Sin

[Suzy]

Sorry, I don't see anywhere where is says to kill babies. Could you be more specific and show me where it says to kill babies?

 

 

 

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.

 

8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.

 

9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.

 

10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.

 

11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,

 

12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

 

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.

 

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

 

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them.

 

16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people.

 

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

 

(Numbers 31:7-18)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 ‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve.

 

22 I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.

 

(Leviticus 26:21-22)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side

 

4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”

 

5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion.

 

6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.

 

7 Then he said to them, “Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!” So they went out and began killing throughout the city.

 

8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?”

 

9 He answered me, “The sin of the people of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, ‘The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.’

 

10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done.”

 

(Ezekiel 9:40-10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 “You are my war club,

my weapon for battle—

with you I shatter nations,

with you I destroy kingdoms,

21 with you I shatter horse and rider,

with you I shatter chariot and driver,

22 with you I shatter man and woman,

with you I shatter old man and youth,

with you I shatter young man and young woman,

23 with you I shatter shepherd and flock,

with you I shatter farmer and oxen,

with you I shatter governors and officials.

 

24 “Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia[e] for all the wrong they have done in Zion,” declares the LORD.

 

(Jeremiah 51:20-24)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;

and the earth will shake from its place

at the wrath of the LORD Almighty,

in the day of his burning anger.

 

14 Like a hunted gazelle,

like sheep without a shepherd,

they will all return to their own people,

they will flee to their native land.

15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;

all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;

their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

 

17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,

who do not care for silver

and have no delight in gold.

18 Their bows will strike down the young men;

they will have no mercy on infants,

nor will they look with compassion on children.

 

(Ishaiah 13:13-18)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

 

(1 Samuel 15:2-3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks.

 

(Psalms 137:8-9)

 

 

 

 

There are many many more....

[Ouroboros]

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One does not have to think much to figure out what the reason was.

[Suzy]

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One does not have to think much to figure out what the reason was.

 

Yep. God's high morals.

[Ouroboros]

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One does not have to think much to figure out what the reason was.

 

Yep. God's high morals.

Yeah. You know how morals work in the religious world. Morals only apply to other people.

[chosendarkness]

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One does not have to think much to figure out what the reason was.

Wow that's pretty fucking horrible. The girls they're talking about were probably children too.

 

I should be able to just go into a church and take any woman I please to make her my sex slave. What's wrong with that? If God doesn't mind murder and pedophilia, surely I can get away with something as mild as kidnapping and rape. When I become even more godly man I'll start torturing my slave. Gotta take it one step at a time though, maybe start with something simple like bashing in the head of a homosexual.

 

No, I don't want to be godly, I want to be a sinner bound for hell. At least my conscious will be clear.

[Antlerman]

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,

 

18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One does not have to think much to figure out what the reason was.

Wow that's pretty fucking horrible. The girls they're talking about were probably children too.

I don't believe so. I think they were told to kill the children.

 

Actually though, interestingly these laws were actually progressive for the day. The norm was to just take the virgin girls rape them and discard them. Instead their law was to stop that sort of behavior by the Jews, saying that if they took them into their bed they were to protect them, take them into their home, and not discard them. To do so was a bad thing. To violate her sexually and leave her the streets was treated as immoral for a Jew to do, so the law was that they had to first take them into their home, let them grieve for 30 days, then essentially marry them, instead of rape them and leave them destitute.

 

Of course to us this sounds offensive as hell. But in the context of their day, this was actually progress! What makes it unbelievably offensive to us today is when Literalist Apologists like LNC try to say it is moral even by today's standards because it was "God" who said this. Talk about cognitive dissonance...

 

I should be able to just go into a church and take any woman I please to make her my sex slave.

Not unless you first slay her mother and father, younger sister and brother, and then their family cow with the edge of your sword!

 

When I become even more godly man I'll start torturing my slave. Gotta take it one step at a time though, maybe start with something simple like bashing in the head of a homosexual.

Stoning gays was OK back then, but I think torturing your slave wasn't, if I'm not mistaken. Again, LNC and other literalists have to jump through quite a few hoops of intellectual suicide to try to make this stuff anything other than cultural artifacts.

 

No, I don't want to be godly, I want to be a sinner bound for hell. At least my conscious will be clear.

Well, so long as you're not worshiping a Bull, then you're probably OK. After all, Bull worship really get's Yahweh jealous as hell. Steams Him right up to the point he sends his army of Jews to go kill you! Of course never mind the fact that the Israelites themselves conceived of him as one - Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah that is, as the inscription below reads.....

 

[chosendarkness]

Wow that's pretty fucking horrible. The girls they're talking about were probably children too.

I don't believe so. I think they were told to kill the children.

But how old were these virgins? 13? 14?

 

Actually though, interestingly these laws were actually progressive for the day. The norm was to just take the virgin girls rape them and discard them. Instead their law was to stop that sort of behavior by the Jews, saying that if they took them into their bed they were to protect them, take them into their home, and not discard them. To do so was a bad thing. To violate her sexually and leave her the streets was treated as immoral for a Jew to do, so the law was that they had to first take them into their home, let them grieve for 30 days, then essentially marry them, instead of rape them and leave them destitute.

Seems to me if you kill someone's family and kidnap them for sex and call it marriage, you're just raping them more. Seems like the more humane thing to do would be to kill them, instead of raping them for years and years (by the same people who killed their family no less). I don't see that as progressive, it's even worse. I guess it made the murderer/rapist feel better somehow.

 

 

When I become even more godly man I'll start torturing my slave. Gotta take it one step at a time though, maybe start with something simple like bashing in the head of a homosexual.

Stoning gays was OK back then, but I think torturing your slave wasn't, if I'm not mistaken. Again, LNC and other literalists have to jump through quite a few hoops of intellectual suicide to try to make this stuff anything other than cultural artifacts.

Somewhere in the bible they lay out the rules for beating slaves. You can beat the slave until they're almost dead, but it's 'wrong' to beat them to death.

[Antlerman]

Wow that's pretty fucking horrible. The girls they're talking about were probably children too.

I don't believe so. I think they were told to kill the children.

But how old were these virgins? 13? 14?

In that culture that was the age of becoming an adult. They married at that age. So then they would have been considered adults.

 

Actually though, interestingly these laws were actually progressive for the day. The norm was to just take the virgin girls rape them and discard them. Instead their law was to stop that sort of behavior by the Jews, saying that if they took them into their bed they were to protect them, take them into their home, and not discard them. To do so was a bad thing. To violate her sexually and leave her the streets was treated as immoral for a Jew to do, so the law was that they had to first take them into their home, let them grieve for 30 days, then essentially marry them, instead of rape them and leave them destitute.

