willhud9 wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Remember the sabbath day and honour they parents?

IVV. HONOR YOUR PARENTS, and VVI. YOU SHALL NOT KILL.

FIFY

But in doing so, you 'fixed it' for quite a lot of other people too. I think perhaps you two were simply working from different 'versions'.

willhud9 wrote:
No Christian morality is not loosey-goosey. Have I said that adultery is fine? That is the seventh commandment. I said violence in response to adultery is not fine. That standard is subject to change. The former, adultery, is not.

But had you lived back in those days, you would have said violence in response to adultery is fine. And you'd have the same God 'above' you. This is similar to slavery; why didn't God - when first he gave them a ton of laws and regulations - ban slavery, and ban violent acts toward an adulterous wife, if we now (rightly?) see the banning of those as the most moral? You could say he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves, but he didn't seem shy to give direct laws about a whole number of things.

Stephen Fry commented on this in this manner.

The old god allowed polygamy though, and muslim men can have non-muslim lovers, so god's law may not be clear on adultery.

if men are inspired by god's law prohibiting adultery to dream up punishments for it, then the punishment is religious not secular, if men are incorrect about their interpretation of god's law it doesn't make them secular, because their motivation is religious.

Proof-texting time!

Deuteronomy 22:22: If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die. Both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 21:9: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father. She shall be burnt with fire.

Oh I know, I know, St. Paul suspended some laws from the Hebrew Bible. Despite the fact that there's a saying attributed to Jesus, son of Joseph, to the effect that not a jot or tittle of the law shall pass away, and in the divorce sayings, some of the best attested sayings in the NT, Jesus is down on adultery.

So extracting a core message of "adultery bad" from the enthusiasm for killing adulterers seems arbitrary. Unless you're ditching the whole biblical inspiration gig, in which case, you lose even the "adultery bad" component. Extracting a general precept from the particulars of its expression isn't god-given morality, it's making it up as you go along.

Byron wrote:Proof-texting time!

Deuteronomy 22:22: If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die. Both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

A God who was trying to get Israel to become a complete and holy[set apart] nation who instead of sinning were determined to live a life pleasing to God, I can see this law as being plausible and even necessary. The people who Moses was addressing in the book were the people who were descended from the people who even after witnessing God's miracles time and time and time and time and time again, still grumbled and complained that God was not doing enough for them.

Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 21:9: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father. She shall be burnt with fire.

First of all the end of Leviticus, is informally known as the Holiness code. This section was aimed nearly directly at the priesthood. In fact, most of the book was related to keeping God's covenant and how the priesthood as well as the populace should behave in regards to keeping God's covenant holy. Leviticus means "Relating to the Levites" who were the religious tribe of Israel, the tribe God specifically chose to be the priesthood.

Second of all, many Biblical scholars are dubious about how much of Leviticus is still applicable being that Levite law ended after Christ.

Finally, do not fall into a trap that I know many people do that Deuteronomy is simply a reiteration or retelling of the Book of Leviticus. They are two completely separate books, each with their own purpose and theme.

Oh I know, I know, St. Paul suspended some laws from the Hebrew Bible. Despite the fact that there's a saying attributed to Jesus, son of Joseph, to the effect that not a jot or tittle of the law shall pass away, and in the divorce sayings, some of the best attested sayings in the NT, Jesus is down on adultery.

The fact that everyone seems to think Paul contradicts Jesus is a laughable matter. Read Romans 7. In fact read the Book of Romans. There is essentially the entire Christian theology in a nutshell. Anything else was added by the church and subject to change.

Regardless, if a Christians says the law was bad and should not have been followed etc. then I wish to Gibb slap them and tell them that Paul himself supported the law. The law's primary purpose was to show our sinful nature that instead of dutifully following the standard's God would give, we constantly missed the mark. Jesus explained this in his Sermon of the Mount. He raised the bar on the "law." Not to make it difficult for people, but to show them that the law was meant to show one primary thing. People need to completely surrender themselves and trust in God. Paul understood this and preached about it. Peter understood it and preached about it.

So extracting a core message of "adultery bad" from the enthusiasm for killing adulterers seems arbitrary.

