My Video On Evolving Morality And Creationism

[Guest end3]

Ok....so "might makes right?" That is what I'm getting from this analogy.

 

 

What I got out of it K, was listen to the son....

[Kuroikaze]

Ok....so "might makes right?" That is what I'm getting from this analogy.

 

 

What I got out of it K, was listen to the son....

 

That is the definition of "might makes right," it just doesn't sound as nice when I say it my way.

[Guest end3]

The point of the analogy is, if you exchange me for God, and we are the soldiers, then it pretty much matches the questions we cannot answer because some things are not spelled out in the Bible to our satisfaction. Relevant to our time, the free will envolved is given to the soldiers in the form of the the Word, Jesus, Holy Spirit, to then decide which way they choose to accomplish life and, and, and, the lives of others. I think it matches exactly the morals of which we speak of today....primarily Love. I think it also portrays accurately the sovereignty of God and the continued will of God to preseve His people. Additionally it portrays how God, in the OT could justify wiping out men time and again. You live by these rules or you don't live, as it is now, He gives us the option to choose his rules and also gives us a chance to take ALL the soldiers with us. Fact is, we are too busy whacking the other soldiers to notice the true enemy, nor do we find time to afford Grace to the other soldiers. If God does not give us this option, he puts us all back in the toybox and walks away. Nowhere in the argument did I hear talk of Satan involved, but just an evil God.

 

K, I hope you read it earlier, but I said if I had to act on the genocide decision today, I would choose actions congruent with "normative" morals.

 

Guys and gals, this analogy is about as close as I can come to describing accurately my understanding. I don't thinks it is much of a stretch to match the toys with the story. If you wish to keep beating me up about choosing genocide, I don't, but to me, the story does match up with the possiblity that God has the capability.... And another thing, if God is Love, which He is, then why would you not expect the Grace of Christ to shine in history as well as the future.

 

One more point to the story....I played like that as a child, and through the Grace of Christ, He allows me to see a different way to play. Now as an adult I remember that all the soldiers were one color....

[Guest end3]

One comment where I think the analogy is off......I am a student, and not God, and have learned from the example, and I see where you are saying God did not have to be taught, he should have known to choose a better plan...I am with you there.....but all I can rationalize is, it is his plan. I can see where you might have a problem with understanding if he is God, why did he do it like that.......(acknowledged by END3). I don't think there are any humans that will be able to tell us, just short of a prophet followed shortly by Jesus appearing.

[chefranden]

This is interesting. I do feel this relates to the OP in how the original readers might have understood these things, versus the inappropriateness of modern evangelicals/fundamentalist/Creationist interpretation, so I will go a little further with this with asprin99's permission.

 

I think if we're looking at how people thought back then, it would not necessarily seem a fair assumption that they either would look at them as a cute child's tale, or the opposite being an close detailed account of events. In my mind, I don't think they thought in those terms at all. I think there was an incorporation of symbolic language infused into their sense of reality that has no direct correlation to today's way of thinking. Our modern society conditions how we approach "truth" in terms of the factual/non-factual. In reality, there plenty of those who see a disconnect today in culture from that world of "imagination" that has defined human thought for a very long time, within and outside of evolved Western thought.

 

You would need to look at other texts of the day in how they used language. I'm going to quote another part of that professor's article that talks about how other myths of that day communicated:

 

I have no argument with the idea that the symbolism of these stories was understood in a richer fashion in those days. But the question still remains symbolic of what? Included somewhere in the symbolism must have been information on how the world and people got started, or else why would they be about creation at all. I doubt that if you got your time machine chance to ask them "How did all this get here?" They wouldn't answer, "Well it all started with a bang..." They would reference these stories or something like them if they didn't know this one in particular.

 

The religious baggage that accompanied the stories would have been different than the baggage modern fundies attach to it. Nevertheless they would suppose that their God made the joint.

 

 

When one looks at the myths of surrounding cultures, in fact, one senses that the current debate over creationism would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern form were not issues at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of creation.

