> So which is it? A guide to life, or a guide to God himself?
It is first and foremost a revelation of God, but that revelation of God is expected to greatly affect our lives and guide us in our own character, values, thoughts, and actions. We don't have to choose one or the other. God's revelation of Himself in history and in our lives changes us.
> That makes it, by definition subjective.
Yeah, I read your link and the definition there. I didn't see anything there that excludes a consideration of context to arrive at an objective meaning of the text.
> Omnipotence means that reality can be whatever God wants it to be, if there are limits on his power, then he is no longer omnipotent, even if that limits would be what we consider reality, because those limits would not apply to a being outside of reality.
As I said, this shows you don't understand omnipotence. It doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.
What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it. There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.
* He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
* The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
* He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Luke 13.34. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
* He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
> God is, by definition, unrealistic, and applying reality to Him means that he is no longer all-powerful.
God is, by definition, a supreme supernatural divine being. There's nothing unrealistic about that, and applying reality to Him means we have to understand his attributes realistically.
> The deity that this ancient society claimed to follow only expressed the knowledge that said society had?
Correct. If God had told them the atmosphere was composed of a variety of gasses in motion, gradually fading out into varying levels of atmosphere and stratosphere, He would have ceased communicating with them. They would have that deer in the headlights look. What was pertinent was not the chemical structure of the atmosphere and their correct scientific understanding of it, but the revelation of Himself as the one who orders the cosmos to function in a certain way. Accommodation is the key to communication. Hey, you and I accommodate our communication for each other. I use terminology with you I wouldn't use with a high schooler.
> You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't really know the bible.
Judging isn't attractive.
> Numbers 11:20, and if you claim that's "poetic", Numbers 11:33 showed that yes, God wanted them to suffer and die. So much for accommodation.
It's hyperbole—figurative language—which is common in the Bible. I read Num. 11.33. It doesn't say anything about the people dying, or God killing them. God was punishing them, however, for their rebellion against Him.
> Sin that, even if God didn't create, being an all-knowing deity forsaw entering the world and did nothing to stop.
Right: God did not create sin. We did, against His desires and despite His warnings. he did foresee it, but since we wouldn't be human without free will, He couldn't stop it. Instead, He did what was better: redeemed it.
> Because life without torturing someone would be boring.
Now, now, no reason to be snarky.
> And if you believe that sin is key to free will
No, sin is not the key to free will. It is one of the choices available, however.
> The good place is where we lose the ability to think for ourselves?
A terrible distortion. I'm guessing this conversation may not be worth continuing with the attitude you're displaying.
> But the accommodating God was fine letting them keep their opinions on child rape and slavery
Nope. Again, a deliberate distortion. God never commanded, encouraged, allowed, or endorsed rape, let alone child rape. Also, God never commanded, encouraged, or endorsed slavery. In addition to that, Israelite society had a very different perspective on slavery than the surrounding cultures, so God definitely did change their opinion on it, specifically.
> an objectively moral God must be sacrificing his morality to allow such an immoral practice to continue.
Slavery in the ancient world, and particularly ancient Israel, was like our employment economic system: work for someone else to pay off your debts. There's nothing immoral about that. You do it, too, as do I.
> This is obviously fine when it comes to owning people as property
Another distortion. Sigh. Do you want to have a conversation or not?
> But not so far as to say that keeping slaves is wrong, that's TOOO much
Slavery in the ancient world, and particularly ancient Israel, was like our employment economic system: work for someone else to pay off your debts. There's nothing immoral about that. You do it, too, as do I.
> (1 Cor. 7.20-22). That's absolutely the opposite of what he's saying
What about "if you can gain your freedom, do so” are you not understanding? You're claiming that what I said ("He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible") is "absolutely the opposite of what [Paul]'s saying"? Are you serious? I'm guessing that your drive to oppose has taken away your desire to reason.
> That was not for all slaves, that was for slave traders of the JEWISH people,
You are incorrect about this. Paul was writing to Timothy, who was at the time working in Ephesus, a very Roman city. The Jews weren't involved in slave trading, but the Ephesians certainly were. The population there was about 250,000 at this time, and Jews were a tiny minority. Timothy was pastoring a Gentile church. There's absolutely no cause to relegate Paul's comment to referring to Jewish slave trading.
In the Roman Empire, the slave traders often served as pimps in male prostitution rings, much like sex trafficking in our era. That's what Paul is condemning.
> This is the genocide of the midianites
Um, no it's not. The Amalekites were a different ethnic group than the Midianites. The Amalekites were not friendly to Israel. They had attacked the Israelites at Rephidim (Ex. 17.8).
And it's not even genocide of the Amalekites. The Amakites were a nomadic group spread over a territory from Egypt to Kuwait. Notice in the text Saul attacks ONE city, and waits in ONE ravine to kill them off. This is not how you murder a people group spread over hundreds of miles.