Odd. What enthusiasm? Do you think people cheered as an adulteress and adulterer were brought before the people? Hardly.

Unless you're ditching the whole biblical inspiration gig, in which case, you lose even the "adultery bad" component.

I'm not. I am going not off of the standard of the law. I am going off the standard of Christ. Who quite frankly is more powerful than the law. Romans 7 for you again.

Extracting a general precept from the particulars of its expression isn't god-given morality, it's making it up as you go along.

Or its called treating the Bible, both Old and New as an entire set and recognizing what each piece of the set means. If you pick and choose and hold each individually, that is when you get "making it up as you go."

John P. M. wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

IVV. HONOR YOUR PARENTS, and VVI. YOU SHALL NOT KILL.

FIFY

But in doing so, you 'fixed it' for quite a lot of other people too. I think perhaps you two were simply working from different 'versions'.

I was working from the Talmund. Regardless, the Ten Commandments are meant to be read as a whole and not a pick and choose. There is no "greater commandment/lesser commandment"

Oh, you have reached the "I know what's what" stage of your religious journey. I used to know what was what.

John P. M. wrote:Oh, you have reached the "I know what's what" stage of your religious journey. I used to know what was what.

What are you talking about? I am merely trying to have discourse about religious thought. I find myself in disagreement with Bryon and Moses and therefore have written rebuttals attempting to address issues they have raised. I am not claiming I "know what's what" I am merely giving my evaluation of the subject at hand.

Does no one else see the fucking hilarity of the bible being used to define moral behavior? That is, unless you're a weapons grade picker of cherries.

The_Metatron wrote:Does no one else see the fucking hilarity of the bible being used to define moral behavior? That is, unless you're a weapons grade picker of cherries.

Well I certainly do.

When I was a boy I used to play pick-up-sticks.



In another place and in another time a similarity to that activity was deadly… brutally deadly.

Numbers 15:32-40 KJV
32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
37 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them ; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
40 That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

From a previous message…

Byron wrote:
So extracting a core message of "adultery bad" from the enthusiasm for killing adulterers seems arbitrary.

Willhud9 wrote:
Odd. What enthusiasm? Do you think people cheered as an adulteress and adulterer were brought before the people? Hardly.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=876378#p876378

No, I doubt that they cheered, but God had them partake in an out-and-out savage murder for a (stick) crime that today wouldn’t cause an eyelash to move.

If god is the author of morality, what is he teaching us here?

Skinny Puppy wrote:

No, I doubt that they cheered, but God had them partake in an out-and-out savage murder for a (stick) crime that today wouldn’t cause an eyelash to move.

If god is the author of morality, what is he teaching us here?

That he should have been paying attention when God gave unto Moses the law that said Remember the Sabbath. Next, the Bible is very good, or bad (depends on how you look at it) of giving a full picture. The man picking up sticks could have had a heart rebellious to God and therefore God said he should be put to death. Needless to say, God was stressing onto the Israelites the importance of being holy to the Lord. As I said earlier these were not the people who could be told once and understood it. These people complained, grumbled, and disobeyed God countless of times throughout Exodus, Numbers and even Joshua.

willhud9 wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

No, I doubt that they cheered, but God had them partake in an out-and-out savage murder for a (stick) crime that today wouldn’t cause an eyelash to move.

If god is the author of morality, what is he teaching us here?

That he should have been paying attention when God gave unto Moses the law that said Remember the Sabbath. Next, the Bible is very good, or bad (depends on how you look at it) of giving a full picture. The man picking up sticks could have had a heart rebellious to God and therefore God said he should be put to death. Needless to say, God was stressing onto the Israelites the importance of being holy to the Lord. As I said earlier these were not the people who could be told once and understood it. These people complained, grumbled, and disobeyed God countless of times throughout Exodus, Numbers and even Joshua.

Willhud9 wrote:
That he should have been paying attention when God gave unto Moses the law that said Remember the Sabbath.

You said “the law” and therein lies the problem. The laws that God gave to Moses are barbaric. There’s simply no way to sugar-coat them. In their time they would have been considered to be just and fair since other nations’ laws were no better or no worse (give or take) and cruelty and death were the norm, not the exception.