 

Of course they would find this debate strange, because they didn't know the half of it. Nevertheless the stories must still have been about how it all came to be.

 

 

Well, perhaps in more the 'nationalistic' sense of maintaining unique identity. The end I suppose would be 'this is our truth, and why we shouldn't accept or become a part of another culture'. But I still wouldn't call that literalism. 1. The stories would still remain symbolic stories of a culture's sense of self.

 

In light of that... to argue the stories are literally false, is to argue against something that has no real connection to the intent or the original response. 2. It wasn't based on "factuality", and is sort of an argument of comparing "oranges and orangutans".

 

(now just hear all this spoken in that authoritative voice... )

 

1. Ok, but do the people of the culture know that it is symbolic? Most people I run across actually believe that the American history they were taught in HS was the way it actually was back in them days.

 

2. Well maybe it is my gin soaked modern mind, but I bet that folks wore actual garlic around their necks to keep the witches away, whether or not the witches were supposed to be symbols.

[Neon Genesis]

The point of the analogy is, if you exchange me for God, and we are the soldiers, then it pretty much matches the questions we cannot answer because some things are not spelled out in the Bible to our satisfaction. Relevant to our time, the free will envolved is given to the soldiers in the form of the the Word, Jesus, Holy Spirit, to then decide which way they choose to accomplish life and, and, and, the lives of others.

How exactly is justifying mass genocide acceptable in any time period? And you seem to keep confusing going to war with genocide. They are not exactly the same thing. We're not just talking soldiers going off to fight in a war, which is an entirely different subject than genocide, but also innocent children being murdered by God and this vile God commanding his followers to rape virgins. How is this in anyway justifiable in any period for God to command women to be raped and innocent babies to be slaughtered, not simply soldiers going off to war.

 

I think it matches exactly the morals of which we speak of today....primarily Love.

Are you actually claiming that mass genocide is a form of love?

 

I think it also portrays accurately the sovereignty of God and the continued will of God to preseve His people. Additionally it portrays how God, in the OT could justify wiping out men time and again.

But how does it justify God commanding women to be raped and innocent babies to be murdered?

 

You live by these rules or you don't live, as it is now, He gives us the option to choose his rules and also gives us a chance to take ALL the soldiers with us.

But earlier you were implying that mass genocide could be justifiable in certain situations. Yet now you're claiming that mass genocide should always either be acceptable or not be acceptable? Which one is it?

 

Fact is, we are too busy whacking the other soldiers to notice the true enemy, nor do we find time to afford Grace to the other soldiers.

What does soldiers going to war have anything to do with God commanding women to be raped and innocent babies to be murdered?

 

Nowhere in the argument did I hear talk of Satan involved, but just an evil God.

That's because we aren't discussing Satan but we are discussing acts that God committed himself in the bible that you yourself acknowledge is in there. Or are you somehow implying that Satan caused God to sin and so God is not all-perfect?

 

K, I hope you read it earlier, but I said if I had to act on the genocide decision today, I would choose actions congruent with "normative" morals.

Are you implying that mass genocide should be acceptable as long as it's popular?

 

And another thing, if God is Love, which He is, then why would you not expect the Grace of Christ to shine in history as well as the future.

The point isn't whether or not God never shows his grace of Christ in "history." The point is why didn't God show grace to the innocent babies he murdered or the women he commanded to be raped?

[Kuroikaze]

I think it also portrays accurately the sovereignty of God and the continued will of God to preseve His people. Additionally it portrays how God, in the OT could justify wiping out men time and again.

 

This can only be justified by arguing that god does not care anything about us, and we are mere playthings to him, which is, of course, my point.

 

K, I hope you read it earlier, but I said if I had to act on the genocide decision today, I would choose actions congruent with "normative" morals.

 

I'm sure you would, but again this is my point. It appears that your actual ethics do not match the philosophy of ethics you are espousing. You are a better person that the religion you defend.

