Did you know that...

Post Reply New Topic

This is a free country. If you want to waste your time go ahead. It is legal and permissable.

ruveyn

Thank God for all free countries.

It makes no sense for God to deprive His creation of one of its defining characteristics. God wants us to make the choice to believe in and worship Him. Due to the nature of a fallen creation, God accepts that not all will make that choice. Nevertheless, it is a greater cruelty to deny us the choice we are given. If we had been created differently, without choice, then it wouldn't matter anyway. Without that choice, we are less human in terms of how we were created.


It's not meant to be taken as an excuse, but it does function as one. If we have no choice in what we do, then we cannot be held accountable for what we do.

Psycho/sociopaths actually CAN change to a degree. Behavioral therapy can go a long way to helping people "relearn" (for lack of a better term) how to properly function in society. It then becomes the individual's choice whether they respond to it or whether they'd rather continue in their violent behavior. Good luck using the "He couldn't help it, your honor, he's a psychopath" in a court of law. And I do think that violent tendencies are genetic as are a number of aberrant behaviors. There are a number of people who seek counseling for unwanted sexual attraction. There's always a choice.


And I'm just guessing that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have good reason to think that it will. So it was with the turn of events early in my life.


If it's an imperfect being causing the problem, then absolutely.


Good point.


I don't HAVE to justify ANYTHING. I already believe it. I can simply explain how I see that something makes sense when someone else says it doesn't. I'm just answering the question. My answer or interpretation MIGHT be wrong or inaccurate, but that's a matter of my perception of a relatively tiny facet of the big picture of Truth. I don't believe I HAVE to be right all the time. But if maybe my perspective helps someone else understand, that's enough for me. Certainly I have my personal reasons. Don't we all? Your own reasons for NOT worshipping are your own reasons, aren't they? Sure, there might be commonalities among people who share very similar perspectives, but ultimately we each have only our own story to tell.



lol

I did. There's no more to really add there. You already know how verbose I can be. Is it really that shocking that "OK" is all that's left to say?


Funny. That one really made me laugh! An omniscient being insulting OUR intelligence! Good one...

And in case you don't get why I find that truly funny is it underscores that we lack the comprehension to understand a being who is infinitely more intelligent than us and our feeble attempts to pull Him down to our level. If you, as a human being, can teach my 3-year-old to be fluent in speaking Latin in--oh, let's be generous--9 hours, then I might say our intelligence has been insulted. But the fact is we DON'T understand, nor have we the capacity to understand. I have no problems bringing my problems to God and saying "THIS doesn't seem right to me. Will you help me understand?" Maybe God will give wisdom, and maybe He won't, or maybe it's my own failing that I can't understand some things. But UNDERSTANDING it does not preclude me from doing what God wants. God has never failed me. I'm secure in trusting God. And if my intelligence is insulted, well then, maybe it SHOULD be.


Here we go again...


Good to know you have your feet planted firmly in mid-air.


Free will doesn't necessarily lead to pain and suffering. That's a false assumption. Sometimes free will leads to the relief from pain and suffering, like when I have to choose among naproxen sodium, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, their brand names or generics, and combinations of those with aspirin and caffeine and the occasional pseudoephedrine. I'm prone to severe colds, and this season has been especially bad for me.

Or if one of my children has had a bad day and has just been sent to bed in tears. Sure, I can just let them cry it out. Or I can just give them a big, long hug. Those are choices I freely make.


Going to extremes, much? Not everyone in the world is like that. If this was the kind of thing going on in every other household everywhere, I might agree that you have a point. But this is simply not the case. Where is God's love? In the fact that more people aren't psychologically disturbed. In the person who finds children who are being abused and actually gets them out of bad situations. In the promise that as bad as it gets, this does not go on forever.


False assumption. Christianity does not by default make one intellectually dishonest. It is intellectually dishonest to assume that it does. Besides, studying the Bible is about as "fundamental" as my personal religion gets. People generally thought of "fundamentalists" are more extremists, picking and choosing what they want to support whatever personal agendas they have. If reading the Bible, taking it seriously (as a whole, not picking and choosing what I like), and devoting myself to seeking God's will for my life makes me a fundamental Christian, so be it. I just happen to think maybe you're exaggerating a bit and making it out to be more than what it really is.


I'm very sorry you felt you HAD to take the direction you took. But you also have to understand that just because something takes a logical form doesn't MAKE it true--just valid/invalid according to a specific format. Something you have to understand about pure science is that it doesn't make human decisions about itself. What a person thinks the evidence shows is a matter of that person's interpretation of data. You could, if you wanted to, make a good "scientific" or logical case on why cigarette smoke is actually healthy. People use scientific data all the time to support what they want to support. And sometimes the case may be that a scientist only gets paid if he "finds" certain things. And then there's confirmation bias...


I've never had a problem questioning my faith or God. And I've never feared any conclusions that I MIGHT have come to. It just so happens that I came to a different conclusion than what you want me to come to. It seems to me you won't be satisfied until I've questioned UNTIL I come to a different conclusion. And what then? Should I stop questioning then? That would be intellectually dishonest because it means I haven't given both sides a truly fair shake. So what happens if I keep on questioning and come BACK to my original conclusions?

The criticism I have here with your thinking is that it's more of a "seeker" approach, which is not by nature a bad thing. The only negative consequence it implies is that there is not a goal, not a SOMETHING looked for. I'm not comfortable with aimless spiritual or intellectual wondering in some wilderness. I accept that in my search, I could likely find what I'm looking for and that my search could end. It HAS ended, as a matter of fact. The "seeker" mentality I hear about is more of a spiritual or intellectual buffet, endlessly sampling an array of choices, filling up on those alternatives, and ultimately never being satisfied with any of them. The truth is, it seems to me, is that these people aren't really looking for anything.