However, this raises a problem. God transcends time and knows all. His justice should be an example to all nations throughout all times. His condemnation of slavery when slavery was in vogue would have been upsetting to almost all of mankind at the time, but it would now have passed the test of time and would be shown to be the truth and the moral way to treat one’s fellow man. God’s laws would truly be just laws even though it would have taken mankind 10s of centuries to realize it. Yet the opposite is true, neither God nor Jesus condemned slavery. (You know this, I’m explaining much of this for those reading.)

The omission of slavery from the bible might be overlooked except for one thing. God tells his people not only how to treat their slaves, he tells them to take slaves and he tells them how much they can beat them and how they can kill them without incurring his wrath. How can a just God do that? How could Jesus allow that?

I could go on and on, but for now, let’s address slavery and qualify it with a just god.

Next, the Bible is very good, or bad (depends on how you look at it) of giving a full picture.

I agree on that point… no argument there.

The man picking up sticks could have had a heart rebellious to God and therefore God said he should be put to death.

You said “could have” I can also justifiably say “didn’t have”. Since the bible doesn’t address that issue it’s open to interpretation, but my opinion is that reading between the lines is a major cause of diversion within the Christian community. When I was a theist I read what was there, not what I wanted to be there. (Although I’ll be honest with you, we (my church) did take a few liberties.)

Needless to say, God was stressing onto the Israelites the importance of being holy to the Lord. As I said earlier these were not the people who could be told once and understood it. These people complained, grumbled, and disobeyed God countless of times throughout Exodus, Numbers and even Joshua.

I agree with you that the Israelites were rebellious, to the point of being almost obnoxious, but once again I must question this.

Why did this man that picked up sticks have to take their sins and their rebelliousness and have it fostered upon himself? I believe that’s what you’re implying? If God is truly just and holy, why would he make that man an example for all? We expect this type of justice from mortals, not from a god.

Why couldn’t God have shown him mercy? Since he didn’t, then why couldn’t God have simply ordered his execution without having everyone partake of it?

It’s odd too, the entire group work in harmony to murder this man and yet they go scot-free under the laws of God, and in fact, they’re doing it at the direction and with the approval of God. And yet a man picks up some sticks on the Sabbath and he is brutally murdered for that. Doesn’t that strike you as a miscarriage of justice?

Basically…

Pick up sticks = condemned to death by God.

Kill a man = receive the blessings of God.

How do we reconcile this with a loving God?

And from above, how do we justify God's and Jesus' approval of slavery?

willhud9 wrote:

John P. M. wrote:Oh, you have reached the "I know what's what" stage of your religious journey. I used to know what was what.

What are you talking about? I am merely trying to have discourse about religious thought. I find myself in disagreement with Bryon and Moses and therefore have written rebuttals attempting to address issues they have raised. I am not claiming I "know what's what" I am merely giving my evaluation of the subject at hand.

Err.. excuse me, but you have repeatedly claimed that you've been given the "Gift of the Prophet" by God himself, which you assured me in a previous discussion is a requirement in order to know how to interpret the Bible properly.

If that's not a case of "I know what's what" then I'm a Dutchman!

If you're now claiming you DON'T have the Gift of the Prophet, then of course everything you say about the Bible must be taken with a grain of salt.

If you're now claiming that one doesn't NEED the Gift of the Prophet, then I'll happily return to the point we were talking about 6 or so months ago, when you assured me that the Gift of the Prophet was doled out by God to some lucky individuals in order that his otherwise-unfathomable autobiography could be understood by at least an elect few, and we can continue THAT discussion.

Now, while you're here....

I love your new avatar, Will, but I just have to ask... Do you roll up on your little bike wearing those clothes when you run your sex and relationship counselling sessions for grown-ups?

John P. M. wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
No Christian morality is not loosey-goosey. Have I said that adultery is fine? That is the seventh commandment. I said violence in response to adultery is not fine. That standard is subject to change. The former, adultery, is not.

But had you lived back in those days, you would have said violence in response to adultery is fine. And you'd have the same God 'above' you. This is similar to slavery; why didn't God - when first he gave them a ton of laws and regulations - ban slavery, and ban violent acts toward an adulterous wife, if we now (rightly?) see the banning of those as the most moral? You could say he wanted us to figure it out for ourselves, but he didn't seem shy to give direct laws about a whole number of things.