> Numbers 31
As far as the Midianites, you're right that they were attacked and killed. This battle is unique in the course of the conquest. It's explicitly an act of revenge for what Midian did against Israel (Num. 25.17-18). They seduced Israel to idolatry and turned people away from God. They posed a serious military and moral threat to Israel. It was a military and moral purging, not genocide.
Board index ‹ Morality
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:23 pm
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sunny Bet » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:35 pm
> That was radical enough, but then comes the teaching over the top: "Masters, treat your slaves in the same way" (Eph. 6.9). Treat your slave as if he were Jesus working for you—with honor and respect, in all fairness. Be a boss of integrity and honor, not just of power and the abuses that come with it....So I guess the question here is, what's the problem with these verses and what is taught in them?
I would say the problem is that in modern context, very simply, the act of owning someone as property can never be done honorably.
Even if you treat a slave with care, as though they were your own family, it’s not difficult to show on a basis of basic human rights, or equality, or freedom, or just basic fairness, that it’s immoral to treat a human as property and pass them down as inheritance to your children.
On one hand you say that this ultimately brought down the institution of slavery, but on the other hand it in NO way whatsoever critiques the institution of owning people as property, it only tells you how to do it - “honorably”. That is a catch22 to me, how is it possible to honorably own someone? Apparently it was possible at some point in time, but no longer is? That’s where I would simply ask, if this God was real and really wanted people to be good, and this God was able to communicate or interact with us in some way, why on earth would He wait over 1400 years for people to come to the conclusion that “oh, owning others turns out to maybe be wrong...”?
I would say the problem is that in modern context, very simply, the act of owning someone as property can never be done honorably.
Even if you treat a slave with care, as though they were your own family, it’s not difficult to show on a basis of basic human rights, or equality, or freedom, or just basic fairness, that it’s immoral to treat a human as property and pass them down as inheritance to your children.
On one hand you say that this ultimately brought down the institution of slavery, but on the other hand it in NO way whatsoever critiques the institution of owning people as property, it only tells you how to do it - “honorably”. That is a catch22 to me, how is it possible to honorably own someone? Apparently it was possible at some point in time, but no longer is? That’s where I would simply ask, if this God was real and really wanted people to be good, and this God was able to communicate or interact with us in some way, why on earth would He wait over 1400 years for people to come to the conclusion that “oh, owning others turns out to maybe be wrong...”?
- Sunny Bet
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:54 pm
> I would say the problem is that in modern context, very simply, the act of owning someone as property can never be done honorably.
Paul never said that owning someone could be done honorably. He said that we should treat each other with honor, whether you were a slave or a master. That's the perspective that eventually unravelled the slave pens.
> Even if you treat a slave with care, as though they were your own family, it’s not difficult to show on a basis of basic human rights, or equality, or freedom, or just basic fairness, that it’s immoral to treat a human as property and pass them down as inheritance to your children.
This was Paul's point in Philemon 16, a perspective that eventually led to the unravelling of the slave pens.
> on the other hand it in NO way whatsoever critiques the institution of owning people as property
Paul never drives hard for the abolishment of slavery. Neither he nor Peter called for a social and political uprising to overthrow slavery in the Empire. They wanted Christianity to be perceived as a means to forgiveness of sins, not as a political movement of rebellion against the government. Instead, they told slaves to be honorable even if they were being mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9), and they told the masters to treat their slaves like human beings, not property, and even like brothers in Christ (Philemon 16). If they had gone the other route, Christianity would have turned into what Islam has been like through the eras: Kill infidels in the name of God.
> That is a catch22 to me, how is it possible to honorably own someone?
Paul expected that his counsel would end up undermining the whole system from the heart: a bloodless rebellion that made actual systemic change, which is exactly what eventually happened, both in Rome and in the colonial West.
> That’s where I would simply ask, if this God was real and really wanted people to be good, and this God was able to communicate or interact with us in some way, why on earth would He wait over 1400 years for people to come to the conclusion that “oh, owning others turns out to maybe be wrong...”?
Matters settled with a gun can happen quickly, but they don't bring about real change, just real death and real fear. Matters settled at the heart level take longer, but they are genuine changes.
I don't know what country you live in, but I'm in America. Our political system is a disaster. Obama, who was a terrible president, in my opinion, could make all the governmental changes he wanted, but it didn't change the people. Then Trump came in, who is a terrible president, in my opinion, undid it all and made a whole bunch of other changes, but it isn't changing the people. Military movements and political actions don't change people's hearts and their character. Only change that comes from the heart is real change.