Seems to me if you kill someone's family and kidnap them for sex and call it marriage, you're just raping them more. Seems like the more humane thing to do would be to kill them, instead of raping them for years and years (by the same people who killed their family no less). I don't see that as progressive, it's even worse. I guess it made the murderer/rapist feel better somehow.

Again bear in mind that humans in that culture did not look at the world as you do in the 21st Century Modern West. From a cultural evolutionary point of view, they were functioning in a pre-Enlightenment world. The thought processes were quite different, and viewing individuals like you and I do today was hardly a distant future glimmer in their minds. It wasn't for another thousand years before they barely started viewing themselves as individuals with individual rights. Slavery was the norm back then, as was killing your enemies and taking their daughters. Under that mode of thinking then, try to imagine how a rule imposed on their society that if they wanted one of these daughters of the vanquished, that they are not allowed to simply have sex with them and cast them out into the street - as in that culture at that time that would have tarnished them - their role would have be created for them through that action and they would have become a part of their society that way. So when back then they say if you want that daughter, you have to honor her by making her your wife! That's pretty huge in that context, in that day, within that mode of cultural mindset - a mode which was pretty much the norm globally.

 

I see all these little things as steps towards a greater, a higher morality that looks at individual rights. The OT is an artifact of that human evolution towards higher conscious awareness, higher moralities. It really wasn't until the rise of Modernity, a mere few hundred years ago, that the way you and I think became more the norm. Nowhere prior to modernity did you see in the minds of cultures the values of equality, freedom, representational and deliberative democracy, equality of all citizens before the law regardless of race, religion, and sex, political and civil rights, freedom of speech, etc. You have to imagine the world through the eyes of those without any such mindset as ours, and then in that context begin to understand how these pieces fit into that corner of that puzzle.

 

The problem is that it's a hangover of the Western Christian myth that the application of morality is absolute because it comes from God. So it is very easy, too easy for you and me to pass judgment on the people's of a culture who lived 10,000, or even 3000 years ago as being 'immoral'. In reality, in their day, they like us today, were in the process of evolving, or growing. You think our culture's morality is superior? In many regards it is, but don't forget we just barely gave women the right to vote, people still think a woman getting raped is her fault; we barely abolished slavery ourselves!, and racial prejudices still run rampant in our culture, and so on. People were viewed differently in our premodern world, and as a result they were treated differently, and the rules were applied against those views. Today a new awakening has occurred, and now its a matter of education to learn how to integrate that into cultural practices.

 

How we apply morality is an extension, an expression of our own individual and collective awareness of the world. That awareness does not happen overnight, and we too are hardly at the peak of that knowledge. If you were to make it a scale of awareness from 1 to 100, they might have been at around a 35 and we are around a 60. We have a long ways to go ourselves. They are our past, and they are a part of who we are. We are easily capable of 'dehumanizing' individuals as we never rid ourselves of what we grew through, but hopefully through that higher awareness the application of morality itself in our contexts affords a greater inclusion of others with respect to them as individuals. We are barely learning how to ourselves right now.

 

We struggle against that past, trying desperately to differentiate ourselves from that past by focusing on its shortfalls, its inhumanities, its negatives in order to push ourselves out away from it; in order to define ourselves separate from it. That's part of the process of growth, to where eventually we recognize its still and always will be part of ourselves but that we have just grown to where we have replaced it as the general mode of operating with something higher. It has been superseded.

 

For someone as intelligent as LNC to be trying to make a case to 'fit' modern understanding into premodern understanding - solely because he starts with the postmodern premise of Biblical Literalism and Authority, is to try to wrench evolution into a static model of the universe. It does not, nor ever will fit reality. People were not born with full awareness, never have had that, and our morality evolves. God in the Bible is clearly, in all these verses that have been exposed, an expression of stages of awakening human consciousness using God symbolically to communicate that to their culture. People have to grow, and evolution is the process of that growth occurring. To be thinking magically, taking their symbols of the past as some sort of law from above for us today is to in fact be resisting that growth into who we have needed to become; who we need to become in order to become who yet need to become tomorrow.

[chosendarkness]

I understand that people thought much differently back then. I guess my reaction is because of how Christians believe these stories are somehow moral even today because it's from 'God's word'. People are taught these stories over and over, all through childhood, so what affect does it have on them? From what I've seen Christians are not hesitant to go to war, they even put bible verses on their guns. Christian abuse of wives in the home was a big problem in the 80's, I don't know if it still is It was kept secret, but it was happening a lot. Maybe I'm just prejudiced, but I see Christianity as very immoral. The main reason I left was because my conscience couldn't handle it anymore. I would rather burn in hell for eternity than go on doing what I knew was wrong.

[Antlerman]

I understand that people thought much differently back then. I guess my reaction is because of how Christians believe these stories are somehow moral even today because it's from 'God's word'. People are taught these stories over and over, all through childhood, so what affect does it have on them?

That's the interesting part. I am persuaded to believe the effect it has on them is not at all the same one were they to have been born in the context in which it was originally put together. Like it or not, they are already awakened to a world beyond that strictly by virtue of being in this culture. The values of today, though not perfect by any means, definitely surpass those where slavery and stoning were the norms. So what you have is a person immersed in modernity reading texts from a premodernity mentality.

 

In other words, we simply cannot in reality regress back in time. We may try to romanticize the past, imagine it as some nostalgic ideal to go back to, but it's too late! We already are aware. It would be like me at my age suddenly hoping to be 14 again! It's not possible. I am too aware now, and with that awareness is both good and bad, but I wouldn't want to go back and give up those gains. So what you have in reality with the fundamentalist mind is a brain in denial of their own awakened minds. They don't know how to integrate the world into that, so they imagine going back to a time when God supposedly gave the world the Answers™.

 

But because they themselves are not actually "early Christians", there is no way possible for the meaning of that religion in that context to possibly translate the world for them - in this day and age. What you have instead of some relevant message to the world, you have a bunch of Romantics idealizing the past in an irrational regression. It is hardly the light for the future. In fact the message spoken in how they present it is nothing more than their anxiety about their own lives in the world.

 

The result of all this is exactly the examples you gave, putting Bible verses on guns to justify shooting other humans, the sort of irrational anti-intellectual, pseudoscience out of Creation "think tanks", using the name of God for social and political conservative agendas, etc.

 

A good religion helps facilitate the translation of the immediate world, with an eye to growth and unity. What you see instead in these distortion of trying to turn back the clock on progress to a prerational, premodern, primitive, sociocentric, ethonocentric, religiocentric group mentality (valid as those may have been in their day), is simply put a pathology resulting from a dissociation from the whole. We have grown past it, and that way of thinking cannot translate the world for us any longer. It either must be allowed to evolve to talk to today, or be replaced.