Well, I mean--you said you know the gospel, so how about you tell me what Jesus would have to say about it? As far as I recall, Jesus never instructed His followers to kill anyone, though. As far as Jesus was concerned, murderous intent in the heart, even if not acted upon, was just as weighty in incurring guilt as the act itself.


Historically treasonous soldiers are executed. Their children? OK... First, what does the modern context have to do with the ancient context? Little, if anything. Second, if a soldier has children who are of age and also in the military and also guilty of treason, why would rules of treason apply to them any less?


Your opinion.


Different context. Aaron's sons weren't interested in God's mercy, ergo they didn't receive it. Also, even IF they were and God punished them anyway, you also have to account for the fact that if ANYONE had a direct line to God in those days, not just representing the people of Israel before God, but also of having evidence of God's presence, it was Aaron and his sons. Of ANYONE in the camps of the Israelites, THESE guys ought to have known better. So why did they deliberately disobey? That was just plain stupid.

Or consider why it is people get away with marital infidelity all the time, yet Bill Clinton gets crucified for it. We expect a lot from people in positions of authority over us. God expected more from Aaron and his sons. And if they are the spiritual leaders of God's chosen people, they have to be held to a higher standard of accountability. If someone in, say, a small-town grocery or florist/gift shop gives conflicting accounting at the cash register and things don't match up with the books, that person might just get fired and it won't even make the papers. Someone in a multi-billion-dollar corporation mismanages funds, they get a date with Congress. What Aaron's sons did was a BIG mistake. There's no surprise here.


Again with the narcissism...

Confirmation bias, perhaps?



Oh, so it's GENETIC...


You could just be in denial.

(Yes, I'm just joking with the narc jabs. If we're really being honest, though, many of us are products of our culture and society, and society at large is prevalently narcissistic. Surely you at least agree with me on that one).


It's NEVER morally justified. It's not even any "lesser of two evils" like the way lying is sometimes perceived. I just reread the part of Genesis where Abraham told a half-truth about his wife and Isaac did the same with Rebekah, who wasn't even CLOSE to being his sister. Now, a reasonable argument could be made that they really felt these deceitful actions were necessary. If so, they weren't justified in lying. But God is merciful to understand the actions of human beings under duress. He could have killed them, after all, because lying to save their own skins displays a lapse in faith in God's power to protect from harm, especially when God has promised to protect.


It is what it is. Deconstructing "curse" in a modern context challenges the authority of the word as it was written thousands of years ago. I think you're confusing a curse with foul language in general. It's not the same. An idle threat is not the same thing with the pronouncement of a curse.

And frankly, I find your twisting of the simple word "curse" for the sake of refuting how it was originally meant to be offensive. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.


And yet He prohibits the ritual sacrifice of babies by burning them in a fire. Sounds to me like a God who does not wish harm to come to children for His sake. That's a loving God. Accept Him.


Our choice. If that is what we want, far be it from God to keep us from it.


What's the Biblical context? I'm reading through Genesis at the moment.


Basically, yes, though I think you've really downplayed the significance of a Biblical curse for your own purpose.


Or we have more tools at our disposal. Ancient Israelites didn't quite have the luxury of psychological study or time. Think of it in the same way a government leader might have to justifiably impose martial law. Assuming, of course, the reason is the safety of the population and not a purely political move, there are numerous unpleasantries in dealing with urgent or emergency situations, but the idea is that in the proper time and place those issues can be resolved.


Why assume that He does? The OT seems to have been closed in the neighborhood of 500 years before Jesus was born. It wasn't written last year. Why would He write the Bible TODAY for people living an entirely different way of life? I'm not sure exactly why you're trying to make this point, but it's absurd. It makes more sense to write something at a much earlier point in human history that would hold truth for the entirety of it. I try to hold myself and my family to Biblical standards. Why that may happen in practice differently from 200 years ago or 2000 years ago has to do with the fact that we do different things. I'm a professional musician because I was born into a world that accommodates professional musicians. If I were a servant of one of the 12 sons of Jacob, I'd be tending sheep or running errands for the Egyptian court under Joseph. But I also happen to live in a world that if I was particularly knowledgable in breeding livestock, then I could become a shepherd now if I wanted to, and as a former paralegal I know my way around any circuit clerk's office. Nothing was ever meant to imply that God ever adapted to any standards, especially not in a future-past kind of relationship. I think you're confusing the fact God gives all what they need when they need it. People in power have different needs than the common grain farmer, and the decision to use nuclear weapons in a world that offers more appropriate means of achieving an objective is not the same as directing 300 men in a campaign using only primitive weapons. That men in power need to consult God in the necessity of waging war, commanding weapons of a wider range of destructive power than the arrows and swords of past millennia, or that common grain farmers (or freelance musicians like myself) need to ask God to provide water for growing crops (or that one really good gig that will keep me set for the year) has NEVER changed.


But we're trying to hold human beings of limited understanding to God's own standards and unlimited ability. Again, you're assuming unnecessarily that God DIDN'T give the Jews the needed understanding. Let's say He did. That just affirms that extreme methods of discipline are a last resort. Further, even if they DID understand it, God doesn't force people to do the right thing. Maybe some parents are just lazy. I don't know. But I do know that for the most part I get along just fine with my children. And I do know my ability to effectively communicate with them depends largely on how well they understand what I'm trying to tell them. That they are unusually well-behaved outside the home indicates either I'm doing something right or I've made the right decision about their daycare--maybe even a little bit of both. And though I strongly dislike it, some situations dictate that I be heavy-handed towards my children in correcting them. I have delighted in the fact that over time the need for certain extreme measures has sharply declined and I seldom so much as even raise my voice to them. Now, true, I've gotten better as a parent. But at the same time, their range of comprehension has improved, which allows us to teach them other things than just how to act in a movie theater. I'd settle for moving to big boy/girl underwear, but my 2-year old shows such a great degree of self-control that I'm considering introducing her to piano in a practical way. The boy is just too prone to tantrums and too easily distracted, yet LOVES to learn songs and sing.