 

This is nothing new, most Christians decide on their morals in much the same way I do, then attribute them to god after the fact. You are hardly evil, you have just compartmentalized your belief in such a way as to not realize that it contradicts the way you actually live your life and come to your morality.

 

Guys and gals, this analogy is about as close as I can come to describing accurately my understanding. I don't thinks it is much of a stretch to match the toys with the story. If you wish to keep beating me up about choosing genocide, I don't, but to me, the story does match up with the possiblity that God has the capability.... And another thing, if God is Love, which He is, then why would you not expect the Grace of Christ to shine in history as well as the future.

 

I'm not trying to "beat you up" about this, just ask questions. I just think there are much more rational alternatives that trying to defend God's right to slaughter with impunity.

 

I don't really get what you are saying about god being love. The whole point of this, is that god can hardly be called "love" and then slaughter people in the way is attributed to him in these passages. It is a contradiction, the word love is a human word and defined by human standards, the only way to get around this is to redefine the word, which would be pointless.

[Guest end3]

Thanks K,

 

There are certainly things that are hard to answer about this question. Just wanted to sum up the possibilities that I have rationalized, as I have not enjoyed an understanding through the Spirit. Some things I have....this one, no....

 

One thought I have discussed before is it is God's plan through one, physical means....you do these or you will die. What I am understanding is to dwell in his presence, then you must do the "law", so he gave the people Moses to help them understand the law. There seems to be less of a grace period and more limited excuses for the people in this time frame. And in my head, I am thinking that the people that did not conform over time got just that.....zapped...dead. I find it loving in the fact that he sends a person to instruct the people, but perceive it less loving than the re-newed covenant of today. I think God was excited about the possibility of dwelling with the people again and taking them out of bondage.

 

So then the argument goes backwards to why did he subject them to Satan in the garden, and why did he do it like this, and why not that, and on and on... At some point for me, just short of revelation, I, and I don't think anyone can, answer these questions. For me, I assume it is his plan, and because he is God, he can do as he pleases...I, myself am very inquisitive and wish to know the answers as well. I then wait, or either accept these points by faith. This is obviously not the case for everyone, and can appreciate that.

 

(Still just my opinion)...So, jumping to present day, we would be conditioned over many years to the re-newed covenant, to a perception that love prevails to the point of affording grace to others, normative morals, (if I am using that correctly), is a product of this covenant. The thing that bothers me is, we all are hypocritical, and pervert the intended standard brought again through a messinger of God. It even seems as though we are guilty of moving this moral standard to a hyper level of "what anyone does is ok, as long as they are not hurting anyone". IMO, that is not what it says. I can see, though, that grace can be afforded in these situations, as grace is afforded me continually.

 

Then it goes back to God separating possibly, the people who don't get the rules from the people he judges to get the rules.... I still find it loving that he gives us an easy yoke, faith, instead of the rigorous law, to accomplish this journey. In my mind he also gives me the bible, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to guide me so I won't get zapped or separated in the end. He also tells me to tell others that this is the way to not get zapped or separated in the end.

 

All the questions about...what is hell, where's the proof...those are things I don't know and not sure anyone does. I have said before that I do leave this open to understanding through revelation, otherwise I am going to have to rationalize....

 

I would enjoy knowing if there was a "mark" in time that denotes a shift towards affording grace for others vs. "forceable" understanding.

 

So in essence, the lack of complete understanding frustrates all to the point of division....

[Antlerman]

End3, I need to see if you understand the difference between war, and genocide. Can you explain what the word "Genocide" means? I honestly think you are confused what all of us have been talking about here. That fact that you said we commit genocide with the natural environment too is my first clue you don't understand the context of this discussion. Other clues are because you seem to be equated genocide with just some orders to go to war. Please explain in your words what "Genocide" means.

 

And in my head, I am thinking that the people that did not conform over time got just that.....zapped...dead. I find it loving in the fact that he sends a person to instruct the people, but perceive it less loving than the re-newed covenant of today.