 

From what I've seen Christians are not hesitant to go to war, they even put bible verses on their guns. Christian abuse of wives in the home was a big problem in the 80's, I don't know if it still is It was kept secret, but it was happening a lot.

The other day after lunch I was walking around in Downtown and some street preacher was standing there, meagerly trying to announce that Christ is coming back with 10,000 saints to wage war on earth, quoting the passage about Enoch (which ironically was from a Gnostic text), and so on. I stood there just calmly breathing in the world around me, feeling at peace with life and existence, whole, full of love and light in my soul, while waiting for the light to change so I could cross the street. I never looked at him, but could feel the brokenness in the man, his desperation to make that connection to the world through his symbolic understanding of God, and failing in himself making God one to smite the world on his behalf. What could I say to the man? He wouldn't understand. I just breathed life as it was, and moved on.

 

I see people as you describe in very much that same way. They are desperately trying to find a way to connect, and what tools they, what symbols they have are failing them. They instead turn them on the world in some hope to defeat it, if they can't find a way to integrate it.

 

Maybe I'm just prejudiced, but I see Christianity as very immoral.

Some parts aren't, some parts are valuable. It's never all one thing. The religion is a conglomerate of worldviews and sentiments.

 

The main reason I left was because my conscience couldn't handle it anymore. I would rather burn in hell for eternity than go on doing what I knew was wrong.

Well, yes. In simple terms, I outgrew it. It no longer supported my growth into a whole person.

[LNC]

I didn't say that, but if the "testimony" we are talking about is eyewitness accounts of events before the age of cameras, film, and other such forms of proof then I say we have every right to be suspicious, especially if its some incredible event that is contrary to what we know to be scientific laws.

 

Please understand that I know film can be faked, so don't bother bringing it up. People tell lies all the time to make themselves the center of attention.

Sure, historians are suspicious, they apply proven techniques to determine the credibility of a historical document. They don't rely on whether we had pictures or video of the account as that would automatically discount anything prior to the 19th century, and most of it during that time as, although the film camera was invented, it took some time before events were captured on film in those days.

 

Regarding scientific laws, there is much we don't understand about them (see, quantum theory) and we also don't know that scientific law provides, or even could provide a complete understanding to reality. For example, in the area of consciousness, there is much that falls outside of physical reduction, and therefore, scientific law.

 

No, of course I can't be sure, you Christians are the only ones who are, but I say the odds are against it.

No, actually logicians and philosophers are pretty convinced as well. It is a logical contradiction to say that there is no absolute truth because the statement itself, if true, becomes self-refuting.

 

I admit personal preference. I think you have a flawed understanding of karma but I do not believe this is the place to address it. Karma is the most misunderstood teaching in eastern religion. I will say its a yes, though, to your last question. Karma can be broken at any time. It is not predestination and any given event that happens cannot be said to be traced to a single person's karma. In some sutras, particularly the prajnaparamita, the existence of karma is denied. Overall, I think the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana is the most heroic and highest ideal I can think of. Buddhism, as Christianity, is not one unified whole.

No, I personally do not believe the disadvantaged deserve what they get. Wouldn't that be more a Christian idea? I mean, are you into the prosperity gospel where you believe that the poor must somehow either not be Christian or be out of God's will or some such nonsense?

I appreciate your honesty regarding your assessment. When Karma is played out in the religions that developed the idea, it seems pretty much as I understand it. For example, India's caste system is a prime example of the system of Karma. People are stuck in their castes based upon their previous lives and the castes may not, for the most part, intermix. This is especially true of the lowest caste of untouchables. It is not a very kind system to that group of people. I understand that different strands of Buddhism have different beliefs and that most Westerners have a flawed understanding of Karma, however, I've done more reading than the average Westerner and believe I have a better understanding than many. This may not be the best forum to debate the subject, but I find it flawed and troublesome as a system for a person's life.

 

That word "redeem" implies a sacrifice to me, or some kind of monetary exchange. To me, its a rather senseless term when applied to life. If you can cultivate some dispassion, learn to train your mind through meditation from clinging to thoughts and illusory material things, I think you live a better, less self centered life.

 

You're right in saying that redeem means an exchange, although it is not always monetary in nature. We often speak of a person finding redemption for a life of sin or trouble. They exchange their old manner of life for a new one - they turn over a new leaf, as it were. However, I don't see where Buddhism is not about this very idea. It seems that all the teachings are about changing the person, his desires, his actions, his thoughts, from one thing to another. But we were focusing on Karma and whether it is a redemptive idea, and, I don't think it is. I think it is ridden with guilt and fear, not hope and peace.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I said "if moral strength of character is in our nature" because you said "man was created good", so it is in our nature. Unless you mean it was removed supernaturally?

 

I did some reading, and found I was wrong. Humans are NOT born amoral, but morality is innate just as it is in other animals. See here.

I think I have seen studies like this. Anyone who has had kids would know this without having seen the research . It seems the first words kids learn to use with force and repeat often are "no!" and "mine!"

 

Scientists are observing otherwise:

 

In one experiment babies between six and ten months old were repeatedly shown a puppet show featuring wooden shapes with eyes. A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure. Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

 

In another experiment the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy.

 

A third experiment used a puppet cat playing with a ball with a helpful rabbit puppet on one side and an unhelpful rabbit on the other. The helpful rabbit returned the ball if the cat lost it, while the unhelpful rabbit stole the ball and ran off with it. In this test five-month-old babies were allowed to choose one of the rabbits, and most chose the helpful one. When the test was repeated with 21-month-old babies they were asked to take a treat from one of the rabbits. Most took the treat from the unhelpful rabbit, and one even gave the rabbit a smack on the head as well.

 

Lead author of the study, Kiley Hamlin, said people worry a lot about teaching children the difference between good guys and bad guys but “this might be something that infants come to the world with.” Other psychologists have cautioned that adult assumptions can affect how babies’ reactions are interpreted, and that babies begin to learn from the moment they are born.

Oh, I don't disagree with this, but this is behavior that these kids prefer in others, not behavior that they prefer for themselves. One need only go to a nursery school to see that kids are territorial with the toys in the place and protective of the ones they are playing with, while other kids seem to have an eye for the toys the other kid has got, no matter how many other toys are available.

 

My wife and I have been teaching a class of 3yo kids at church this summer, and it never fails that what one kid has got, another kid is going to want, even when a lot of other great toys are available.