Stephen Fry commented on this in this manner.

I love that bit. I was going to post this link, so bump on this while embedding the clip

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFS_hkHfCc[/youtube]

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

John P. M. wrote:Oh, you have reached the "I know what's what" stage of your religious journey. I used to know what was what.

What are you talking about? I am merely trying to have discourse about religious thought. I find myself in disagreement with Bryon and Moses and therefore have written rebuttals attempting to address issues they have raised. I am not claiming I "know what's what" I am merely giving my evaluation of the subject at hand.

Err.. excuse me, but you have repeatedly claimed that you've been given the "Gift of the Prophet" by God himself, which you assured me in a previous discussion is a requirement in order to know how to interpret the Bible properly.

First of all, the Gift of Prophecy is one of the spiritual gifts which help in Biblical interpretation. The others are knowledge and wisdom.

Next, a spiritual gift is a gift. Meaning before I became a Christian I did not have that gift. I know knowledge is not my gift because I have always had a passion to learn and increase my knowledge through rational discourse. I know wisdom is not my gift because I have book smarts, but do not have the experience to apply it.

Next, like everyone else(Aquinas, Augustine), I can get it wrong. And as Skinny Puppy's argument he wrote above is actually one I am trying to formulate an answer to, it is not rare that I get it wrong. I am not God.

Next, since I wish to impart what a "prophecy" does because I think I may have been unclear, it means that I boldly speak the "word of God" As Paul writes in Corinthians, prophecy is pretty much useless in the apologetics standpoint because it does nothing to convince a non-Christian. Which I realize, I do not post here for any reason aside from having a good time in debate. If my reasons were something else, I would most likely have been banned by now .

But, Cookie, I would like to let you know, that I do not look at myself as "the prophet" I look at my gift I have as something I was blessed with. Because I know that without I would not have the guts to tell the church, "Hey wake up and stop slouching" which is the primary role of a prophet. Of course, I could be deluding myself and have low self-esteem issues, but I tend to look on the bright-side of things!

If that's not a case of "I know what's what" then I'm a Dutchman!

Yes, but I can very much well be wrong. Which the post Skinny Puppy posted above is sorely tempting me to say, "Well that is a good point." Besides this thread what a bit farther than I planned to argue. I was simply dealing with the issue of adultery/punishment thereof, but we switched focus to metaphysics and whether morals come from God. To which I am no expert and ill-informed on the subject.

If you're now claiming you DON'T have the Gift of the Prophet, then of course everything you say about the Bible must be taken with a grain of salt.

Too be honest, I am not 100% sure if I have that gift or not. But then again, I do not know any Christian who can say for a 100% certainty they know what there gift is. Evaluating the other gifts, I simply ruled out which ones I know I do not have the ability or drive to do.

If you're now claiming that one doesn't NEED the Gift of the Prophet, then I'll happily return to the point we were talking about 6 or so months ago, when you assured me that the Gift of the Prophet was doled out by God to some lucky individuals in order that his otherwise-unfathomable autobiography could be understood by at least an elect few, and we can continue THAT discussion.

If I said that one needed the gift of prophecy to understand scripture I apologize because that was wrong, foolish, and most important scripturally incorrect of me to say. Now does the gift of prophecy help in understanding Biblical information and interpretation? Of course, how can you speak boldly to the elect if you have no idea what you are speaking about? But any Christian can study the Bible, in fact, I encourage my brothers and sisters to read and study the Bible and not take my sermons or my Pastors sermons to heart without validating and/or thinking about them first.

Now, while you're here....

I love your new avatar, Will, but I just have to ask... Do you roll up on your little bike wearing those clothes when you run your sex and relationship councelling sessions for grown-ups?

Too be honest, I just bought that Bike, being a huge fan of off-road biking, and seeing that my other one finally died on me a few weeks ago, I thought a new Bike was in order. The handlebar snapped off as I jumped a ditch But my brother took the picture and so I figured it was time to update my avatar

willhud9 wrote:Of course, how can you speak boldly to the elect if you have no idea what you are speaking about?