Why did it take 1400 years? Because so many supposed "God followers" are just fakers. So many spiritual leaders (like anyone else) get power hungry, even though it's not supposed to be this way. In ancient Israel, they got off track as the centuries went by. In the Church era, the Roman Catholic Church got corrupt by political and military power. By the Colonial Era, the Church was more interested in wealth and power than in "Christianizing" the Americas, Africa, India, or the Far East. It's an abominable history that reflects poorly on Jesus and the real Church. But Jesus himself undid the wrong direction of Judaism, and the true Church eventually undid a lot of the damage that Church corruption had brought through the centuries. It's a continual journey of trying to be the people God called us to be, and to be continually (1) trying to show unbelievers the truth about God, and (2) trying to weed all of fakers and corrupters out of the Church. We have our work cut out for us.
Paul never said that owning someone could be done honorably. He said that we should treat each other with honor, whether you were a slave or a master. That's the perspective that eventually unravelled the slave pens.
> Even if you treat a slave with care, as though they were your own family, it’s not difficult to show on a basis of basic human rights, or equality, or freedom, or just basic fairness, that it’s immoral to treat a human as property and pass them down as inheritance to your children.
This was Paul's point in Philemon 16, a perspective that eventually led to the unravelling of the slave pens.
> on the other hand it in NO way whatsoever critiques the institution of owning people as property
Paul never drives hard for the abolishment of slavery. Neither he nor Peter called for a social and political uprising to overthrow slavery in the Empire. They wanted Christianity to be perceived as a means to forgiveness of sins, not as a political movement of rebellion against the government. Instead, they told slaves to be honorable even if they were being mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9), and they told the masters to treat their slaves like human beings, not property, and even like brothers in Christ (Philemon 16). If they had gone the other route, Christianity would have turned into what Islam has been like through the eras: Kill infidels in the name of God.
> That is a catch22 to me, how is it possible to honorably own someone?
Paul expected that his counsel would end up undermining the whole system from the heart: a bloodless rebellion that made actual systemic change, which is exactly what eventually happened, both in Rome and in the colonial West.
> That’s where I would simply ask, if this God was real and really wanted people to be good, and this God was able to communicate or interact with us in some way, why on earth would He wait over 1400 years for people to come to the conclusion that “oh, owning others turns out to maybe be wrong...”?
Matters settled with a gun can happen quickly, but they don't bring about real change, just real death and real fear. Matters settled at the heart level take longer, but they are genuine changes.
I don't know what country you live in, but I'm in America. Our political system is a disaster. Obama, who was a terrible president, in my opinion, could make all the governmental changes he wanted, but it didn't change the people. Then Trump came in, who is a terrible president, in my opinion, undid it all and made a whole bunch of other changes, but it isn't changing the people. Military movements and political actions don't change people's hearts and their character. Only change that comes from the heart is real change.
Why did it take 1400 years? Because so many supposed "God followers" are just fakers. So many spiritual leaders (like anyone else) get power hungry, even though it's not supposed to be this way. In ancient Israel, they got off track as the centuries went by. In the Church era, the Roman Catholic Church got corrupt by political and military power. By the Colonial Era, the Church was more interested in wealth and power than in "Christianizing" the Americas, Africa, India, or the Far East. It's an abominable history that reflects poorly on Jesus and the real Church. But Jesus himself undid the wrong direction of Judaism, and the true Church eventually undid a lot of the damage that Church corruption had brought through the centuries. It's a continual journey of trying to be the people God called us to be, and to be continually (1) trying to show unbelievers the truth about God, and (2) trying to weed all of fakers and corrupters out of the Church. We have our work cut out for us.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Joel Blazing Pants » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:09 pm
> It is first and foremost a revelation of God, but that revelation of God is expected to greatly affect our lives and guide us in our own character, values, thoughts, and actions.
So it's a guide designed to change people but not designed to make people change. That makes sense.
As I said, this shows you don't understand omnipotence.
The definition of omnipotent is literal "unlimited power". If he has limits on his power, he does not have unlimited power and thus he's not omnipotent. So you are saying that God is not, omnipotent.
" : one who has unlimited power or authority : one who is omnipotent"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent
> He cannot interfere with the freedom of man.
Except for the multiple times he forced Pharaoh to harden his heart, because God promised 10 plagues and goddamit he's going to get 10 plagues.
God is, by definition, a supreme supernatural divine being. There's nothing unrealistic about that,
I'm sorry, how many supernatural divine beings do you bump into on the street? I think I might've passed one at Walmart and just not noticed, ammiright?
> He would have ceased communicating with them. They would have that deer in the headlights look.
It's not like there is any bible story where God showed that he has the ability to make people smarter or anything like that, nor is this something that children are taught in grade school. Knowing the sky isn't something I learned until I got my PhD in Climatology.
> Judging isn't attractive
Nor is it attractive to know less about the bible than an Atheist. But then again the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the Bible.