 

Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

They obeyed blindly. They couldn't have known what "good" was. They couldn't make a logical connection to "good", unless you equate "good" with obedience alone. To do what you are told is much different than making a moral decision. How can a person know that pleasing another is "good", when that person is a possession of the other and is limited to two choices; obey or suffer? That's extortion.

The knowing is an experiential knowing, not a conceptual knowing. The Bible often speaks of sexual intercourse as saying the man "knew his wife" (Gen. 4:17, 25). It doesn't mean that Cain or Adam just met their wives, but they knew them in an experiential way that they didn't prior to that. The same is true in the way that Adam and Eve knew good and evil in this case. They knew that it was evil to disobey God and eat from the tree, otherwise, why feel guilt and hide themselves after doing so when God approached in the garden.

 

LNC

[LNC]

How is a moral quality not a thing?

 

How is it?

OK, since you answered a question with a question, let me do the same. If it is not a thing, then of what are we speaking?

 

True. But actions are what morally affects the recipient, and that is morally good. So, actions are what makes morality important.

I still don't agree. Actions done with wrong motives may have a good effect on the recipient, but I still wouldn't call them morally good. For example, suppose a person stole medicines necessary to sustain the life of a young child and gave them to an old person with the same disease. Would we call that a moral good? It would be beneficial to the old person, but the action was also detrimental to the young child. Suppose also that the person who stole the medicines was paid a large amount of money for the medicines, would we then call it morally good? No, actions are not of necessity, morally good, it is always dependent on the intent of the person performing them.

 

Just like many christians are doing in helping poor sinners, then attempting to convert them because they aren't good enough morally unless they convert.

I don't agree with you that many Christians hold a false view in this area and none of us perform good deeds out of pure motives, but the Bible is clear that if our motives are wrong when performing acts of kindness and charity, it will be like chaff on the threshing floor, ultimately it will be blown away or burned up with fire.

 

...and I reject your premise. There is such a thing as pure motives in the moment. Humans are both good and bad. We choose what to be. The only thing we can't choose is perfection.

The Bible is clear:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:8

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith...So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.” Gal. 3:10-11, 24

It is not by works that the Bible tells us we are saved, but by trusting in Jesus and the work he completed on the cross.

Those beliefs result from the story of christian salvation. I don't see them in real life. I see good and bad behavior, not the biblical interpretation of it. But many christians want me to believe them, and want to force their biblical morality and views about abortion, church/state, and other social views onto everyone. If all christians did not do this, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and I wouldn't even be on this site.

 

These ideas predated Christianity, they are a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. I'm not sure what you mean that you don't see them in real life, that is simply to assume that the Bible is not discussing real life. Good and bad behaviors are described in the Bible and there is no grounding for objective morality apart from the existence of God, so to discuss good and bad behavior apart from God's existence is simply to discuss opinions, not fact. If abortion is the killing of an innocent life, would you not agree that it would be good to outlaw such a practice? As for church/state ideas, Christians that I know simply favor the enforcing of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution as it is written and intended by the author. However, no Christian is trying to force these views on anyone, we are trying to use the legal and legislative process to enact laws. If you consider that forcing ideas on others, then, that would apply to any person who has promoted a law, including those promoting abortion and other social views on others who disagree with these practices. If these people did not do this, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, and neither of us would be on this site. The blade cuts both ways.

 

LNC

[centauri]

The Bible is clear:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:8

 

It is not by works that the Bible tells us we are saved, but by trusting in Jesus and the work he completed on the cross.

The Bible is not so clear.

Jesus advocated salvation by works in Matt 25.

You've quoted the revisionist theology of Paul.

The Hebrew scriptures promote salvation by works, where the work is repenting and keeping the law.

Jesus has nothing to do with it.

 

Good and bad behaviors are described in the Bible and there is no grounding for objective morality apart from the existence of God, so to discuss good and bad behavior apart from God's existence is simply to discuss opinions, not fact.

Are you equating the Bible to divine objective morality?

Is eating pork good or bad behavior?

[Suzy]

Actually though, interestingly these laws were actually progressive for the day. The norm was to just take the virgin girls rape them and discard them. Instead their law was to stop that sort of behavior by the Jews, saying that if they took them into their bed they were to protect them, take them into their home, and not discard them. To do so was a bad thing. To violate her sexually and leave her the streets was treated as immoral for a Jew to do, so the law was that they had to first take them into their home, let them grieve for 30 days, then essentially marry them, instead of rape them and leave them destitute.

 

 

You are giving YHWH too much credit.

 

¹⁰ When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, ¹¹ if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. ¹² Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails ¹³ and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. ¹⁴If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

 

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

 

So they are still free to discard them after they dishonored them, if they are not pleased with them....

 

This so-called "marriage" is basically God-approved rape in my opinion. Just because they call it a "marriage" it doesn't change what it really is. The guy can take a captive girl, have fun with her for a couple of weeks and then if he gets bored with her he can declare that he's not pleased with her and kick her out. And it's all approved by the mighty God.

 

It's always funny to hear Christians talk about the sanctity of marriage and how it needs to be protected (mostly from gay marriage, of course). It seems like they don't know their own Bible if they think marriage in that book was something sacred (also see the issue of male poligamy which is approved by the Bible!).

[Deva]

I appreciate your honesty regarding your assessment. When Karma is played out in the religions that developed the idea, it seems pretty much as I understand it. For example, India's caste system is a prime example of the system of Karma. People are stuck in their castes based upon their previous lives and the castes may not, for the most part, intermix. This is especially true of the lowest caste of untouchables. It is not a very kind system to that group of people. I understand that different strands of Buddhism have different beliefs and that most Westerners have a flawed understanding of Karma, however, I've done more reading than the average Westerner and believe I have a better understanding than many. This may not be the best forum to debate the subject, but I find it flawed and troublesome as a system for a person's life.

 

I do not subscribe to the caste system or support this idea in any way. It might have been derived from the doctrine of karma (or a twisted idea of karma), but it is a false application of the teaching. Of course, such a system I reject.

 

Karma simply means intentional action. Intentions and patterns of thinking have consequences, and make imprints on a person's mind. In this sense I think karma does have an effect on a person. However, as I have said, it can be broken at any time. The consequences need not happen. I think your Christian system is much more flawed and troublesome. In Christianity you are relying completely on some outside entity - God. This god's ways are not understood and it is a contradictory god as set forth in your scriptures. If a person doesn't believe a dogma, evidently they are going to hell, yet God is supposed to be loving. This is disturbing to me.

 

In Buddhism it is taught that we are responsible for our own actions and thinking. Christians are always blaming some outside agency.