Is that some sort of joke??

willhud9 wrote:

Now, while you're here....

I love your new avatar, Will, but I just have to ask... Do you roll up on your little bike wearing those clothes when you run your sex and relationship councelling sessions for grown-ups?

Too be honest, I just bought that Bike, being a huge fan of off-road biking, and seeing that my other one finally died on me a few weeks ago, I thought a new Bike was in order. The handlebar snapped off as I jumped a ditch But my brother took the picture and so I figured it was time to update my avatar

Oh stop it Will!! You're killing me!!!!

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Of course, how can you speak boldly to the elect if you have no idea what you are speaking about?

Is that some sort of joke??

Thinking about it, it sounds like one, because I know plenty of people who apparently do. But it was not intended as one. Me personally, I like to know what I am talking about before I speak about it.

willhud9 wrote:

Now, while you're here....

I love your new avatar, Will, but I just have to ask... Do you roll up on your little bike wearing those clothes when you run your sex and relationship councelling sessions for grown-ups?

Too be honest, I just bought that Bike, being a huge fan of off-road biking, and seeing that my other one finally died on me a few weeks ago, I thought a new Bike was in order. The handlebar snapped off as I jumped a ditch But my brother took the picture and so I figured it was time to update my avatar

Oh stop it Will!! You're killing me!!!!

what am I doing....

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

John P. M. wrote:Oh, you have reached the "I know what's what" stage of your religious journey. I used to know what was what.

What are you talking about? I am merely trying to have discourse about religious thought. I find myself in disagreement with Bryon and Moses and therefore have written rebuttals attempting to address issues they have raised. I am not claiming I "know what's what" I am merely giving my evaluation of the subject at hand.

Err.. excuse me, but you have repeatedly claimed that you've been given the "Gift of the Prophet" by God himself, which you assured me in a previous discussion is a requirement in order to know how to interpret the Bible properly.

If that's not a case of "I know what's what" then I'm a Dutchman!

I hadn’t known about any of this, but Will kind of lost me when he dismissed Thomas Aquinas as an infallible human, only to then turn around and tell me about a big thesis he wrote explaining how the Bible translators “messed up” on the matter of homosexuality.

On an unrelated note, Will, I did not know that was you in your avatar. And I mean this as a sincere compliment when I say that I thought it was the very excellent Neal Schweiber from one of my all-time favorite TV programs, Freaks & Geeks. There’s an episode where the kids ride bikes around the neighborhood and find out that Neal’s dad is having an affair. I think it’s the same episode where Ken dates a hermaphrodite. But that’s neither here nor there. Had I been more observant, I would've noticed that your bicycle is too current, and that the outfit is a little too casual for Neal's tastes.

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

What are you talking about? I am merely trying to have discourse about religious thought. I find myself in disagreement with Bryon and Moses and therefore have written rebuttals attempting to address issues they have raised. I am not claiming I "know what's what" I am merely giving my evaluation of the subject at hand.

Err.. excuse me, but you have repeatedly claimed that you've been given the "Gift of the Prophet" by God himself, which you assured me in a previous discussion is a requirement in order to know how to interpret the Bible properly.

If that's not a case of "I know what's what" then I'm a Dutchman!

I hadn’t known about any of this, but Will kind of lost me when he dismissed Thomas Aquinas as an infallible human, only to then turn around and tell me about a big thesis he wrote explaining how the Bible translators “messed up” on the matter of homosexuality.

I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine. In the case of Aquinas, I do believe that he was mistaken in saying "It's okay to beat your wife if she commits adultery" Aquinas should have known better.

willhud9 wrote:Only a foolish Christian would accept ... others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine. In the case of Aquinas, I do believe that he was mistaken in saying "It's okay to beat your wife if she commits adultery" Aquinas should have known better.

Out of interest, which piece of biblical doctrine supports your conclusion that he should have known better?

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine. In the case of Aquinas, I do believe that he was mistaken in saying "It's okay to beat your wife if she commits adultery" Aquinas should have known better.

Out of interest, which piece of biblical doctrine supports your view that he should have known better?

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15