What I'm saying is I see the whole of humanity that way. At the very least, Western society has stood on the shoulders of its forbears and reached a greater understanding of things far beyond our ancestors of ancient times. Why is it necessary to think that somehow along the way God's children just stopped growing? Let's take corporal punishment and child development. It is not necessary to use it past the age of 8, mostly because beyond that point it loses its effectiveness. While extrinsic motivations can still primarily be used, children become more aware of intrinsic motives. Who's to say that the whole of morality in the present day hasn't grown more increasingly intrinsic? I'm not saying it HAS, but what if it has? What need would God have to punish us the same way He punished our predecessors? In principle, this would only happen if we reverted to a pattern of behavior not unlike the period of the Canaanites or even Ancient Rome. The difference, though, is the order of magnitude greater the responsibility would be (because we've learned so much and come so far), hence much greater and much more destructive the wrath of God in carrying out His vengeance. A good sense of that would be the current economic climate. We ought to know the consequences of placing too much of a priority on the wrong things, especially money. So just like a good parent takes the car keys away from an irresponsible teenager and thus his freedom, so God removes our privileged existence fueled by money. And the way some of these people act you'd have thought it was the Black Plague all over again. It's clearly not. But it does make me wonder to what depth of depravity must humanity get THIS TIME to incur an equivalent destruction as the human-instituted death penalty. I don't have the answer. But I do know that the gospels and Revelation do not paint a pretty picture of that day and time.


It didn't take today's world to find out about it. We've just gained a deeper perspective of it, employing such means as brain-scans and whatnot. And then we put a label on it. Even people in the Bible distinguished between demon possession, insanity (a physical condition), and intoxication (self-imposed). God instructed us to take care of each other, despite our flaws. Now, in terms of the ancient Israelites, there were conditions that would cause you to be "cut off" from your people. But being "cut off" did not imply that family or friends were forbidden to care for you. Someone caring for you, especially if you were diseased, might have to touch you, in which they became ceremonially unclean. But the time in which they'd be unclean was relatively short in comparison with what you'd be going through. What an amazing act of compassion it would be for someone to let themselves become unclean for you and share in your time of trouble. Only if God could do that...

Oh, wait, He DID. When Jesus touched a person with leprosy and healed them, it implies that He took on that man's uncleanness Himself. The cross represents taking away the uncleanness of humanity.

If I may digress briefly---

In another thread it came up that there was a conflict between Jesus offering a proper sacrifice since He wasn't put to death in the Temple. I'd explained that by putting the sin on Jesus as a scapegoat sufficed as a proper sacrifice that would happen outside the Temple. While I think that still applies, just a few days ago I came across the Consecration Rite of Exodus 29. Verse 14 reads "But burn up the bull's flesh, its hide, and its dung outside the camp; it is a sin offering." So there IS a precedent for ritually disposing of refuse to atone for sin, with Jesus not being merely a sacrifice to earn God's grace, but rather the lowest of the low--symbolically being made sin for us (the usual context of "being made sin" refers to the sin offering, not literally sin itself).


You mean you'd have rather had the children slow-roasted to death? What kind of sick narcissistic, psychopath freak are you?


How about just having God pull a bunny out of a magic hat? Come on... It was God's will that humans hold each other accountable. In doing so, there'd be no need for divine wrath. You're still blaming God for something that wasn't God's fault. What happened to Achan's children was a result of Achan's deliberate misdeeds and attempt to cover it up. He had no intention of coming clean. God didn't punish innocent children for their father's actions. But they unfortunately had to suffer the consequences that Achan and his family caused to befall them. It is indeed very sad and painful. Yet we must mourn them and move on, ensuring that we never again allow such things to happen.


It all depends. Get the right size stone with the right amount of force to bash their brains in and it should be over quickly. But you also have to consider the means they had available at the time. I'm not entirely sure that lethal injection had quite been perfected at that point in history.


There's that "n" word again...


I'm also assuming the sun is going to rise in a few hours.


Hitler isn't/wasn't God. Leave him out of this.


Fine, but narcissistic people often fail to recognize their narcissism. You should consider this since you have a family history...


So you're blind, narcissistic, AND think Hitler is God. It's starting to make sense now...


Who? You? Hitler? Why I should listen to a narcissistic Hitler-worshipper who thinks he's somehow more civilized is beyond my comprehension.


Under the assumption that you somehow know better than God, or assuming that your way would be better.


Again, that's only assuming you know more than God, or that you are somehow superior. What was that word again? N...A...R..C..I...


There's no link whatsoever between God being an authority and why it's wrong to kill children. It's wrong because it's wrong. I have no problem accepting the Bible's reasons for prohibiting murder.

Now, you can say God is not an authority in this modern world, but that ignores a large number of Christians who accept His authority.


Sure, keep shutting your ears to the actual points you don't like.

===

Something that gets lost in the text is humor, and I hope my jabs about narcissism are taken in the spirit they were intended and not as a personal attack. In all seriousness, one thing I think we have in common is the struggles we've had with fathers or father figures. I might pick on you for being disaffected by your father, but in truth I think a lot of us have a touch of fear regarding what, if anything, we take from our negative experiences with cruel parents and the fear that we'll turn out to be just like them. I constantly have to acknowledge my own inward violent thoughts and tendencies and resolve those things before they manifest themselves in any physical way. To that end, I've NEVER punished my children in anger because I know what it's like when a parent lashes out in unrestrained anger. My children are afraid of me, yes, but in the sense they fear the consequences of misbehavior. In my experience, it was a fear that led to resentment, and with resentment the feeling that I no longer cared whether I did right or wrong. Right or wrong, I was getting punished anyway, so the least I could do was give the old man a good reason to beat me, right? Well, I discovered there were better reasons for doing what was right in spite of whether I got beat or not, and I made my mind up to hang in there. I feel like I've been rewarded for my persistence, yet I also feel that my reward has come at a cost. So I make sure that I spend as much time as I can playing with my children and enjoying their laughter and holding onto them as long as I can when they are upset. I'll correct them when it's time to because I want them to grow up to be good people. I don't want them telling their own children stories about how their dad beat them and they didn't know half the time why, but rather that their father loved them and cared about what kind of people they were.