 

God did not send Moses to the Canaanites to instruct them, then when they didn't conform they got "zapped". There were never any instructions to go educated them about God's ways. They were simply bidden to die to get out to the way so God could fulfill his promise to Abraham and give his seed the land. They were objects for destruction, like green plastic soldiers in God's game of "The Chosen People".

 

So how do you reconcile the order from God to slay babies with them not conforming? Foreknowledge of their actions they would do when they grew up, so he pre-zapped them while they were still infants? Does this really make sense?

 

 

I think God was excited about the possibility of dwelling with the people again and taking them out of bondage.

You have interesting views about God. You are familiar with the word "Anthropomorphize"? It means to attribute human qualities to God. "God was excited about the possibility...." He's a human being? Did he jump up and down excitedly and scream with delight too? Did he get angry and throw rocks down from heaven, etc, etc, etc. Just like those Zeus-like images of Yahweh we read about in those passages of the OT.

 

You see my point?

 

This is one small part of what I mean when I say man creates God in his own image. What other qualities are you attributing to him that come from you as well?

 

 

For me, I assume it is his plan, and because he is God, he can do as he pleases...

And yet you won't go the harder path and accept the easier explanation that fits every single point that you see as true with all other ancient god beliefs, but somehow with no rational justification somehow excuse this myth as being not identical to the others. You call it faith. I do not. It's not faith. It's something far simpler than that. Fear. It's the easier path to stay in the boat with everyone else. Despite the fact you like to sit at over by yourself, you're still in the boat.

 

 

I, myself am very inquisitive and wish to know the answers as well. I then wait, or either accept these points by faith. This is obviously not the case for everyone, and can appreciate that.

Accept or excuse through rationalizations? The world rationalization applies well:

 

In psychology and logic, rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[1][2]

 

This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

 

Rationalization is one of the defense mechanisms proposed by Sigmund Freud, which were later developed further by his daughter Anna Freud.

 

The thing with rationalizations is that they are inconsistent in logic, as are all your attempts to leave room for orders for genocide from God to have any sort of justification, calling down "faith" as some sort of blanket to put out the fires of reason in your conscious mind. That why I say this is not faith at all. It's fear of facing a hard realization.

 

 

Just an observation, I notice there are no other Christian who seem willing to touch this one so far. I'm being pointed with you end3 because I think you're a reasonable person. I don't negate all desires for faith, or beliefs in God. I really don't. But I do actively go after rationalizations and the sort of faith that blinds itself to reason. Sometimes its understandable to step beyond reason when logic alone may not speak to you, but to resist reason and call it faith is not in the spirit of that. That's done out of fear of something, usually something that would mean a change - the harder path. It's just what I've seen time and again. I don't know another explanation for it.

[Guest end3]

Can you explain what the word "Genocide" means?

 

From what I recall of the definition, genocide is like exterimation regarding culture, race, religion etc... the flood would be considered genocide, would it not?

 

So how do you reconcile the order from God to slay babies with them not conforming? Foreknowledge of their actions they would do when they grew up, so he pre-zapped them while they were still infants? Does this really make sense?

 

No, in my Christian belief for years, I have held babies and children perfect as they are sent from God. No excuse...

I don't believe in baptizing babies because I believe if they die, God takes them. I don't believe also that babies are born with sin. I think they are born into a sinful world, and that is where the ambiguous "age of accountability" plays a role, that upon recognition of the "stuff" in this world they would choose a moral path.....

 

You have interesting views about God. You are familiar with the word "Anthropomorphize"? It means to attribute human qualities to God. "God was excited about the possibility...." He's a human being? Did he jump up and down excitedly and scream with delight too? Did he get angry and throw rocks down from heaven, etc, etc, etc. Just like those Zeus-like images of Yahweh we read about in those passages of the OT.

 

You see my point?

 

This is one small part of what I mean when I say man creates God in his own image. What other qualities are you attributing to him that come from you as well?

 

I believe to see your point here AM, but how else would we describe a similarity? When reading Exodus and Leviticus, I sensed just that, that God was possibly excited about a "cohabitation" for lack of a better word. That's my honest truth.

