. I was in my early 20s. My pastor was teaching on tithing and he was saying it was simply an act of worship. It was a moment to trust God and to have faith. We had nothing at the time... I had $5 to live on for the rest of the week, but I wanted so much to make an offering to God that meant something so I dropped it in the box. Now before you turn it ugly, please don't accuse me of being weak willed or weak minded or my pastor of manipulation. I don't want to hear it. This is such a beautiful memory for me and God has come thru like this for us 100 times since, but when I gave, I had total faith that God was going to meet our needs. I mean I had no doubt.
So the next day I walked to the mailbox. I *knew that I knew something was going to be in that mail box. I opened it up and a letter from my husbands grandfather was in there. He had a ministry in TX. and the board had decided they wanted to send my husband $500 to help him make it thru school. He had never sent money before, or after... it was just a total God moment. I know you will mock and it will be yucky, but this is just another reason I have no doubt in God.I'm reminded of a recent quote...
Funny how you seem to contradict yourself from one moment to the next.And, I'm not at all surprised.
Telling us how God conveniently drops cash in your hot little hands hundreds of times while at the same time trying to tell me to imagine what's it like to be a child in a third world country is the epitome of living in a bubble. So, it's little wonder your hypocrisy escapes you.Huh... I wonder how many times my meaning escapes you. My point was simply that you were saying how these children were worse for the ware with her in their lives. I was saying she had brought food, shelter, love and clothing... that's why I said I wonder if you know what it's like to be an orphan in a 3rd world... starvation, poverty and death is, in no world, preferable to keeping ones religious views to oneself.
My hot little hand? Really? I was poor, I had $5 to live on for one week for a family of four and God met our needs. I didn't bring it up to compare myself to someone in a 3rd world. Why did you compare the two? There are a lot of ppl who will struggle to make it to payday in America and around the world... they're most likely not going to starve. I was just relating a story of God's kindness to my family, as He has done for billions of others. Some of us just don't realize it when He is moving on our behalves.Wow, you still refuse to understand. Willful ignorance. People starve because they have no food or money, hence God does not give them food or money when they really need it, yet you claim God gives you food and money when you need it.
So, explain to us all here why God is moving on your behalf but not the behalf on tens of thousands of children who do starve to death every day?
I'm sorry, Beth, but all of this is just wishful thinking, a twisting of reality to match what you want it to be.
That some lawyers, judges, politicians, etc. worked for three years to get your adoption fees down does NOT mean that God did it. It is exactly zero evidence that He even had a tiny finger tip in the process. It is only your desire that it be so that makes you decide, without any evidence at all, that God interfered in the normal day to day operations and made the changes.
Your preacher exhorts your to give him gold. He convinces you that you are worshiping God when you give that preacher your gold. You do so, and instantly feel that God has provided for you. This may be the strangest of all; thinking that God provides because you give your pastor your gold, but it is certainly no indication that God has provided anything at all for you. It may be a good indication that your pastor is very gifted at oratory, it may be an indication you are extremely gullible, but it does not show God anywhere.
Even when your husband sent you money, of his own free will and not forced by God, you still cannot (reasonably) claim that God did it. God does not force people to act - they act as their free will dictates. You still, then, twist reality to match what you want to believe, without every trying to see what is actually real.
No intent to be yucky at all. Just an intent to again at least try and teach someone to think, to reason. That subjective, emotion based conclusions do not belong in real life situations. That such conclusions do not convince anyone of anything except that you are either unwilling or unable to reason critically.My husband didn't send me money.
Say what you will, you're incorrect.
I can't help you to see the truth. I can only report the facts as they happened to me.You are not reporting facts, you are twisting what happened to conform with your religious beliefs, that is called being duplicitous.
You were done when you claimed God provided for you.
It might be a bit suspect in your eyes but that is not the same as invalid. Money came through other people at times when it was needed. Believe it or don't.
- Yet, there are far more examples of how money never came through when it was needed. Believe it or don't.
It is completely and utterly invalid. Millions of Children starve to death every year. Millions… That's not counting the children who die from cancer.