> in the Bible. I read Num. 11.33. It doesn't say anything about the people dying, or God killing them
Numbers 11:33-34
" 33But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the LORD’s anger burned against the people, and the LORD struck them with a severe plague. 34So they called that place Kibroth-hattaavah,because there they buried the peoplewho had craved other food. "
So you saw that and didn't even bother reading the verse right after it? I mean even if you didn't, can you name a plague that didn't kill people? It's kind of in the job description. And God was punishing them for wanting more, but he shouldn't have because God is supposed to be accommodating, right?
> Right: God did not create sin. We did, against His desires and despite His warnings. he did foresee it, but since we wouldn't be human without free will, He couldn't stop it.
But he still created the tree and plopped it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, knowing full well that Adam and Eve would eat of it so he could punish them.
Have you heard the story of the Montana man who deliberately left valuables in an open garage so he could shoot people who tried to steal them? That man was convicted of murder, even though those teens decided to "sin" and take the valuables, a trap was still a trap. You'd think that the creator of the universe would have a higher standard.
> A terrible distortion. I'm guessing this conversation may not be worth continuing with the attitude you're displaying.
Not really, heaven carries some heavy implications. It's supposed to be an eternity of worshiping God, but what if one day you decide that's not what you want to do. If you have free will in heaven, there would be a day that everyone doesn't feel like it, but what happens then?
> Nope. Again, a deliberate distortion. God never commanded, encouraged, allowed, or endorsed rape,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29. A rapist marrying the victim is bad enough, but that marriage is supposed to be a punishment for the rapist. Can you imagine your daughter getting raped, so she is forced to marry her rapist and be raped every day for the rest of her life if her rapist so chose to. That was the reality of this barbaric society.
> , let alone child rape
" but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. " Numbers 31:18, how do you think they knew while they were massacring everyone else? You think they pulled a virginity test?
> Slavery in the ancient world, and particularly ancient Israel, was like our employment economic system: work for someone else to pay off your debts.
Indentured servitude was reserved for Israelites, as per Exodus 21:2-6, slaves from foreign countries were slaves in every sense of the word, Leviticus 25:44-46,.
> What about "if you can gain your freedom, do so” are you not understanding?
What part of " Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you— " are you not understanding? For someone who is always claiming "context", it seems that context only matters when it's convenient for you!
> The Amalekites were a different ethnic group than the Midianites
NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE AMALEKITES, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MIDIANITES.
It was a military and moral purging, not genocide.
There is a reason why you found the video disgusting. Becuase the act of genocide is disgusting. If Muslims came to america and killed every man, woman, and boy, then took the girls as sex slaves, that would be disgusting. But this "moral purging" is okay because your God is the right one? Right? Obviously the muslims don't really feel like their God is real, it's a big farce.
The video explores the implications of this act, the disgusting, savage, and barbaric nature of it that had no place being condoned by a so-called benevolent God. And how opinions of people like you would immediately change if your families were the ones being slaughtered in the name of some foreign deity.
You refused to finish because you knew what he was leading to.
You refused to finish because, deep down, you knew he was right.
So it's a guide designed to change people but not designed to make people change. That makes sense.
As I said, this shows you don't understand omnipotence.
The definition of omnipotent is literal "unlimited power". If he has limits on his power, he does not have unlimited power and thus he's not omnipotent. So you are saying that God is not, omnipotent.
" : one who has unlimited power or authority : one who is omnipotent"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent
> He cannot interfere with the freedom of man.
Except for the multiple times he forced Pharaoh to harden his heart, because God promised 10 plagues and goddamit he's going to get 10 plagues.
God is, by definition, a supreme supernatural divine being. There's nothing unrealistic about that,
I'm sorry, how many supernatural divine beings do you bump into on the street? I think I might've passed one at Walmart and just not noticed, ammiright?
> He would have ceased communicating with them. They would have that deer in the headlights look.
It's not like there is any bible story where God showed that he has the ability to make people smarter or anything like that, nor is this something that children are taught in grade school. Knowing the sky isn't something I learned until I got my PhD in Climatology.
> Judging isn't attractive
Nor is it attractive to know less about the bible than an Atheist. But then again the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the Bible.
> in the Bible. I read Num. 11.33. It doesn't say anything about the people dying, or God killing them
Numbers 11:33-34
" 33But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the LORD’s anger burned against the people, and the LORD struck them with a severe plague. 34So they called that place Kibroth-hattaavah,because there they buried the peoplewho had craved other food. "
So you saw that and didn't even bother reading the verse right after it? I mean even if you didn't, can you name a plague that didn't kill people? It's kind of in the job description. And God was punishing them for wanting more, but he shouldn't have because God is supposed to be accommodating, right?