 

And yet you won't go the harder path and accept the easier explanation that fits every single point that you see as true with all other ancient god beliefs, but somehow with no rational justification somehow excuse this myth as being not identical to the others. You call it faith. I do not. It's not faith. It's something far simpler than that. Fear. It's the easier path to stay in the boat with everyone else. Despite the fact you like to sit at over by yourself, you're still in the boat.

 

Truth is AM, I don't know many other ancient god beliefs...the good news...I have not let this fear keep me from moving forward. I have already learned alot. Not going to whine about if I was hitching a ride in someone's boat....been paddling my own for some time. I would appreciate a honest opinion that states whether my views of God are more common than not...I honestly would. If they are, then say, but please don't if it is in necessity to sway me to unbelief, as I never have considered myself "normal" when it comes to Christianity.

 

I, myself am very inquisitive and wish to know the answers as well. I then wait, or either accept these points by faith. This is obviously not the case for everyone, and can appreciate that.

Accept or excuse through rationalizations? The world rationalization applies well:

 

AM, I don't like to use the word "quickening", but there have been several times over the years, mixed with the physiological responses that have changed the meaning of my understandings to the degree where I have changed my behaviors....please give me the understanding you have on this..

 

Just to know you are clear as to my understanding your statement about rationalization, you are saying that I am making up irrational excuses to justify what I know to be wrong in my heart....out of fear possibly, or some other garbage buried in my history....

 

Just an observation, I notice there are no other Christian who seem willing to touch this one so far. I'm being pointed with you end3 because I think you're a reasonable person. I don't negate all desires for faith, or beliefs in God. I really don't. But I do actively go after rationalizations and the sort of faith that blinds itself to reason. Sometimes its understandable to step beyond reason when logic alone may not speak to you, but to resist reason and call it faith is not in the spirit of that. That's done out of fear of something, usually something that would mean a change - the harder path. It's just what I've seen time and again. I don't know another explanation for it.

 

I appreciate that....As I mentioned earlier, I am hanging in here marching forward without fear....but you have to understand that I didn't leave my faith at the door either. The explanation of my beliefs about babies and children is honest. Probably why I do the children's sermons a church, is because my conviction for that belief is without waiver....

 

Thanks again

[Grandpa Harley]

So god killed the first born of Egypt to take them to heaven... and had the Jews dash the Canaaninte's infants brains out to 'save' them...

 

This is Orwellian... Ignorance is strength...

[chefranden]

Ok,

Let me give an example so it will make my position more clear. We are obviously having troubles...

 

When I was a child, I owned a package of plastic army men. I would spend time setting them up into two sides and killing the bad, evil, mean side. To the little green guys, I was effectually the omnicient God, although I did not actually mold the plastic nor formulate the polomers. I said who was good and who was bad and who would win. I determined by my rules who would win and thus survive......the little guys had little choice. "These are my guys" I said....

 

 

I never contemplated playing another way as a child, but if possible, I could have given all the army men the choice to be on my side.....the side that is going to live remember, as my team(God's), is going to win.

 

Regardless of the discussions between the little green guys..... God's team is going to win......And in addition to that, He sends his own Son to the battlefield to explain how God decides on who is going to live. But, and I repeat but, some of those little guys say horse hockey on the Son, and on the big guy with all the power and choose to believe that they have the answers, so much so, that they kill the Son...

 

welcome to the discussion K, I will try to address your comments.

 

Hey, I used to do this when I was a kid except I made my army men out of lead. That was back in the day that they didn't wrap kids in bubble rap and foam peanuts until they were 21.

 

I chose what side the soldiers would be on. Sometimes I was against them all and shot their little bits off with my BB gun. Then I'd melt them down and remake them to be massacred all over again, poor things. They didn't get a choice, just like the people that God massacred or caused to be massacred in the OT.