A couple of things are at play here. You've said in an earlier post something to the effect of putting oneself dependent on God and he will provide. What's really going on is you are not taking credit for your own actions that way you won't be responsible.
If as you say God will provide then he will provide, but when children die from starvation God is no providing. Unless of course you think you are special? Are you special? Are you more deserving then those millions of starving children.
Now don't go calling me a jerk or insensitive as I'm not the one claiming that God provides for me and not others.What I think is that you have an issue that has little to do with me.
I've said often, yes often, that I don't think I'm special. In fact, exactly the opposite.
Because I have seen God provide for me and you have not seen God provide for the people you have decided that He should in order to prove His existence does not prove that a) He didn't provide for me or that b) He has never provided any kind of help for any of those people or that c) He therefor does not exist. This is not glib when I say this, it's in some ways very similar to the demand you once made that God prove His existence by giving me special knowledge of a specific time and place in your life. The failure to do so is not proof that He doesn't exist. Things are rarely that simple.
And no, I'm not going to call you a jerk. I have managed to accept how you view me.Again, you are not addressing my point. You are reiterating how special you seem to think you are. Now, I know you don't think you are special, but claiming God provides for you while allowing millions of Children to starve does suggest you knowingly think you are special or you are unable or unwilling to look at the issue.
Why does God provide for you while allowing millions of Children to starve to death every year?CHRIS NEAL WROTE:
I've said often, yes often, that I don't think I'm special. In fact, exactly the opposite.Of course, reading is not an issue... just saying... what's there in black and white should be considered.
Then what prevented you from understanding "Now, I know you don't think you are special"?
But then again, why don't you answer the very same question as you think God provides for you as well?
Why does God provide for you while allowing millions of Children to starve to death every year? Are you that special?I spose the Bible has a lot to say concerning God's gifts.
"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Mt 21:22
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
Mt 7:7-11
"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions."
James 4:3
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Mark 11:24
"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."
John 14:13-14
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Luke 11:13So why not pray for those starving children? Do you think their parents, pastors or themselves haven't prayed.
My cousins 7 year old boy passed away in September, did those prayers not get answered? You must think you are special?Quite the liars, weren't they, those early writers of Christianity?
It does make one wonder just why anyone would read the rest of that book, let along actually believe any of it.
That's making a huge, huge assumption. Which is that God HAS provided for me and HAS NOT provided for them. There are some problems with that, including comparing the fact that I received a few dollars at a specific time that I needed it while being in a free country and surrounded by people who were willing to help with a situation where children, and men and women, are surrounded by hostile forces who specifically want to prevent help from getting to them. And people do try to help them and sometimes they succeed and this is one way God provides.
Some of these situations have people actively attempting to alleviate the mortality rate but they're fighting against mismanaged resources and squandered opportunities as well as starvation.
Not to belittle you, because I don't want that at all, but to put it in the stark terms you have really doesn't do the question you're asking justice, let alone the actual answer.
Your thesis also implies that I believe God has singled me out for help, which is completely untrue.Now you've switched to humans helping humans where no God is required. You had said it was God that provided, but now you are admitting that it was fellow humans. Why not give them credit?
I'm saying what I said before, that God used humans to get me the money. The act of the money arriving isn't the hand of God, the timing and the fact that I hadn't asked for it was.
Why doesn't God use humans to feed the starving children? You really should give credit to where it's due. You sound like the ball player thanking God for the win disregarding his team and disregarding the loosing team's prayers.
You have no evidence God set up any money for you, but know for certain where the money came from and you give the credit elsewhere. And to make matters worse don't think you are special that you get bailed out while other die and starve. You either think you are special or you don't. If you don't you need to ask why millions starve while you get bailed out.
What is the most likely case?
1. A God makes sure you have enough for you to eat while millions starve to death.
or
2. You think God bails you out while God allows millions to starve to death.A) God DOES use humans to feed starving millions. If you're one of the ones He uses, either through direct action (hauling your ass into the firefight and trying to save the starving people) or through indirect (doing charity work and/or donating your own self) then whether you think God has anything to do with it or not, I thank you and fully support you.