This may come as a shock, but we don't see with our ears. Bats do, but generally humans do not.

ruveyn

Why is it important?

Perfect beings don't make imperfect choices.

Based on what? Do you have some non theoretical example of perfection to base this off of?

That's one way of looking at it. Nothing is theoretically perfect, and there's no evidence of perfection in any kind of useful or pragmatically meaningful way. All we have is good enough to get the job done.

If you apply the Biblical concept of a fallen creation, perfection isn't even possible. The closest you can get is by setting a standard by which something might be judged perfect, but that being a human standard, perfection isn't even perfect. Try to compare that with an ultimate objective divine standard, you have to conclude that nothing, at least as far as we know, can possibly really be perfect.

On the surface Sand is right. But taken strictly at face value this implies that Adam wasn't a perfect being. If a perfect being doesn't make imperfect choices, then neither can a perfect being make an imperfect being.

My position is that God knew what He was doing when He made Adam. A creature made in its creator's image is imbued with the ability to make choices, to do good or evil, to obey or disobey. Adam doesn't have to be imperfect to begin with to make the wrong choice. Being given the gift of the ability to choose life over death is part of what makes Adam human and special. A consequence of Adam's choice, though, was that he caused himself to become imperfect.

So on a fundamental level, a perfect creature actually CAN make an imperfect choice. God, actually, has the POWER to make imperfect decisions. The problem with a perfect God making imperfect decisions, though, is that the idea of God making imperfect decisions is contrary to the nature of a perfect God. He CAN. He just chooses not to.

And by that logic, assuming God cose to make Adam perfect his choices would then have to be perfect and he could not make a bad decision. If everything about Adam was originally perfect his thinking also had to be perfect and why then would he chose imperfectly? Either te logic holds or it does not and the imperfection must lead eventually back to God.

Well, I've argued differently in the past, and I think that still holds true. But I've also thought about it in other ways.

Just because Adam is perfect doesn't mean his choices HAVE to be perfect, though. He's not perfect or complete without the ability to choose contrary to God's will. Thus being perfect does not make one impervious to doubt or temptation. Being perfect does not negate the will of man. It's being perfect that ALLOWS man to bring sin and an imperfect world upon himself, to attain a perfect existence or lose it. But the introduction of even one misdeed on creation is a blight on the whole thing. Thus the fallen creation longs for reconciliation, responding to an inherent imperfect sinful nature that we cannot help. So that which made us perfect was used by us to make us sinful--and yet our ability to choose for ourselves is the vehicle through which we may approach the Creator for salvation.

One has to wonder why God didn't tell Adam and Eve what the consequences of their choices would be. Even if they chose to obey him, it wouldn't have been informed consent (which, btw, is considered a basic cornerstone of ethical medical practice today).

edit:
maybe it was because, 'Do what I say or I'll send you to hell' would have blown his image with the happy naifs.

You don't read the Bible very much, do you?

any more? no. But I did read it back when I was trying to be a happy Catholic (it was, in fact, what set me on the path to atheism) and I distinctly remember a lack of, 'if you eat this fruit, I will expel you from the garden and curse you and all of your children in perpetuity, including inflicting endless torture upon them after death.' IIrc it was something like, 'don't eat it, lest you should die.'

That's a little like saying a medicine induces 'trouble breathing' when it causes fatal pulmonary emboli.

Yeah, it makes no sense for the good God to deprive us of something that puts us at a risk of going to hell.

I mean, how can God show love to us if a lot of us don't end up in hell? If there's no hell, then there's no heaven. Therefore, no love.

Welcome to the twisted world of love. God forbid that we all be fully safe and secure in His hands!

That's why secularism makes a lot of sense, AngelRho.



Sure, but it doesn't make it less logical. Besides, laws are there regardless of whether or not determinism is true. A serial killer will still have the law against him even if he can't help being a serial killer. The law doesn't sympathize with one dangerous individual; it's there for the benefit and protection of society as a whole.

So no problem.



Wrong. Psychopaths will always be psychopaths no matter what. That's how their nature is. They may be able to fool certain counselors into thinking that they've changed, but they never really change.

But this is not to say that a psychopath who commits a crime should not be punished for what he did. As I said before, the law isn't there to sympathize with dangerous people. The law is there to punish such people.



The difference is that you can tell for sure, through repeated observations, that the sun will set tomorrow. But you can't go back in time and see what would have happened if B happened instead of A at a certain point in time. So, in such a case, you're just simply guessing. Or do you really think you are the omniscient God?



And if it's a perfect being like God allowing an innocent baby to be tortured severely to death by a psychologically disturbed person, then you have no problem with such a God. Gotcha!



But the fact that you are trying to show me how God's obviously cruel acts are not cruel by adding your own context to each verse/passage concerned means that there is an attempt of justification going on here. It means that you are not satisfied with any skeptic having to accept what the relevant verses say within their own context. That's why you feel you have to explain why God's cruel acts are not cruel as we may think.



Actually, I'm not really shocked. I know that you could never find a logical connection between the existence of your God and the existence of this reality. The best you can do is say that God has given us free will, and that explanation fails because of the fact that God allowing any possibility of pain and suffering means that He lacks love and compassion.