> Right: God did not create sin. We did, against His desires and despite His warnings. he did foresee it, but since we wouldn't be human without free will, He couldn't stop it.
But he still created the tree and plopped it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, knowing full well that Adam and Eve would eat of it so he could punish them.
Have you heard the story of the Montana man who deliberately left valuables in an open garage so he could shoot people who tried to steal them? That man was convicted of murder, even though those teens decided to "sin" and take the valuables, a trap was still a trap. You'd think that the creator of the universe would have a higher standard.
> A terrible distortion. I'm guessing this conversation may not be worth continuing with the attitude you're displaying.
Not really, heaven carries some heavy implications. It's supposed to be an eternity of worshiping God, but what if one day you decide that's not what you want to do. If you have free will in heaven, there would be a day that everyone doesn't feel like it, but what happens then?
> Nope. Again, a deliberate distortion. God never commanded, encouraged, allowed, or endorsed rape,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29. A rapist marrying the victim is bad enough, but that marriage is supposed to be a punishment for the rapist. Can you imagine your daughter getting raped, so she is forced to marry her rapist and be raped every day for the rest of her life if her rapist so chose to. That was the reality of this barbaric society.
> , let alone child rape
" but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. " Numbers 31:18, how do you think they knew while they were massacring everyone else? You think they pulled a virginity test?
> Slavery in the ancient world, and particularly ancient Israel, was like our employment economic system: work for someone else to pay off your debts.
Indentured servitude was reserved for Israelites, as per Exodus 21:2-6, slaves from foreign countries were slaves in every sense of the word, Leviticus 25:44-46,.
> What about "if you can gain your freedom, do so” are you not understanding?
What part of " Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you— " are you not understanding? For someone who is always claiming "context", it seems that context only matters when it's convenient for you!
> The Amalekites were a different ethnic group than the Midianites
NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE AMALEKITES, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MIDIANITES.
It was a military and moral purging, not genocide.
There is a reason why you found the video disgusting. Becuase the act of genocide is disgusting. If Muslims came to america and killed every man, woman, and boy, then took the girls as sex slaves, that would be disgusting. But this "moral purging" is okay because your God is the right one? Right? Obviously the muslims don't really feel like their God is real, it's a big farce.
The video explores the implications of this act, the disgusting, savage, and barbaric nature of it that had no place being condoned by a so-called benevolent God. And how opinions of people like you would immediately change if your families were the ones being slaughtered in the name of some foreign deity.
You refused to finish because you knew what he was leading to.
You refused to finish because, deep down, you knew he was right.
- Joel Blazing Pants
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:09 pm
> So it's a guide designed to change people but not designed to make people change. That makes sense.
Your twisting of my words doesn't make me the idiot. What I said is that the Bible was given to reveal God to us, and that can help but make a change in people when they encounter the living God.
> The definition of omnipotent is literal "unlimited power". If he has limits on his power, he does not have unlimited power and thus he's not omnipotent. So you are saying that God is not, omnipotent.
The definition of omnipotent is literally "all power" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/omni?s=ts). Within the definition is no implication that God can be self-contradictory or that God can be untrue to His nature.
> Except for the multiple times he forced Pharaoh to harden his heart, because God promised 10 plagues and goddamit he's going to get 10 plagues.
Another distortion.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God says anything about it, showing that when God "hardened Pharaoh's heart," he wasn't doing anything actively (as you have implied), but merely let Pharaoh pursue the course Pharaoh had already decided to pursue.
Pharaoh reveals a hard heart from the starting line towards the people of Israel (Ex. 1.11-22). Pharaoh also shows a hard heart towards God in Ex. 5.2. Exodus 7.13 says Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them. Exodus 7.14 says Pharaoh's heart was unyielding. Exodus 7.22 says Pharaoh's heart became hard. Exodus 8.15 says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart in 8.32. And THEN we read that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God hasn't done anything actively like interfered with his free will, but rather has left Pharaoh to harden his own heart. By the time in 9.12 it says for the first time "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," Pharaoh was resolved already to pursue the course he had freely chosen. God gave him over to it (as in Romans 1.18-32: when people exercise their free will in rebellion against God, he doesn't stop them but lets them do it. He doesn't interfere with their free will.) God is not forcing Pharaoh to be rebellious, Pharaoh has already decided that on his own. God isn't actively forcing Pharaoh to do anything against his will, but rather just affirming what Pharaoh has decided on his own. God "hardened" hearts that are already hard. They made their choices, God brought elements into their lives that should have turned them around but only cemented them further in their positions. It is only in that sense that God hardened hearts.
> Numbers 11:33-34
OK, I'll grant you that one.
> But he still created the tree and plopped it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, knowing full well that Adam and Eve would eat of it so he could punish them.
Another distortion. The tree represented their free will choice. God didn't do it so he could punish them.