 

 

You're right in saying that redeem means an exchange, although it is not always monetary in nature. We often speak of a person finding redemption for a life of sin or trouble. They exchange their old manner of life for a new one - they turn over a new leaf, as it were. However, I don't see where Buddhism is not about this very idea. It seems that all the teachings are about changing the person, his desires, his actions, his thoughts, from one thing to another. But we were focusing on Karma and whether it is a redemptive idea, and, I don't think it is. I think it is ridden with guilt and fear, not hope and peace.

 

Not exactly. What you are describing isn't what Buddhism is about. You are describing Christianity. The idea of some kind of "new life" is purely a Christian one. Buddhism is about seeing things as they are. It is about removing illusion and negative and wrong ways of thinking that obscure the mind, which in its essence is absolutely pure. I admit that this teaching that the mind is pure is not something many would accept. But certainly in contrast, there is nothing at all intrinsically pure about human beings in Christianity. In fact, Christianity clearly teaches the complete opposite. There is nothing good in human beings because of original sin. Therefore, you can do nothing about your condition. But, then again, I suppose it depends on what version of Christianity you are looking at.

 

To me, Christianity is ridden with guilt and fear. After all, again, you can do nothing about your situation. All you can do is trust in a capricious and unknown God. Even his own followers can't agree on what he said.

[Antlerman]

Actually though, interestingly these laws were actually progressive for the day. The norm was to just take the virgin girls rape them and discard them. Instead their law was to stop that sort of behavior by the Jews, saying that if they took them into their bed they were to protect them, take them into their home, and not discard them. To do so was a bad thing. To violate her sexually and leave her the streets was treated as immoral for a Jew to do, so the law was that they had to first take them into their home, let them grieve for 30 days, then essentially marry them, instead of rape them and leave them destitute.

 

 

You are giving YHWH too much credit.

Oh course you know I don't believe any of these laws came from a god....

 

¹⁰ When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, ¹¹ if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. ¹² Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails ¹³ and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. ¹⁴If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

 

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

 

So they are still free to discard them after they dishonored them, if they are not pleased with them....

I don't think that is what is being said here, that 'dishonoring' them was having sex with them. It pretty clearly states that if you want her, you have to make her your wife, and only after the 30 days of mourning have passed. You can't have sex until she has become your wife. When it says 'If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes...", I don't believe this is referring to after they have been married. This isn't referring to divorce. If she was now his wife, then laws concerning wives would apply. I believe it's referring to him changing his mind about her before he marries her, and the rules about how to act towards her in that situation.

 

The "you have dishonored her" would be from the fact that to break a commitment to marriage in those days was for all practical purposes just as bad as getting a divorce itself! He would have essentially chosen to save her from the slave market following her family being killed in war because he found favor in her; brought her into his home with the intent to make her his wife (which would have actually been a better fate for the woman to be made his wife where she would have been protected as his wife by the law); then should he choose to not marry her, he was now not allowed to sell her into slavery because he would have dishonored her by first honoring her by bringing her into his home intending to marry her, and then casting her off. Intending to marry someone was to honor them. To break that was a dishonor to them.

 

It puts the responsibility on him to not take lightly choosing to make a surviving woman of a battle his wife. In other words, he can't just choose to do as he pleases with her. He would have changed her status the moment he brought her into his home. He would have been committed to marry her, and to break that commitment would have been a dishonorable thing! The laws surrounding marriage and intent to marriage would now apply to him. He could no more 'just have sex' with her and dump her, than he could any other woman. And that was the point of this law.

 

Strangely, in that day this was in fact a step forward from what normally happened. In this sense they are moral laws. And yes, absolutely no disagreement that by today's standards this seems quite primitive. To say they are absolute laws for all humans in all ages is ridiculous.

 

This so-called "marriage" is basically God-approved rape in my opinion.

Bear in mind that arranged marriage was how marriage occurred back then as well. Where is choice in that? One could argue that is rape as well, but I don't think that would be fair. It was an arrangement of relationships, an arrangement of how marriages were formed. Rape is in a different class of behaviors.

 

The point is they were trying to prevent rape by bringing it under the umbrella of marriage laws, where there was a least social rules about these things. A rapist attacks a woman and leaves her to lay in the street. She is victimized physically and socially. To make some woman a wife in that culture brought a huge amount of social responsibility with it. He was not allowed to just have his way with her. He had to be responsible for her, and towards her. She would be his wife and thus be protected from others. She couldn't be made a slave, she couldn't be beaten, she couldn't be sold, he couldn't just cast her off, and so on.

 

Under those circumstances, in that culture, it would not be the same as rape. Strange as it may appear to us today, these laws were there to protect women. Otherwise, they were vulnerable to that sort of abuse in society. Again, yes in today's world this doesn't fit at all, and would be considered a violation of our modern society. Clearly so. But we can't necessarily judge morality and laws as absolutes today as modern people, anymore than your Christians can judge them as absolutes coming from the premodern world. For us to do so is in essence taking the exact same "God says it" mode thinking, but just from today's perspective.

 

Just because they call it a "marriage" it doesn't change what it really is.

Actually, legally, and morally in the culture, yes it did. Again, is an arranged marriage rape?

 

The guy can take a captive girl, have fun with her for a couple of weeks and then if he gets bored with her he can declare that he's not pleased with her and kick her out.

Again that's not how I read that passage, and it wouldn't make any sense for it to even be there at all if that's what it was condoning.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello LNC!

 

Thanks again for your reply.

 

BAA: Are the terms Hubble volume and visible universe interchangeable? LNC: Technically, no they are not. The boundary of the Hubble volume is the point at which objects are moving faster than the speed of light as they expand the bounds of the universe, so the observable universe is beyond that boundary.

 

Ummm... don't you actually mean, "...so the observable universe is within that boundary"?

Whatever is beyond the boundary of the observable universe, is, surely, un-observable by us? Yes?

 

BAA: Sorry, but I'm still confused LNC, so could you please provide a much more detailed, in-depth explanation that covers all of the salients points? Thanks!

LNC: Really, you are asking for a lot here. Is it that you don't understand the concept of infinite or that you believe I don't? I think my definition is technically all that is required for the purpose of our conversation unless you have specific details you would like for me to flesh out.

 

Hey! Easy there LNC! Easy.

There's no need to be so thin-skinned and defensive about this.

I'm certainly not calling your understanding of the concept of the infinite into question here.

 

Au contraire.

Who else around here but you is smart enough and well-read enough to understand the concept of infinity? I know that I'm not, hence my (hopefully polite) request for your help. I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way and considered it as some kind of slight or snub.

 

Anyway, since I've been reading up on Cantor's definitions of Infinity, I now realize that his concept of a Physical Infinity is one you don't seem to hold with. By asserting your belief that our (observable) universe isn't infinitely old, I presume you reject the this particular type of Infinity?