A being who has compassion for someone would not want to see that someone get hurt and suffer in pain. I definitely wouldn't want my little sister or my pet dog to suffer in extreme pain or be tortured to death. Why would God want any of us to suffer such experiences if He truly loves us and has compassion for us?



Saying that God loves us when He would allow children and animals to suffer in extreme pain and agony is indeed an insult to our intelligence. Maybe you find this very funny, but I don't.

If you were to say that God doesn't really love us much, then you would be making perfect sense and not insulting our intelligence.



I wonder why it bothers you much. Is it because, deep down, you know that Yahweh resembles someone with NPD and with psychopathic traits?



I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can be no matter what. It's sad that you now have to resort to cheap jokes as your response.



But free will does lead to the possibility of pain and suffering. Of course, God can make it in a way that free will exists without anyone having to suffer extreme pain and death, but (for some unknown reason) God is unable to create such a reality. I wonder why ...



Giving your child a big,long hug doesn't have to be a choice. God could easily make it so that you hug your child whenever he is in distress. But, of course, he has to depend on you to be a loving parent in order for your child to get a hug from you ...



If that were your child under such a horrifying situation, you wouldn't be questioning any extremes right now, would you? You would be questioning God instead.



You do have a personal agenda. You're here to defend God no matter how cruel and narcissistic He is to many in this forum. That's why you reply to me whenever I make a post against your God.

And that's why you're also willing to water down God's moral character so you may be pleased enough to defend Him.



You're sorry that I took the path that I'm currently on? Don't be. I'm quite relieved to finally be free from the world in which logic is subject to one's faith and to currently be in the world in which logic rules. And you seem to have a tainted idea of what science is. Science isn't for one scientist, or one specific group of scientists, to study. Scientists from all over get to verify all scientific discoveries in all areas of science so that no corrupted scientist triumphs and no confirmation bias prevails.



Questioning isn't a matter of just asking an imaginary God. It involves a deep honest analysis of God's nature and acts as revealed in the Bible and also in this world ... an analysis that's free from any bias (whether Christian or secular) ... an analysis that doesn't rely on an imaginary God to answer and respond to with imaginary answers and responses.



That's a bit misleading. I, for one, am not looking for the truth. I'm just taking the path that makes the most sense (the path of secularism). If I'm ever faced with the truth, then cool. If it never happens, I'm still perfectly satisfied. I no longer need a spiritual crutch for my own sanity.



But it was not worse than the act. It was on the same level. But even then, I strongly disagree. Acts are always worse than mere intent as they almost always, if not always, have more severe consequences.



Ah, but what if the children of the soldier have nothing to do with the treason?

Should we execute them? After all, they are a possession of the soldier and, therefore, they are a part of him. So let's kill those children, too!

I bet Yahweh is foaming with sadistic lust at the thought of having innocent children be stoned to death. It makes things quite refreshing for Him. I mean, He does need young fresh blood every now and then.



An opinion that's worth taking into consideration.



Therefore, if people like them make stupid mistakes, God kills them mercilessly. Conclusion: GOD IS LOVE!



Aaron's sons stuffed things up, upsetting God and breaking His soul. Which explains why God killed them. Indeed, no surprise there. God kills whenever He's in the mood. Praise God Almighty!



Or maybe you're just hurt because you know it's the truth.



Not in my case.



That's what determinism is all about.

And, yes, all humans are narcissistic by nature (each to a certain degree). I mentioned this in another thread here in this section.

Narcissistic personality disorders, however, are more than just having narcissistic traits. Feel free to read more about them in books like the DSM.



You heard it, folks. If you don't believe God protects you from harm, you upset God and make Him angry enough to kill you. But God is always good. So He'll refrain from killing you if He sees that His merciful acts make people worship Him more. Hallelujah! Praise God Almighty!

Just be careful, though. Sometimes, God is so angry that He can't help but kill (no matter how merciful He is). And that's because God is LOVE, my friends. So love Him ... and He'll love you ... to a certain extent.



Thanks. I need some fleas anyway.

And as for me twisting the definition of the word "curse", that's incorrect. Any child who wishes death upon his parents (for example) is cursing them. And a lot of children do that to their parents. Therefore, according to the Old Testament, any such child is to be put to death.

And that, my friend, is a very cruel thing to do to a child just because he cursed his parents.



Oh, yeah. God doesn't accept ritual sacrifices of babies through fire, but He does accept sacrifices of babies through the sword. Indeed, loving.



I want that narcissistic God to just make me disappear out of existence. No suffering, no pain. Can He respect that choice?



According to the Torah, if a baby does curse his parents, does he get put to death? You believe it's not possible ... but only because you have your own definition of the word "curse".



Are you sure it's not you who's been doing that? Tell me, what if a child wishes severe illness or death upon his parents? And if you believe that's not what cursing is, then what makes it not a curse? Provide Biblical verses to show that your view is Biblical.



Even without tools, Yahweh could have just taught them through literature or something. But He didn't? Why not? Most likely because He isn't real. The fact that the men in power in those didn't have the psychological knowledge that we have today means that Yahweh also didn't have the knowledge.

And as for time, are you kidding me? Time is not an excuse. Yahweh made sure the Levites had all the time in the world to serve Him at His tabernacle for His narcissistic satisfaction. So why didn't He make sure that some other group of Jews had the time to learn some psychology from Him?

Face it, Yahweh is not real.



You can come up with creative responses all you want, but the truth still stands that the reason we no longer kill people for cursing their parents is because we are more civilized than the Jews of the Old Testament days. And the idea that Yahweh no longer demands that children be killed for cursing their parents means that Yahweh has been following our standards all along. Wanna know why? Well, you should know why without me telling you. But, in case you're wondering, I'll let you in on a litle secret. Yahweh is not real. And as a fictional God, He only commands what men in power want Him to command.