 

Please don't tell me that they had a chance to be on God's side, but chose not to. The stories do not give them that choice. And even if he gave the adults a choice the cows, the kids, and the virgin girls didn't have the choice. Not to be able to label this as evil, no matter who did it is a rather extreme weakness in the morality department.

 

Let's suppose that god made allowances for the primitive* morals of Bronze Age sheep herders. I can get into that a little. I didn't expect my children to behave well, until they were mature enough to get it. However, making excuses for moral retardation, and God doing the same sort of heinous acts are different kettles of fish. Since God is supposed to be unchanging either genocide is ok with him or it is not. If you think that God would find genocide repugnant today, then he would have had to consider it so then. Whether God is sovereign or not, this would be the case, or God is not unchanging i.e. once God was primitively moral and didn't know any better himself.

 

 

*I have to admit that I'm quite at a loss to understand "primitive morals" without some sort of evolutionary process. Taking that process back to Adam and Eve would mean that our first parents were likely moral idiots (they did run around naked after all). Therefore tasking them with obeying a command to not to eat (a natural desire) would have been risky at best. It shows something primitive about God's understanding of human nature, or it shows that God expected them to fail.

[Guest end3]

Ok, let me stay with my tenuous soldiers for arguments sake. One, I don't get the symbolic message other than Canaan disgraced Noah. Seems as though that landed him and the subsequent troops in God's proverbial crapper. Had God not just "flushed"?(I ought to get paid for humor like that)....and then to find there was some poop still clinging to the bowl??? So long story short, what about the Canaanite woman and her daughter in Matthew? If faith would not have been displaced in the beginning, would there be a need for the rest?

[Guest end3]

Ok, let me stay with my tenuous soldiers for arguments sake. One, I don't get the symbolic message other than Canaan disgraced Noah. Seems as though that landed him and the subsequent troops in God's proverbial crapper. Had God not just "flushed"?(I ought to get paid for humor like that)....and then to find there was some poop still clinging to the bowl??? So long story short, what about the Canaanite woman and her daughter in Matthew? If faith would not have been displaced in the beginning, would there be a need for the rest?

 

Just something to add here...this is starting to remind me of the gay gene thing....if God wipes out disrespectful lines of people, then could there possibly be a disrespectful, faithless gene?

 

And additionally, how does a two liner, like the few lines about the Canaanite woman end up in Matthew? Did the writer of Matthew at the time think to put this in there so that it would justify God's genocide? If we are talking Occam here, then it is really long stretch to say that the writer of Matthew did that to save God from ridicule in the later centuries....

 

I am not intending trollism here, but this small statement in Matthew makes the story make much more sense. And another abstract thought that crossed my tiny brain today.....Jesus says he was sent to save the lost of Israel...are there some that are not lost that will go regardless. And in the future will God manifest himself as Jesus's brother Juan to save the lost Mexicans....( I really should get paid)...

 

Anxiously waiting in West Texas...

[The-Captain]

Just something to add here...this is starting to remind me of the gay gene thing....if God wipes out disrespectful lines of people, then could there possibly be a disrespectful, faithless gene?

 

[Kuroikaze]

Just something to add here...this is starting to remind me of the gay gene thing....if God wipes out disrespectful lines of people, then could there possibly be a disrespectful, faithless gene?

 

I'm....not sure what to make of that.

[Antlerman]

Just something to add here...this is starting to remind me of the gay gene thing....if God wipes out disrespectful lines of people, then could there possibly be a disrespectful, faithless gene?

Different discussion, but in a sense there are those whose personalities are more suited for suggestibility and/or conformity. Most religious people equate this with "Faith", whereas I do not. But this would lead to an interesting conversation in itself.

 

Does God use genetic diversification in humans in order to fulfilled his predestination plans of who's going to be able to "see the light" and be saved, and who is not going to and be damned for his glory? The more and more we try to fit modern genetic and psycological understandings into someone's theology (viz. John Calvin's), the more and more this is deity looks like He uses a sort of eugenics programs like the Nazis in order to weed out the undesirables and make up his heavenly Master Race. Doesn't it?