> Have you heard the story of the Montana man... You'd think that the creator of the universe would have a higher standard.
That man was sick. It's a completely different situation from Genesis 2-3.
> Deuteronomy 22:28-29. A rapist marrying the victim is bad enough, but that marriage is supposed to be a punishment for the rapist
Another distortion. The law is built to protect the woman's honor and assure her of permanent support. Why does she have to marry him? Because in their culture the unmarried rape victim would not only have to deal with the trauma of the violent act itself, but she would also be stigmatized by the loss of her virginity, and therefore be unable to marry (cf. 2 Sam. 13.1-20—a victimized woman did not think it was sexist to marry her rapist). Since the primary way women achieved financial security and social acceptance was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished. This law is actually attempting to correct a problem in their sexist environment. It was providing security and protection for the woman—the innocent victim.
> Numbers 31:18
Another distortion. War is terrible thing. What Numbers 31 is about is that when they came across an obvious innocent, that life was spared. Remember that in ancient Israel, warfare rape was forbidden (Dt. 21.10-14). An Israelite male had to carefully follow proper procedures before she could be taken as a wife. In light the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel’s soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.
There is nothing in the term "save for yourselves" implying sexual pleasure. It simply means "do not kill them, but let them live. In a situation like this (*cherem*), all plunder, including war prisoners, were considered to be the possession of God and for the praise of His name and the benefit of the whole community. There is NOTHING about this verse that implies rape.
> slaves from foreign countries were slaves in every sense of the word, Leviticus 25:44-46,.
You are missing the worldview of ancient Israel. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.
Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
The implication from v. 42 is that the foreigners are not God’s servants, and therefore can be slaves. He hadn’t redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn’t own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.
The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.
Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. “Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability” (Copan).
> NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE AMALEKITES, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MIDIANITES.
OK, my bad.
> There is a reason why you found the video disgusting. Becuase the act of genocide is disgusting.
The act of genocide is disgusting. But I found the video disgusting because it was such a vile distortion of the Bible.
> But this "moral purging" is okay because your God is the right one?
If Muslims came to America, as your hypothetical describes, it wouldn't be a moral purging, but an act of power. It's different from the Midianite scenario.
> You refused to finish because you knew what he was leading to.
No, I refused to finish it because it was so distorting of biblical truth.
> You refused to finish because, deep down, you knew he was right.
No, I didn't finish because by the middle he was so off-base, his conclusion was bound to be far askew.
Your twisting of my words doesn't make me the idiot. What I said is that the Bible was given to reveal God to us, and that can help but make a change in people when they encounter the living God.
> The definition of omnipotent is literal "unlimited power". If he has limits on his power, he does not have unlimited power and thus he's not omnipotent. So you are saying that God is not, omnipotent.
The definition of omnipotent is literally "all power" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/omni?s=ts). Within the definition is no implication that God can be self-contradictory or that God can be untrue to His nature.
> Except for the multiple times he forced Pharaoh to harden his heart, because God promised 10 plagues and goddamit he's going to get 10 plagues.
Another distortion.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God says anything about it, showing that when God "hardened Pharaoh's heart," he wasn't doing anything actively (as you have implied), but merely let Pharaoh pursue the course Pharaoh had already decided to pursue.
Pharaoh reveals a hard heart from the starting line towards the people of Israel (Ex. 1.11-22). Pharaoh also shows a hard heart towards God in Ex. 5.2. Exodus 7.13 says Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them. Exodus 7.14 says Pharaoh's heart was unyielding. Exodus 7.22 says Pharaoh's heart became hard. Exodus 8.15 says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart in 8.32. And THEN we read that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. God hasn't done anything actively like interfered with his free will, but rather has left Pharaoh to harden his own heart. By the time in 9.12 it says for the first time "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," Pharaoh was resolved already to pursue the course he had freely chosen. God gave him over to it (as in Romans 1.18-32: when people exercise their free will in rebellion against God, he doesn't stop them but lets them do it. He doesn't interfere with their free will.) God is not forcing Pharaoh to be rebellious, Pharaoh has already decided that on his own. God isn't actively forcing Pharaoh to do anything against his will, but rather just affirming what Pharaoh has decided on his own. God "hardened" hearts that are already hard. They made their choices, God brought elements into their lives that should have turned them around but only cemented them further in their positions. It is only in that sense that God hardened hearts.
> Numbers 11:33-34
OK, I'll grant you that one.
> But he still created the tree and plopped it right in the middle of the garden of Eden, knowing full well that Adam and Eve would eat of it so he could punish them.
Another distortion. The tree represented their free will choice. God didn't do it so he could punish them.
> Have you heard the story of the Montana man... You'd think that the creator of the universe would have a higher standard.
That man was sick. It's a completely different situation from Genesis 2-3.