It doesn't matter how limited in understanding the Jews were. Yahweh could've easily just told them how to treat their children with love and compassion regardless of whether or not some would fail at following what Yahweh should have told them. But, not surprisingly, you don't see such needed advices in the Scriptures. I'm guessing it's because Yahweh is too narcissistic to understand what love and compassion really are.



Now you're waxing poetic. Why can't you just think of the main issues that I'm trying to point out to you instead of just ignoring them by writing too much text with unnecessary details?



Show me anywhere in the Bible a proper description of what we label today as autism and a list of signs and indications that one has autism and so on. None. Judging from the knowledge back then, autism was most likely simply considered mental retardation or a timid and naive personality (in case of HFA and Asperger's). But if a God who interacts with His people did exist, then what stopped Him from proving Himself to us all as God by providing the ancient Jews with advanced psychological knowledge that the Jews couldn't have had access to in any normal way?



I smell another Gospel message coming ...



That's what men in power (like the Apostle Paul) keep wanting you to think.



No offense, but such details mean nothing to me. I tend to focus on the real person of Jesus instead of the exaggerated version of Him.



The kind that isn't afraid of calling a sick narcissistic act a sick narcissistic act (whether from God or from humans).



Please read again what you just said above. Imagine that it was your children being stoned to death by the command of your God.

Move on? It's easy to say that when you've never witnessed children being executed in the name of God.



How about just making them disappear into thin air? Oh, yeah, sorry. I forgot. God doesn't do miracles.



I love it. It describes Yahweh very well.



I already addressed this above. Repeated observations make your assumption that the sun rises every day of your life a valid assumption.



Hitler was such a great man that God couldn't help but be on his side. Therefore, he's relevant.



I have. I'm not afraid of deep soul searching.



Hitler is such a great man. He's a pleasure to God, especially since Hitler has no fear of killing children that God doesn't like.



Hey, at least I don't demand that children be put to death.



I believe that my assumption that I'm more loving and compassionate than your God is quite valid. If I were God, I wouldn't allow any human to suffer extreme pain. I'd make sure all humans were safe and secure in my hands just as I make sure my pet dog, whom I love dearly, is always safe and secure in my hands.



I don't have to know more than God in order to understand that both love and compassion hate seeing a loved one in pain.



Yet, the Bible is clear that God has no problem killing children. It's not enough that He allows them to suffer pain because of the misdeeds of others.



I don't know of any Christian who seriously takes God as his only authority. The authority of the current national law keeps overriding the authority of God.



I'm paying attention very well to what you're saying, but it's obvious that you don't want to see any problem with God's acts (no matter how cruel they are).

You enjoy what that imaginary God gives you. That's why you're willing to excuse every narcissistic act and command of His.



Which makes me believe that you don't need such a narcissistic God to guide you as a parent. You never needed Him for that. You are a good father because of who you are. If you're anything like I was as a Christian, I think the God that you worship is not the exact same God as depicted in the Bible but an adapted version of Him that leans close to how Yahweh is in the New Testament (but even more loving and compassionate).

If you have a problem with your father, then surely you have a problem with the original Biblical Yahweh.

They call me Batman for a reason, you know.



Because whenever a discussion about God occurs, human nature is being studied.

It's only wrong to the extent that the underlying cognitive tendencies cannot be erased or reversed. That does NOT, however, mean that behavioral therapy can't attempt to mask or redirect the cognitive behavior in such a way that it never manifests itself in a physically destructive way. If you're really that depraved, you can lock yourself in a room and play violent video games if for no other reason than to take the edge off. It's the nicotine patch versus smoking. Behavioral therapy understands that the underlying neurological processes cannot be changed. Meth addicts in particular have problems because the chemical irreversibly damages the receptors (from what I understand). They have to be made aware that certain behaviors are unacceptable and how to deal with them. Despite my social handicaps, I've adapted as well as I can, but only by reading literature that has helped me become aware of patterns of adult behavior. The Covey book "12 Habits" was, I thought, a good book that helped me think a bit more deliberately on human relationships. I'm sure there are better books, and it didn't fix all my problems, but it did at least help. (There are other reasons NOT to recommend that book, but that's irrelevant here).

But it still stands to reason that if someone cannot control themselves or somehow is unable to account for the things they do, they are helpless and undeserving of punishment. So why is it they aren't allowed under the law to get away with it? If it is not within our will to do things, why punish us? I thought that our standards were better than Yahweh standards. Why punish people for what they cannot help?



How do we know? Can we go back to yesterday and re-observe it? How do we know we didn't just dream it all up?


I trust that there isn't a better way, that things have to play out the way they do for a higher reason. I trust that maybe this time, MAYBE the right choice will be made. Maybe. We have a choice as to whether we bring these people to justice. But if he doesn't have a choice in the matter, he HAS to kill babies because that's what he is, then what sense of justice is there to say that he shouldn't? Isn't it just as cruel to deprive a depraved child abuser/murderer of his hobby?


That's only assuming, though, that there is no real point to God's actions. It is entirely possible that conditions might have been much worse later on if God HADN'T acted appropriately. I'm not trying to justify anything. All I'm saying is I can see or understand why certain actions MIGHT have been justified, and I have no problem accepting those things as-is. Apparently you do, and the only point you really make is that you dislike or disagree with how God handled certain things.

All kidding aside in regards to NPD, it's entirely possible your perspective is colored by your experiences close to someone with NPD rather than trying to understand why that the reasons for certain actions are deeper than they appear purely on the surface and may never be fully comprehensible by a creation not equipped to understanding those reasons. I just don't find that it really takes a lot of brainpower (personally) to imagine what those reasons might be. I am, after all, created in God's image, so I like to think that even IF my own perspective on what those reasons might have been is colored by the culture and society I live in, there's no reason to think that my ideas of what those reasons are/were are really that far off the mark. But understanding those behaviors from a historical perspective also helps. There's no reason at all to think that the way we think today and the way we thought then are so divorced as to be completely incompatible. I just think that while this underlying narrative of past experiences never truly went away, we have grown with the times and added our new experiences to that ancient narrative. You choose to see the God of the Bible the way you do BECAUSE of your experiences; I see the God of the Bible the way I do in SPITE of mine.