 

 

Occam's Razor: This above, or that man creates God in his own image? Which is the simpler explanation?

[Grandpa Harley]

I doubt 'God' recognises genetics... he needed circumcision and the blood of goats to recognise his own...

[Guest end3]

And additionally, how does a two liner, like the few lines about the Canaanite woman end up in Matthew? Did the writer of Matthew at the time think to put this in there so that it would justify God's genocide? If we are talking Occam here, then it is really long stretch to say that the writer of Matthew did that to save God from ridicule in the later centuries....

 

 

We going to talk about this one folks?

[Guest end3]

Does God use genetic diversification in humans in order to fulfilled his predestination plans of who's going to be able to "see the light" and be saved, and who is not going to and be damned for his glory?

 

How can it be a total predestination with respect to human nature, if he has to wipe out Canaan's line, and then why does the Canaanite woman have faith? Dominant and recessive genes or free will....

[chefranden]

Ok, let me stay with my tenuous soldiers for arguments sake. One, I don't get the symbolic message other than Canaan disgraced Noah. Seems as though that landed him and the subsequent troops in God's proverbial crapper. Had God not just "flushed"?(I ought to get paid for humor like that)....and then to find there was some poop still clinging to the bowl??? So long story short, what about the Canaanite woman and her daughter in Matthew? If faith would not have been displaced in the beginning, would there be a need for the rest?

 

Perhaps if Noah had not acted in such a knee jerk way when Ham accidentally saw him naked (oh my!) and had the guts to say so, Ham and his boy would not have had to go their own way. In any case it is hardly fair to destroy people, cows, and rape girls for something an ancient ancestor did. Taking the question back to another bit of moral nonsense doesn't further your argument any.

 

The culprit in this story is Noah, not Ham and certainly not Canaan. If God were just in this matter and if genocide at a later date is justice, based on this information he should have killed everybody but the Canaanites.

[Antlerman]

And additionally, how does a two liner, like the few lines about the Canaanite woman end up in Matthew? Did the writer of Matthew at the time think to put this in there so that it would justify God's genocide? If we are talking Occam here, then it is really long stretch to say that the writer of Matthew did that to save God from ridicule in the later centuries....

 

I am not intending trollism here, but this small statement in Matthew makes the story make much more sense.

I skipped it because the logic seems to have eluded me. Are you suggesting that there may have been some divine providence in the writer of Matthew having penned this (borrowing from the Mark account of course with some variance). That this story's inclusion is to provide some sort of mystical story arc to the wholesale murder of the Canaanite story?

 

Would I speculate that the writer of Matthew (Mark's story actually) may have done this to try to vindicate God's barbarity? No. You would need to see some earmarks of setup for this. You can't just pull that speculation out of thin air without at least some reason based on something else, internally or eternally in the writings or similar authors. The only support for that would be some personal, subjective "holy ghost' like moment of "enlightenment" (typical symptom of some sort of euphoria brought about by drugs of especially potent alcohol consumption). Sometime a 'brilliant' thought only seems so when your high.

 

I think the story is pretty much a story about Jesus, with the woman being a story character to further it's intended message (however lost that may be to the dusty pages of history). It's not about her being a Canaanite in any real way outside of the message of how his ministry was first to the Jews.

[Guest end3]

I think the story is pretty much a story about Jesus, with the woman being a story character to further it's intended message (however lost that may be to the dusty pages of history). It's not about her being a Canaanite in any real way outside of the message of how his ministry was first to the Jews.

 

Now that's cherry picking rationalization! .....and certainly there's no free will or genetic link. (insert sarcasm icon here)

 

And Chef, now it Noah's fault??....no , if Ham would have acted according to God's standard, then things perhaps would have been different. Classic..."it's not my fault".....is this what y'all are advocating, not to do this, and take responsibility for actions?

 

"....everybody but the Canaanites"....that is certainly the reason we are in different camps...

 

Seems like the Bible is fairly consistent, and the odds must be astronomical for the passage in Matthew to have matched the story in Genesis.