So how about the other two? Mathematical Infinity and Absolute Infinity? What's you p.o.v. on these?

 

BAA: What do you mean by, 'a series of temporal positions'? Isn't a 'position' a characteristic of space, not time? Please explain further.

LNC: I wasn't necessarily using the term as a physical position, but rather a marking in a series of events. I believe I explained that in my response as marking past, present, and future. It is the measurement of the sequencing of events and their duration. However, to be accurate and detailed would take much more space and "time" than I have to devote to the answer. As Augustine said, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; but, if I wish to explain it to one who asks, I know not." (Confessions).

 

Hmmm... so you've got (presumably) a good working understanding of the concept of infinity, but you can't translate that into an accurate and detailed description of time, because you don't have the time to do so?

Well, that's a pity.

 

BAA: What do you mean by, 'continual transformation'? From what to what?

LNC: A change in some respect from what they were, to what they have become.

BAA: What are the recognized means by which events are characterized as falling into the categories of past, present and future?

LNC: We form concepts based upon our observation of the world. We see change and we perceive things as they were (past), things as they are (present), and anticipate things as they will become (future). I anticipate a meeting that I have on Thursday and know that I set it up yesterday and had to change it today from tomorrow to Thursday. I am writing about it now and you will read it in the future, when I will remember writing it in the past.

 

All very well, but aren't you making sweeping assumptions here?

The concepts we form are based upon our observations of the world, but aren't you assuming that we all observe the world in a the same way, leading to the formation of the same concepts? Yet, when one of us tries to convey these concepts to another via the medium of language, is there really that much agreement? I'd say, not really. Language seems to fail us just as much as it helps us. Your thoughts?

 

BAA: Aren't the terms past, present and future just arbitrary manifestations of human consciousness and not real entities in of themselves?

LNC: Are you asking whether time is sequenced? If the past is real? No, I don't see these as arbitrary terms. Do you believe that things that have already occurred are or were real or just arbitrary thoughts in your brain? Or, do you hold to a B-theory that holds that events are tenseless?

 

I'm sorry friend, but before I can answer those questions, could you help me out by explaining what B-Theory is? Thanks.

 

BAA: Btw, I'm certainly keen on a much, much longer discussion! I mean... why not?

What else do you need to be doing? Is there something else important you'd like to be engaged in here?

LNC: I think we've got plenty to think about for now. We can expand as we go along (if in fact we are going along

 

I like that!

 

BAA: So why is our universe (your definition, as above) unlikely to be infinite (your more detailed, in-depth explanation to follow) due to the constraints of time (your answers to my questions on this, to follow)?

Could you please justify why you think this is so?

LNC: I believe that the idea of traversing an infinite span of time is logically problematic. If there are an infinite number of days preceding this day, then it assumes that we have spanned an infinite amount of time to arrive at this day, but we have not and could not as time continues from this point.

 

Uhhh...nope. Sorry, but that's as clear as mud.

That sounds like so much sophistry to me. Sorry about that!

You'll have to water your argument down a bit and bring it closer to the mundane physicality my poor brain can deal with.

 

If we both agree that our (observable) universe can be no more that 13.7 billion years, then it (the observable part, that is) is clearly temporally finite. That concept I have no problem with.

Is that a good starting point? Thanks for any help given.

 

BAA: Why not?

You've clearly got the time to answer the points that the Agnosticator, Deva, Margee, Centauri and others have put to you, so availible time can't be an issue for you, can it?

LNC: My available time varies by the week. I can never predict what my availability is going to be ahead of time.

 

Yes LNC, I can see that you've got time management problems. Tempis fugit, eh?

I’m not sure that understanding the differences between Calvin and Arminius is helpful to understanding the issue of free will as a philosophic issue. They were debating it from a theological application, but both accepted predestination or predetermination of those who would believe as that is not in dispute in the Bible. The real dispute had to do with the effects of original sin on the individual. Arminius held that it had less effect than did Calvin. Also, Arminius believed that the individual played a larger role in his or her salvation than did Calvin, who believed that any such effort by man could count as works. Some later adherents to Arminianism also believed that a person could lose his or her salvation, adding to the belief that man was partially responsible for his salvation.

 

Ah, but what about Centauri's pertinent point about you not knowing the Will and/or Mind of God?

 

Like you, Calvin and Arminius are only men, with the same limited and faulty understanding. Any human 'sees [these things] thru a glass darkly' and cannot hope to achieve any credible level of confidence about these matters. Wouldn't you agree?

Ok, a good working understanding of the concept of infinity will help - but surely that's as far as it goes.

 

Perhaps you know otherwise?

I'd be fascinated to know how you'd go about knowing how God decides these things.

BAA: Thanks for the eloquent reply, but you seem to have overlooked something LNC.

On July 15 you said that your view was somewhat different from the standard Calvinist view.

Presumably this difference is in regard to man's role? Yes?

You see, we still don't know where you stand on the question of how man's role in salvation, vis-a-vis the clearly taught Biblical principals of predestination and election.

This leaves us in the position of not knowing why you believe what you believe. Now I'm sure that you don't want this state of affairs to continue, so if you would be so kind as to apply your considerable intellect to the issue of how and why you differ from the standard Calvinist view, I think we'd all apppreciate it. Thanks.

LNC: The Bible clearly teaches that man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1) and that God makes him alive from sin (Eph. 2:4), so apart from God making man alive from sin, he cannot and will not put his trust in God, but remain in rebellion. Once God makes man alive, he clearly sees himself as a sinner in need of salvation and trusts in Jesus. It is trusting in Jesus that saves the person? No, they were saved when they were made alive by God, but they also truly place faith in Jesus from that point.

 

Oh gosh!

I thought it was the other way round!?

 

Isn't the first step the requirement for man to clearly see himself as a sinner in need of salvation?

Then, realizing that this salvation can only be found in the person of Jesus Christ, he puts his trust in Jesus?

And then, finally, God makes him alive, via the power of the Holy Spirit?

 

You seem to be putting the last step first!

 

Ok, God can bring man to the realization that he is a hell-bound sinner in need of salvation, but surely man is not 'alive' at this point? Surely he's still dead in his sins and in need of Christ's completed work on the cross?

 

Given this and your typo below LNC, perhaps you'd like to check this out and get back to me as to just what it is you're explaining and advocating here? Thanks.

 

BAA: Btw LNC, I couldn't help but notice that you wrote, 'from being dead to sin'. Is that a typo? Did you mean, 'from being dead thru sin'? When sinners are made alive in Christ they become dead to sin, but not before then. That's right, isn't it?

LNC: You are right, it should have read, "dead in sin." Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to correct it.