Who says this is what He WANTS?


Saying our way based on limited knowledge and understanding is superior to God's way based on infinite knowledge and wisdom is insulting God's intelligence. You're essentially talking about things you know nothing about. And to be fair, so am I. The difference is that I'm open-minded enough to accept those things which I don't know, allowing for at least the possibility. You're automatically rejecting the rule of God's law based on your own assumptions of a superior alternative, not allowing for the possibility that MAYBE what actually happened was what God thought was best.

I'm not saying that just because God allows things to happen that the evil decisions man makes is excusable. I think that God can work THROUGH the evil intentions of man to bring about good.


No. It's just amusing because that seems to be the only angle you really have. I just don't think it really works because the underlying assumption is that something is wrong with God. If God is perfect, good, loving, and so on, then there is nothing wrong with how He brings about His will for His people. It seems to me you've patently rejected the deeds of a good God without any consideration for what a good God would do. To use your term, you're basically watering down the nature of God with how YOU would have done it or based on an ongoing negative experience with someone who WAS in authority over you. Equivocating God with someone you feel is an abusive narcissist is unfair.


Sad? In comparison to what? Do you believe making a cheap joke is somehow unfair or immoral? If it is, then that shows that you DO have at least one objective (and thus absolute) moral value. If it is not, then why think that it is somehow sad or wrong to make cheap jokes? If you really want to be reasonable, that would be a good start by recognizing that and adjusting your position.


But does it HAVE to? OK, I mean, you said God could have made it so that there could be free will and NO pain or suffering. According to the instructions in Genesis, this has already been done when God said "You may eat of any tree in the garden" along with the famous caveat. That's free will. That's choice. No pain and suffering. The possibility of pain and suffering? Sure, but God warned them that disobedience ended in death. But if there is no "possibility," then there's not really a choice, is there? Eternal and universal obedience, then, is the only way that I see a perfect world can be maintained. It CAN be done. It COULD have been done. But with the choice left in our hands and deciding to act out in our own will under the false assumption that somehow our will and desires are superior to God's, it wasn't done and it still isn't done. It doesn't mean that Adam HAD to eat from the forbidden tree, nor does it mean that God is at fault.


But it ISN'T my child. And tragedies of all sorts, even those, DO happen from time to time and the victims left behind still choose to place their faith in God. Tragedy doesn't mean one HAS to abandon faith. If it WERE my child, that doesn't mean that the same thing happened to every single household in my neighborhood. It doesn't happen to everyone. That's the issue I have with your statement. If EVERYONE collectively was a direct victim of that kind of horror, I'd agree with you. Some truly horrible things, though not that, did happen to my wife and I concerning our children and I had a difficult time understanding why it happened to us, of all people. But I didn't question God's authority over my life, nor did I feel I had to give up my faith. I recognized that what happened was the result of someone's poor choice under the influence of a vindictive spirit. It would be out of place to blame God for something He didn't do.


I'm just answering a few questions. I have nothing to temporally gain from this. Some people feel they DO have something to gain through abusing religion. I just reply because I enjoy the discussion. Don't you?


No, I understand what science is. But I also recognize that even science has potential for abuse. Do you agree with what happened under MKULTRA? That's science at work for you. You and I obviously both support science when it's doing what it's SUPPOSED to be doing. I just have no illusions that this is ALWAYS the case.


But this is according to your own assumptions about God. It implies that a Christian who uses what you think of as proper logic and reasoning MUST abandon his faith. In principal that doesn't put you in any higher position than a medieval Catholic bishop ordering someone to convert or die.


Misleading? Well, at least you helped me make my point.


I suppose I can concede at least that much. For me, spiritual or eternal consequences are always more severe than temporal, materialistic consequences. The Pharisaic interpretation of OT Law was one of equivalence, the punishment must fit the crime. It seems to me Jesus endorsed this interpretation as opposed to the strictly literalist view of the Sadducees, and part of our present-day justice system is rooted in the same principle at work here. There can be no punishment if there is no crime, and you can't be thrown in jail for THINKING something someone doesn't like. I say don't even think about it. That reflects on the condition of the soul and CAN lead to the impure thought's manifestation in physical action. That's not to say that it necessarily HAS to. It's more an ounce of prevention. If you love God and want to obey His commands, why even allow the thought of sinful acts? No one is perfect, but I do think that kind of mentality goes a long way to separating people from sinful behavior.


What are the rules, though? Obviously that wouldn't happen in many Western countries TODAY. It's not the same context as the ancient incidences.

Also, there is no indication that the response to Achan's treachery was to be an ongoing practice. It sends the message to all the people that THIS is what happens to traitors, so let's not ever let this happen again.


Your logic doesn't follow. I've already said that the people in question weren't interested in mercy. David made some stupid mistakes, but God let him live. What's the difference? David was seeking to follow God and desired intimacy with God on the kind of level that he could beg for mercy. His psalms indicate that he was well-aware of his insignificance in the greater scheme of things and his own fallibility. It's not what you really expect in a king, but it guaranteed the survival of the Davidic line far beyond any single dynasty in the northern kingdom.


But those aren't sacrifices. There are few instances of divine instruction to kill ever man/woman/child in the Bible. The ones I'm aware of have to do with the conquest of Canaan. Honestly, the Canaanites knew what the Israelites were up to, what their plans were, and had an opportunity to get out with their lives while there was still time. If they failed, it was their own fault and they have no one to blame but themselves for what happened to their children. The problem here is placing blame where it isn't due.