> Deuteronomy 22:28-29. A rapist marrying the victim is bad enough, but that marriage is supposed to be a punishment for the rapist
Another distortion. The law is built to protect the woman's honor and assure her of permanent support. Why does she have to marry him? Because in their culture the unmarried rape victim would not only have to deal with the trauma of the violent act itself, but she would also be stigmatized by the loss of her virginity, and therefore be unable to marry (cf. 2 Sam. 13.1-20—a victimized woman did not think it was sexist to marry her rapist). Since the primary way women achieved financial security and social acceptance was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished. This law is actually attempting to correct a problem in their sexist environment. It was providing security and protection for the woman—the innocent victim.
> Numbers 31:18
Another distortion. War is terrible thing. What Numbers 31 is about is that when they came across an obvious innocent, that life was spared. Remember that in ancient Israel, warfare rape was forbidden (Dt. 21.10-14). An Israelite male had to carefully follow proper procedures before she could be taken as a wife. In light the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel’s soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.
There is nothing in the term "save for yourselves" implying sexual pleasure. It simply means "do not kill them, but let them live. In a situation like this (*cherem*), all plunder, including war prisoners, were considered to be the possession of God and for the praise of His name and the benefit of the whole community. There is NOTHING about this verse that implies rape.
> slaves from foreign countries were slaves in every sense of the word, Leviticus 25:44-46,.
You are missing the worldview of ancient Israel. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.
Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
The implication from v. 42 is that the foreigners are not God’s servants, and therefore can be slaves. He hadn’t redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn’t own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.
The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.
Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. “Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability” (Copan).
> NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE AMALEKITES, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MIDIANITES.
OK, my bad.
> There is a reason why you found the video disgusting. Becuase the act of genocide is disgusting.
The act of genocide is disgusting. But I found the video disgusting because it was such a vile distortion of the Bible.
> But this "moral purging" is okay because your God is the right one?
If Muslims came to America, as your hypothetical describes, it wouldn't be a moral purging, but an act of power. It's different from the Midianite scenario.
> You refused to finish because you knew what he was leading to.
No, I refused to finish it because it was so distorting of biblical truth.
> You refused to finish because, deep down, you knew he was right.
No, I didn't finish because by the middle he was so off-base, his conclusion was bound to be far askew.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sunny Bet » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:18 pm
> Paul never said that owning someone could be done honorably. He said that we should treat each other with honor, whether you were a slave or a master.
So he said you can be a “master” and treat others with “honor”... that sounds like it’s acknowledging that it IS possible to own other people and still be honorable.
> ...and they told the masters to treat their slaves like human beings, not property,
So where did they tell them to stop passing them down as inheritance? Or buying/selling them for goods/currency? You know, basic ways we would define property.
> Matters settled with a gun can happen quickly, but they don't bring about real change, just real death and real fear.
Someone should have told that the Old Testament... God gave a completely different message to Moses; slaughter the Baal worshippers. It conveniently wasn’t about changing hearts then. Yet I have people tell me this is the God of objective eternal morality...
> Why did it take 1400 years? Because so many supposed "God followers" are just fakers.
Sorry but I’m not buying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to explain away a thousand years of behavior. Didn’t Jesus preach all kinds of controversial stuff, like to the point he was crucified for it! Is it really so much to ask that stopping the practice of buying/selling and passing down people as inheritance be part of that?
So he said you can be a “master” and treat others with “honor”... that sounds like it’s acknowledging that it IS possible to own other people and still be honorable.
> ...and they told the masters to treat their slaves like human beings, not property,
So where did they tell them to stop passing them down as inheritance? Or buying/selling them for goods/currency? You know, basic ways we would define property.
> Matters settled with a gun can happen quickly, but they don't bring about real change, just real death and real fear.
Someone should have told that the Old Testament... God gave a completely different message to Moses; slaughter the Baal worshippers. It conveniently wasn’t about changing hearts then. Yet I have people tell me this is the God of objective eternal morality...
> Why did it take 1400 years? Because so many supposed "God followers" are just fakers.
Sorry but I’m not buying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to explain away a thousand years of behavior. Didn’t Jesus preach all kinds of controversial stuff, like to the point he was crucified for it! Is it really so much to ask that stopping the practice of buying/selling and passing down people as inheritance be part of that?
- Sunny Bet
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:24 pm
> So he said you can be a “master” and treat others with “honor”... that sounds like it’s acknowledging that it IS possible to own other people and still be honorable.
There's a fine distinction, and it's valid. He never said that owning another human being was honorable. But if they were true followers of God, they would treat their slaves like human beings, not like chattel. But other teachings of Paul teach that if they are true followers of God, they would be against the slave trade (1 Tim. 1.10) and they would consider setting them all free (Philemon 16-21, "receive him as you would receive me...knowing that you will do even more than I ask").