Hopefully, I kept straight the answers to this set of questions from the last set.

LNC

 

Btw, I appreciate your 'time' LNC.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[chosendarkness]

It's really gets me to hear Christians talk about morality. What exactly is moral about thinking everyone is condemned who doesn't believe like you? If Christians were honest with themselves, they'd see how immoral that is and the effect it has on the world. Bigotry and intolerance is not moral.

[Suzy]

I don't think that is what is being said here, that 'dishonoring' them was having sex with them. It pretty clearly states that if you want her, you have to make her your wife, and only after the 30 days of mourning have passed. You can't have sex until she has become your wife. When it says 'If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes...", I don't believe this is referring to after they have been married. This isn't referring to divorce. If she was now his wife, then laws concerning wives would apply. I believe it's referring to him changing his mind about her before he marries her, and the rules about how to act towards her in that situation.

 

The "you have dishonored her" would be from the fact that to break a commitment to marriage in those days was for all practical purposes just as bad as getting a divorce itself! He would have essentially chosen to save her from the slave market following her family being killed in war because he found favor in her; brought her into his home with the intent to make her his wife (which would have actually been a better fate for the woman to be made his wife where she would have been protected as his wife by the law); then should he choose to not marry her, he was now not allowed to sell her into slavery because he would have dishonored her by first honoring her by bringing her into his home intending to marry her, and then casting her off. Intending to marry someone was to honor them. To break that was a dishonor to them.

 

It puts the responsibility on him to not take lightly choosing to make a surviving woman of a battle his wife. In other words, he can't just choose to do as he pleases with her. He would have changed her status the moment he brought her into his home. He would have been committed to marry her, and to break that commitment would have been a dishonorable thing! The laws surrounding marriage and intent to marriage would now apply to him. He could no more 'just have sex' with her and dump her, than he could any other woman. And that was the point of this law.

 

Strangely, in that day this was in fact a step forward from what normally happened. In this sense they are moral laws. And yes, absolutely no disagreement that by today's standards this seems quite primitive. To say they are absolute laws for all humans in all ages is ridiculous.

 

Well, in the Hungarian Bible the verb is "megrontottad" which means corrupting (morally), depraving, seducing. That seems pretty clear. We use this verb when someone sexually abuses a sexually innocent person (eg. when an adult sexually abuses a child or when someone forcefully takes someones virginity).

I'm not saying the Hungarian translation is error-free, but I cannot check out the original word used here, because I don't speak Hebrew, but the Hungarian translation at least seems to confirm what I also think when I read this "dishonoring" in the context in the English version. It doesn't make any sense to put this verb (I mean the Hungarian verb) in the interpretation you have given about "dishonoring". If that verb is translated from Hebrew remotely correctly then it cannot mean just letting the girl go before marrying her and before having sex with her. The Hungarian word at least clearly means her virginity is taken, she is "corrupted", "depraved".

 

 

 

 

Bear in mind that arranged marriage was how marriage occurred back then as well. Where is choice in that? One could argue that is rape as well, but I don't think that would be fair. It was an arrangement of relationships, an arrangement of how marriages were formed. Rape is in a different class of behaviors.

 

The point is they were trying to prevent rape by bringing it under the umbrella of marriage laws, where there was a least social rules about these things. A rapist attacks a woman and leaves her to lay in the street. She is victimized physically and socially. To make some woman a wife in that culture brought a huge amount of social responsibility with it. He was not allowed to just have his way with her. He had to be responsible for her, and towards her. She would be his wife and thus be protected from others. She couldn't be made a slave, she couldn't be beaten, she couldn't be sold, he couldn't just cast her off, and so on.

 

YHWH was totally cool with rape as a weapon in warfare:

 

13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;

and the earth will shake from its place

at the wrath of the LORD Almighty,

in the day of his burning anger.

 

14 Like a hunted gazelle,

like sheep without a shepherd,

they will all return to their own people,

they will flee to their native land.

15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;

all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;

their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

 

17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,

who do not care for silver

and have no delight in gold.

18 Their bows will strike down the young men;

they will have no mercy on infants,

nor will they look with compassion on children.

 

(Isaiah 13:13-18)

 

Under those circumstances, in that culture, it would not be the same as rape. Strange as it may appear to us today, these laws were there to protect women.

 

 

Only if your interpretation of the word "dishonor" in this context is correct. Which I'm not sure of. From the Bible I get the feeling YHWH didn't give a damn about women in general (well, not more than about other possessions of men, like live stock). I also think different rules and laws applied within the nation than outside of it. So it was forbidden to kill your "neighbor" - a fellow Israelite - but it wasn't forbidden to kill someone from another nation, in fact God ordered his nation to kill other people all the time. Same with rape. It was forbidden to rape an Israelite woman (although it wasn't considered a serious crime - the guy paid 50 shekels and married the woman he raped and that was it - so basically if you wanted to marry a woman and otherwise you had no chance to do so, you only had to rape her and she's yours), but it wasn't forbidden to rape women from other nations. I suspect the woman mentioned in Deuteronomy was in a kind of "mixed" situation. She still could be forced to have sex, but the guy had to "marry" her. But he could also kick her out if he was not pleased with her. On the other hand he wasn't allowed to sell her as a slave.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Suzy!

 

Perhaps these will help?

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

 

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm *

 

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

 

*Note.

This one is especially good because it uses Strong's Numbers.

Are you familiar with these?

 

Well, if not, please click on the link at it will take you to Genesis 1:1.

Once there, you'll see that each Hebrew word has a number written above in blue.

So, you should see the following sequence...

 

776 - 776 - 853 - 8064 - 853 - 430 - 1254 - 7225

 

If you click on each number, you'll get a good explanation of the word's origin, meaning and usage.

This should help you investigate any part of the Old Testament and give you an idea of what was meant by it.

 

Have fun!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[agnosticator]

One need only go to a nursery school to see that kids are territorial with the toys in the place and protective of the ones they are playing with, while other kids seem to have an eye for the toys the other kid has got, no matter how many other toys are available.

 

I have also witnessed toddlers sharing toys, gladly giving theirs to others.

 

The knowing is an experiential knowing, not a conceptual knowing.....The same is true in the way that Adam and Eve knew good and evil in this case. They knew that it was evil to disobey God and eat from the tree, otherwise, why feel guilt and hide themselves after doing so when God approached in the garden.

 

They felt guilt because they had just come to know evil and good for the first time. They were no longer innocent. They made a decision to go against a command. Where does it say they knew what they were getting into, or that it was evil? Nowhere is it mentioned that they conceptually knew what good/evil were. "Their eyes were opened", hence the guilt.