That I do not know. I think of hell as a cessation of existence for any real purpose, but I do not believe that the soul is something God made to simply cease to exist. If annihilation were really something that was merciful and God placed no real value on the soul, I suppose it would be a viable alternative. But because the soul does have value, annihilation doesn't seem to me to be any kind of merciful act.


OK, let's go with your definition, then. I believe it's not possible because a baby isn't capable of uttering curses in any meaningful way. That's my first reason. My second reason is that Torah does not say, based on the passage you quoted, that parents MUST put their children to death for uttering curses. There IS a law that details what parents are to do with incorrigible children, but that's not it. The passage you referenced dealt with what a person is to do if they personally witness this happen. It's a public act that disgraces or diminishes the status of parents with others, and effectively it is a threat against the whole family. The parents in question deserve justice if they are being abused by their children. A crowd of witnesses, or at the very least two or three, can put the child to death. But this is not an authorization or blank check to put all children to death for an isolated incident, nor is it an instruction to the parents themselves.

The only verse I can think of that IS a direct instruction to parents is found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21--"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and doesn't listen to them even after they discipline him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his hometown. They will say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he doesn't obey us. He's a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city will stone him to death. You must purge the evil from you, and all Israel will hear and be afraid."

"Stubborn and rebellious." This indicates a persistent pattern of behavior over a long period of time. "...doesn't listen to them even after they discipline him..." They've done everything they know to do, perhaps even enlisted help and have gone above and beyond the call of duty to turn their wayward son back. Giving instruction doesn't work. Warnings don't work. Beatings don't work or have lost their effectiveness. The threat of death, after all else has failed, doesn't even work. "...bring him to the elders of his city..." He must stand trial. "They will say..." Bringing charges against him. "...stubborn and rebellious...doesn't obey us...glutton and a drunkard." Specific charges are brought and the judges are called upon to decide whether the sentence may be carried out. If it were really so simple as just putting a child to death, there'd be no purpose in bringing him before the elders in the first place. "...to the gate of his hometown..." People who know the family and can be trusted to render a fair decision. "Then all the men...will stone him to death." They have determined that there is no further recourse possible for the parents and the parents themselves are absolved of guilt. The remainder of this passage is a reminder of the type of people God wants them to be, demonstrating to the rest of the world that they worship God. One of those values is the principle of fairness in dealing with these kinds of situations. The judges might, for example, rule that the parents were NOT dealing with their children effectively or fairly and that, perhaps, one of the elders could take the child into his own home to see if things improved. Perhaps adoption could be worked out. Perhaps the judges know the parents are just horrible people not fit for keeping children. There is no law against this kind of thing.


You mean like the Bible? Yeah, we have that.


No, not an excuse. But it is a really good reason. If a newborn cries, for example, is it appropriate to spank him for having a fit? No, you ascertain the reason and respond appropriately. If my son flips out because it's time to turn off the "Thomas the Tank Engine" video and go to bed, I'm likely to respond in kind. And if my punishment is severe, it's only because I don't want to see these unwanted behaviors getting worse with time.


Baseless assertion.


But you're not really pointing anything out. You're just telling me how you think I'm supposed to think for no meaningful reason other than that you "said so."


How about the ancient Jews themselves? This really ignores the state of the human race as itself a developing organism. Perhaps God didn't cause an outpouring of His knowledge simply because they weren't ready for it. You can't teach a 3-year-old to be completely conversant in Latin in a single day. But over time, not only can you teach him vulgar Latin, but you can learn it yourself as you teach it. Of course, God is not so limited He has to learn things before He teaches those things to us. But in my own experience as a piano teacher, someone who has a vast advanced knowledge of music theory, history, and literature, I know all too well that I can't help my students gain the skills necessary to perform Rachmaninov's 3rd Piano Concerto--which I can't even do myself, though I can show them how to go about learning it--if they don't even know where Middle C is. And as a God responsible for the greater well being of an entire creation, heck, even the entire universe, it's unreasonable to think that an uncivilized nation is ready for the present-day kind of world. It's unreasonable and unnecessary to think they should HAVE to be. Add to that they are the progeny of a fallen creation and thus lack the full capacity for understanding all that God wants. This can change over time as humanity grows and develops. Try feeding a small child steak before their molars grow in. It doesn't work very well.


But that's only from your point of view. Given your preoccupation with NPD and how it has affected your life (which I DO understand, btw), it's entirely reasonable to think that yours isn't the most objective point of view, nor a reason that I MUST draw conclusions contrary to the ones I've already drawn.



Yes, it's distressing, but that doesn't change the fact that wrong is wrong.


But you AREN'T God, and thus you can't possibly understand.


Who says God doesn't feel the same way?


Depending on the circumstances, it might be an act of mercy as it was in the conquest of Canaan.


Or the authority of the current national law, etc., are in concert with God's authority. If God is responsible for the world, then He is ultimately responsible for who is in authority over us. If He didn't allow people to hold those positions of authority, then it's likely we'd have no protection from our enemies or, as the case may be, each other.

Now, I'm not saying that just because God, in effect, put them where they are that they are such great, holy, Godly people, or even that the decisions those people make are always the right ones. The Bible does advise us to submit to authority, and thus it is as much spiritual mandate as well as it is a temporal mandate to maintain order.


Whether I want to or not has nothing to do with it. God has done nothing wrong. People have, though, and placing the blame on God for what people are responsible for just doesn't seem right to me. Is it right to punish an innocent person for the actions of someone tried and convicted for a crime? No, and I'd like to think most people would find it absurd to bring forth someone convicted of a crime, release them, and then imprison or put to death the person who was the victim of the criminal. That's not justice by any standards that I'm aware of.

Last edited by AngelRho on 18 Jan 2011, 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.