B) People still die. It's always been that way. If you believe in God then you probably also believe in the devil, but in any case evil exists. And evil works very, very hard to hurt and kill and destroy and torture.
C) Your idea seems to be that if God were there and truly cared for people, He would simply miraculously save EVERYONE!
And I understand that, I've sometimes wondered why He doesn't and show His power to everyone once and for all.
But it sidesteps a couple of very important issues.
1) If He were doing it in order to 'prove He exists' there would still be substantial numbers of people who simply wouldn't believe it. I'm not even talking about Muslims or other groups who believe in some kind of deity, I'm talking the atheists and 'rationalists' who would look for any excuse (up to and including 'it just happened and that's all there is to it') to deny that it was God.
2) People need to help people. And they need to make up their own minds. Not that I think Jewel is the world's greatest theologian, but her refrain at the end of her song "Hands" where she keeps repeating "God's hands" is pretty much right. We are God's hands. I am you are Beth is wilderness is.
What frustrates me the most here is not that you want a sign in order to believe. You ain't alone in history and you ain't alone in the modern world. God is not a simple God and we are not simple people and situations are very rarely as black and white as most people want them to be. People die. But we carry on, we must.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfsS3pIDBfw (the Jewel song, it always reduces me to tears.)When someone steps in and helps you out - you thank God.
When something bad happens - you blame Satan.
So I guess according to you, God is not all powerful as he has no power over Satan
And, humans are puppets without free will as you seem to be taking away the credit for those doing good deeds and giving it to an invisible, undetectable God. How do you explain those who are not Christians doing good deeds?Okay, have you seriously not been reading what I write? Or are you just quick to lump me in with other people who do that?
Because if you've been reading me, you know I'm not like that. Of course I thank God when something happens, but I don't blame satan like "the devil made me/them/us do it."
And why do you want for me to think like that?Chris, I can only go by the words you use in these forums.
You claimed God help you out personally with money and claimed "evil works very, very hard to hurt and kill and destroy and torture."
You are thanking God and blaming Satan. What else am I supposed to think?
No, he doesn't, that is evident to the tens of thousands of dead bodies of children everyday.
That is by far the most callous, cold and unfeeling thing you could say. In other words, YOU are so special that children should starve to death just so God can get money to you. How utterly shameful.
Then, why does God miraculously save you? Who are you that God should get money to you and not to others?
Duh, because gods most likely do not exist.
People do help people, that is exactly the point. No gods are required.
No, we are not.
How do you know that? Did you ask the people delivering it if God sent them? What tests did you make to determine it was God behind it? Or does it just match and support your concept of a great and wonderful God, helping you out?
You do agree with the idea of free will, don't you? That god will never force anyone to do anything; that we all do just as we please without Him shoving us around? That God does not, therefore, use people to deliver money with?Free will and Predestination are far more complex concepts than most people give credit for.
Yes, I believe in free will.
No, I don't make the mistake of equating "God doesn't force people to give money" with "God doesn't use people to deliver money." The two are not synonymous.Please explain to me how God stepped in and made someone else help you out financially without mind control (taking away ones free will)?
I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't really want to speculate. But He does.
You do claim to have all the answers, they just don't hold up under scrutiny. Now you claim it happens dispute the flaws in logic
That last sentence doesn't even make sense.
Please explain how, after repeatedly claiming that I don't have all the answers, you've come up with that I have.Dispute was supposed to be dispute.
Chris, you now claim you don't have all the answer, but you just know God did it. You can't claim both. If you don't have all the answers you don't know how it happened.Again, logic is not foreign to the discussion. Just because I don't have all the answers does not mean I don't know that the money came from God. Supernatural events are exactly that. Even if you don't accept them, it is an explanation.