 

I am done with this unless y'all can somehow move the meaning in a revelatory manner off my current position.

 

And yes, I will listen as I do think I am reasonable, but for the record, it really ticks me off when opinion is held to such a high esteem and then held up by something so frail.

[Antlerman]

I think the story is pretty much a story about Jesus, with the woman being a story character to further it's intended message (however lost that may be to the dusty pages of history). It's not about her being a Canaanite in any real way outside of the message of how his ministry was first to the Jews.

 

Now that's cherry picking rationalization! .....and certainly there's no free will or genetic link. (insert sarcasm icon here)

Here's just one take on it. See how far out of line I am: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html

From a literary standpoint, this section is wonderfully placed--

the wonderful woman serves as a foil against both the Jewish leaders and the disciples

(in both Gospels). So, D.A. Carson, EBC:Mt, in. loc.:

 

Of greater interest is the placing of this pericope in both gospels. It not only records Jesus' withdrawal from the opposition of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (cf. 14.13) but contrasts their approach to the Messiah with that of this woman. They belong to the covenant people but take offense at the conduct of Jesus' disciples, challenge his authority, and are so defective in understanding the Scriptures that they show themselves not to be plants the heavenly Father has planted. But this woman is a pagan, a descendent of ancient enemies, and with no claim on the God of the covenant. Yet in the end she approaches the Jewish Messiah and with great faith asks only for grace; and her request is granted.

 

Cherry picking?? Me??

 

Seems like the Bible is fairly consistent, and the odds must be astronomical for the passage in Matthew to have matched the story in Genesis.

They had Genesis right in front of the faces to work off of. Astronomical odds? You mean 100 out of 100 chance that they could read it and write a story to fit it? There are no odds involved.

 

I am done with this unless y'all can somehow move the meaning in a revelatory manner off my current position.

 

You have failed to offer a substantial argument that holds up in any reasonable manner against the points raised illustrating how this is totally incongruous with a genuine divine revelation from a moral god. Provide some criticism why the points raised are faulted.

 

And yes, I will listen as I do think I am reasonable, but for the record, it really ticks me off when opinion is held to such a high esteem and then held up by something so frail.

By all means, how is it frail?

[Guest end3]

Here's just one take on it. See how far out of line I am: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html

From a literary standpoint, this section is wonderfully placed--

the wonderful woman serves as a foil against both the Jewish leaders and the disciples

(in both Gospels). So, D.A. Carson, EBC:Mt, in. loc.:

 

Of greater interest is the placing of this pericope in both gospels. It not only records Jesus' withdrawal from the opposition of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (cf. 14.13) but contrasts their approach to the Messiah with that of this woman. They belong to the covenant people but take offense at the conduct of Jesus' disciples, challenge his authority, and are so defective in understanding the Scriptures that they show themselves not to be plants the heavenly Father has planted.

But this woman is a pagan, a descendent of ancient enemies, and with no claim on the God of the covenant. Yet in the end she approaches the Jewish Messiah and with great faith asks only for grace; and her request is granted

.

 

 

Just so we are on the same page here, you are saying that the author(s) intentionally made this story about a Canaanite woman, and put the words in Jesus mouth because they were that knowledgeable about the disputes like ours in the future, so they headed it off? Again, this seems to be an extra-large rationalization to me......I just can't see them sitting there with "pen" in hand, frustrated, saying "fuck", how do I write this to make it match.

 

I can see you and many having trouble with the overall means of accomplishing this "history of the world", but from my perspective, I am not seeing an inconsistent message in the old and new testaments.

 

Not knowing all the free will, predestination arguments...here is how I am seeing it today:

 

I think God knows how the big picture plays out, but I think he gives us free will. I also think if he predestines us, then he predestines Himself.. otherwise, how could Moses have changed God's will. (Unless all that was predestined too) Now my mind is stuck in a predestine loop, predestine loop, predestine loop......

 

Good questions though AM...I am enjoying the conversation.