[agnosticator]

If it is not a thing, then of what are we speaking?

 

If you mean moral quality as an object of thought, then it is a thing. Otherwise I don't see how.

 

I still don't agree. Actions done with wrong motives may have a good effect on the recipient, but I still wouldn't call them morally good. For example, suppose a person stole medicines necessary to sustain the life of a young child and gave them to an old person with the same disease. Would we call that a moral good? It would be beneficial to the old person, but the action was also detrimental to the young child.

 

Morality is how we treat each other with our actions. Stealing a child's medicine is a morally bad ACTION. Our motives affect our actions, but they aren't the actions themselves. My heart could be in the right place, while the resulting action can do more harm than good (like proselytizing, for example).

 

I don't agree with you that many Christians hold a false view in this area and none of us perform good deeds out of pure motives, but the Bible is clear that if our motives are wrong when performing acts of kindness and charity, it will be like chaff on the threshing floor, ultimately it will be blown away or burned up with fire.

 

A christian may mean well doing good works, but among their motives, are to convert. The good works are helpful and morally good. But the effect of condemnation (threat if one doesn't believe) upon the potential convert can be psychologically harmful, or evil.

 

If our motives are wrong, but our actions are right or good, our motives are irrelevant to human morality.

 

I'm not sure what you mean that you don't see them in real life, that is simply to assume that the Bible is not discussing real life.

 

You said,"Evil, sin, rebellion, and hell are Christian beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they are false or not believed outside of Christianity." I see bad or wrongdoing, like murder,theft, etc., but not what you have said.

 

 

If abortion is the killing of an innocent life, would you not agree that it would be good to outlaw such a practice?

 

The issue of abortion is not that simple, and I won't go off on a tangent on this thread.

 

As for church/state ideas, Christians that I know simply favor the enforcing of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution as it is written and intended by the author. However, no Christian is trying to force these views on anyone, we are trying to use the legal and legislative process to enact laws.

 

Everyone has a right to use the legal system, but not for their exclusive religious beliefs to be given priority in schools that are publicly funded (creationism). There are christians who want state funding to support their churches. If they were solely non-profit organizations without a religious agenda I'd agree to let them use tax money. But they aren't. They don't even pay taxes, which I think they should. In this way, they don't help the Common Good.

[Suzy]

Hey Suzy!

 

Perhaps these will help?

 

http://www.scripture...ebrew_Index.htm

 

http://interlinearbi...g/genesis/1.htm *

 

http://www.mechon-ma...rg/p/pt/pt0.htm

 

*Note.

This one is especially good because it uses Strong's Numbers.

Are you familiar with these?

 

Well, if not, please click on the link at it will take you to Genesis 1:1.

Once there, you'll see that each Hebrew word has a number written above in blue.

So, you should see the following sequence...

 

776 - 776 - 853 - 8064 - 853 - 430 - 1254 - 7225

 

If you click on each number, you'll get a good explanation of the word's origin, meaning and usage.

This should help you investigate any part of the Old Testament and give you an idea of what was meant by it.

 

Have fun!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Thanks. So the word according to this http://strongsnumber...hebrew/6031.htm is "defile".

 

abase self, defile

 

A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows) -- abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise.

 

 

The word "defile" does suggest the same as how it was translated into Hungarian.

[Antlerman]

Thanks. So the word according to this http://strongsnumber...hebrew/6031.htm is "defile".

 

abase self, defile

 

A primitive root (possibly rather ident. With anah through the idea of looking down or browbeating); to depress literally or figuratively, transitive or intransitive (in various applications, as follows) -- abase self, afflict(-ion, self), answer (by mistake for anah), chasten self, deal hardly with, defile, exercise, force, gentleness, humble (self), hurt, ravish, sing (by mistake for anah), speak (by mistake for anah), submit self, weaken, X in any wise.

 

 

The word "defile" does suggest the same as how it was translated into Hungarian.

Yes, after our discussion yesterday I went upstairs and drug out my old Strong's Concordance along with my Interlinear Bible out of storage and looked at the Hebrew word anah. What I could see was the same word was used in a couple similar passages with the next chapter as well. The context does clearly suggest 'abased' in the context of having had sexual intercourse. So my thoughts that the humbling was breaking the contract before marriage would be incorrect.

 

However, I don't believe the word in those contexts would mean rape. Again the man would have sent her off after marriage, and the rule for divorcing her in that situation meant she was now completely free to choose where she went with her life afterward. The marriage freed her from becoming a slave. Another of the other two passages using the word refer to a man having sex with the wife of another man, that he 'humbled' her; the other to an unmarried woman. Being 'humbled' doesn't necessarily mean in the sense that she had been forced into sex against her will. I would need to confirm this, but I would suspect that in the case of a common divorce they might also be able to say that the divorced woman was now "humbled" because she'd already had sexual relations.

 

The situation with a captive woman being made a wife, to you and to me would seem all her 'rights' had been taken from her, including her 'right' to choose whom to have sex with. But again, I highly doubt that that mode of thinking was present. "My rights", etc, are more modern a concept. I think I was trying to get at that in equating this with arranged marriages, about how marriage occurred and how people viewed and approached their roles within them were hardly how we view marriage today in a modern Romantic Western context.

 

As for the other passage you posted yesterday from the much later book of Isaiah, I read that over a few times in the context of the chapter and how that read was that God was going to punish the Babylonians by sending judgment against them in the form of an invading army (not the Jews). Isaiah describes in terrifying detailed to them what it will be like to be invaded by this army and the horrors they will inflict upon them, including raping their women. It is a description of war in an attempt to frighten them. Is that YHWH directly "ordering rape" in the mind of Isaiah?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am in agreement that the morality of the OT was a whole different world than what ours is. I don't in the least agree that these laws are absolutes for all humans, or that God was the source of these and are therefore 100% good and righteous. Most clearly not. They are very much culturally evolved rules put into the mouth of their deity as part of the system they used for values and rules as a society. That said though, I am interested in understanding the context in order to best be able to frame my understanding of them with an eye towards cultural evolution.

 

And back to the passage about marrying a captive, the point again was that it was to place it into the context of a marriage, and not just 'have at this victim sexually'. He was required to marry her, wait 30 days first, let her morn, let her acculturate, then be married. If afterward, after he married her, he wanted a divorce, then she is now absolutely freed to do what she wants. His marrying her freed her from being a slave. He changed her status from slave to free.

 

To me, I find that view a more intriguing understanding of our evolution as cultures. I don't believe humans are evil at heart, but I believe we do have to evolve. This was just an example of early societies trying to figure out the world. Eventually, women moved up in status within cultures as part of that, and we still have a long ways to go even 3000 years later.