Now again, this is a small answer to a much bigger question. I can pretty well predict where the conversation is going to go from here, but the knowledge of the supernatural is only part of the equation.Logic does seem foreign to this discussion. Your claims defy all logic, you claim an invisible entity makes sure you have enough cash while allowing millions of other to starve, and you claim he does this through somehow manipulating people to do it for him while allowing them to think and do for themselves. Then you claim you don't know how he does it, he just does.
Given that story I can only surmise that you are mistaken and God doesn't intervene on anyones life for one of two reasons, he wants to see if we can do right on our own or he doesn't exist. With all due respect I believe you are allowing wishful think to cloud your logic.No. YOU claim that I claim that an invisible entity 'makes sure I have enough cash while millions starve.'
I have never made that claim. Ever. If you want to put that spin on it, I can't stop you but I will not keep on like this.
I sense you want something. Your tone has changed, and you seem more upset and yes, judgmental. I have claimed what I have claimed and I will discuss these claims and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I have not said what I have not said. If you keep trying to force me to say that I have, I will keep not going there. And I know you're a better man than that.Okay, fair enough. You did claim that you know God provides for you when you are in need. Why do you think he doesn't provide for others who are in need? What have you done that others have not?
I don't think my tone has changed, but perhaps my ability to write what I'm thinking has. Sorry, I'm working on that.I think you need to be more specific about the 'not providing for others who are in need.' Because I know He does. And I know for the most part I probably haven't done anything, other than be born in America, that the people I think you are referring to haven't. But again, although they died, and that is tragic and I don't want to take anything away from that, that doesn't mean that God didn't do anything for them. I do know that groups, both Christian and otherwise, often attempt to help these people, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. And yes, that is something that God does for them.
If you are thinking that something miraculous should be done, I have often wondered the same thing. But the fact is also that nothing miraculous (in the way most people think of it, some big, out-of-the-ordinary event) happened in my life. My wife is dead. Money is still a big issue for me. I still have a special needs child and although I love her to death there's no question that's is difficult, especially trying to do it by myself.
So to directly answer your question, I don't think He has provided for me while ignoring others. There are a lot of particulars about all kinds of things that I don't know and will never know, but I know He provides for others as well.You can choose to deny that all you want, Chris, but the bottom line is that if God provides for you in some way, then He should provide for everyone, but we know that is certainly not the case. Reality would show there are no gods providing for anyone, including you.
Hmmm, you appear to me to be having a problem differentiating the what is done by people and what is done by God.
"I do know that groups, both Christian and otherwise, often attempt to help these people, sometimes at the risk of their own lives. And yes, that is something that God does for them. "
It's right here. Groups of people helping = something that God does for them?
Now, if we have both Christians and non-Christians attempting to help people we can't say they are helping because of their faith, we can say some are, but certainly not all. If you are implying that God is directing these people to help then you are taking away their free will.
Unfortunately the evidence is not on your side, Young innocent people are dying of starvation and cancer by the millions every year. You are just one people who claims to know God helps him directly, but can't supply any evidence of any form. Stating that you are born in America as something that differentiates you from others suggests you think God must look upon America favourably. I can't imagine that's the case.
And to be fair you don't KNOW he provides for others, you may think and hope that but it's not something you can KNOW. This is the direction that gets you in a little trouble because we all know it's not something one can know.Saying that God helps people using the agency of NGO's, some of which are Christians and some of which aren't, and saying that those NGO's do these acts because of their faith, is not not not not not not the same thing.
I'm not having any trouble making that differentiation.
And yes, God is perfectly capable of using people for His ends even if they don't know, or think, or even want to be doing that. To be fair, I don't think that any non-Christian NGO's are full of people saying that they are doing what they do because they don't believe in God. If you've read the OT, you wouldn't be unfamiliar with the concept that God uses people(s) who don't like or don't believe in Him to achieve His ends. It's not impossible, and even if you don't believe in God the theory is still not impossible.
And thanks for that cancer reference. Like I don't already think about it on a daily basis.I guess according to you we are all just puppets being directed by either God or Satan.
Then you're guessing wrong.
And the thing is, if you read my posts, you don't have to guess.