> So where did they tell them to stop passing them down as inheritance? Or buying/selling them for goods/currency? You know, basic ways we would define property.
The Levitical law ended with the conquering of Judah in 586 BC. But maybe some background information about the culture and the worldview of ancient Israel would help. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.
Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
The implication from Lev. 25.42 is that the foreigners are not God’s servants, and therefore can be slaves. He hadn’t redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn’t own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.
The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.
Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. “Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability” (Copan).
> God gave a completely different message to Moses; slaughter the Baal worshippers.
Text?
> Sorry but I’m not buying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to explain away a thousand years of behavior.
You should in this case. I have no intention of trying to justify Israel's straying from the truth, requiring judgment by God of the North in 722 BC, judgment by God of Judah in 586 BC, and Jesus's harsh words during his ministry. I also will never try to justify the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church through the eras. But in the Old Testament, God often speaks that He preserved a remnant for himself—that despite all the hypocrites and apostates, there were a true people of God still honoring His Name. It's also true in the prophetic message, and even true during Jesus's ministry. The NT itself prophesies that the Church will become corrupt, but God will preserve the faithful few. It's explicit all through the Bible.
> Didn’t Jesus preach all kinds of controversial stuff, like to the point he was crucified for it! Is it really so much to ask that stopping the practice of buying/selling and passing down people as inheritance be part of that?
By Jesus's day the practice of passing people down as inheritance was distant in Israel's past. Jesus did preach strongly that He had come to set people free (Lk. 4.18; John 8.32-36 especially mentions slavery).
There's a fine distinction, and it's valid. He never said that owning another human being was honorable. But if they were true followers of God, they would treat their slaves like human beings, not like chattel. But other teachings of Paul teach that if they are true followers of God, they would be against the slave trade (1 Tim. 1.10) and they would consider setting them all free (Philemon 16-21, "receive him as you would receive me...knowing that you will do even more than I ask").
> So where did they tell them to stop passing them down as inheritance? Or buying/selling them for goods/currency? You know, basic ways we would define property.
The Levitical law ended with the conquering of Judah in 586 BC. But maybe some background information about the culture and the worldview of ancient Israel would help. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.
Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
The implication from Lev. 25.42 is that the foreigners are not God’s servants, and therefore can be slaves. He hadn’t redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn’t own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.
The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.
Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. “Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability” (Copan).
> God gave a completely different message to Moses; slaughter the Baal worshippers.
Text?
> Sorry but I’m not buying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to explain away a thousand years of behavior.
You should in this case. I have no intention of trying to justify Israel's straying from the truth, requiring judgment by God of the North in 722 BC, judgment by God of Judah in 586 BC, and Jesus's harsh words during his ministry. I also will never try to justify the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church through the eras. But in the Old Testament, God often speaks that He preserved a remnant for himself—that despite all the hypocrites and apostates, there were a true people of God still honoring His Name. It's also true in the prophetic message, and even true during Jesus's ministry. The NT itself prophesies that the Church will become corrupt, but God will preserve the faithful few. It's explicit all through the Bible.
> Didn’t Jesus preach all kinds of controversial stuff, like to the point he was crucified for it! Is it really so much to ask that stopping the practice of buying/selling and passing down people as inheritance be part of that?
By Jesus's day the practice of passing people down as inheritance was distant in Israel's past. Jesus did preach strongly that He had come to set people free (Lk. 4.18; John 8.32-36 especially mentions slavery).
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sunny Bet » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:20 pm
> The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.
So to ask a very simple question: was that wrong? If not, did it at some point become wrong?
So to ask a very simple question: was that wrong? If not, did it at some point become wrong?
- Sunny Bet
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:24 pm
In general, as much as we know, there was nothing wrong or immoral about the ancient Israelite "slavery" system. It was often "debt slavery," which wasn't really slavery at all, but putting yourself under someone else as a boss so you could pay off your debts. It was much more like our system of employment. They didn't have a word for employment, so they called it slavery. The Hebrew word is *'eved*," which means "servant" or "slave."
It became wrong when cultures treated human beings as property (chattel slavery). Chattel slavery was one of the horrific aspects of the Greek and Roman Empires and cultures. The Colonial West also had chattel slavery, and a scar on our own national history as Americans was the antebellum slave trade and practice. That was very wrong.
It became wrong when cultures treated human beings as property (chattel slavery). Chattel slavery was one of the horrific aspects of the Greek and Roman Empires and cultures. The Colonial West also had chattel slavery, and a scar on our own national history as Americans was the antebellum slave trade and practice. That was very wrong.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sunny Bet » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:17 am
This sure sounds like chattel slavery to me: Lev. 25.44-46.
- Sunny Bet
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest