Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Koah]

Incidentally, the early Gnostic Christians believed the Abramaic God was the Demiurge; the evil god that created the physical world to imprison humanity in an existence of pain and fear.  Jesus was a representative of the "true" God, the good God of the spiritual realm, from whom humanity had been unjustly severed by the demiurge.  This view, while popular around the 3rd and 4th Centuries, was suppressed by the Roman Church.

In some interpretations the Demiurge isn't evil, merely unknowing of the Monad (the Supreme Being) and simply doing the best it can with limited knowledge and the belief that it's the only divine being that exists.  Also, Gnostic sects may have existed prior to Christianity, which means that it's not an offshoot of Christianity but rather a different religion entirely that merely incorporated its beliefs when they rose in popularity in an attempt to reconcile different viewpoints.  Which explains why it was suppressed by the early Roman Church (because it was not, strictly speaking, Christianity).  The fact that they blamed women for most of the world's spiritual ills, regarded the entire material world as being irredeemably evil and wrong and their emphasis on "secret knowledge" that only they had (i.e. being exclusive rather than inclusive) probably had something to do with that as well, but then again, maybe not.

Something like that, at least.  I really don't know where I'm going with this.

[Pacobird]

Not defending Gnosticism, only saying "God is a dick" theology has pedigree.

[Rico]

...

I don't think mini-quote by mini-quote is going to be terribly useful here, so bear with me as I meander for a bit.

Here is something that I'm sure Paco will appreciate: From what I can tell, you are basically accusing me of being picky and splitting hairs when trying to determine whether someone has broken the law (Pacobird has graduated from law school).

What I am saying here is that God's law prohibits a very specific kind of killing.  This type of killing did not happen even when the Israeli army was slaughtering unarmed, defenseless women and children.  This type of killing would not have happened if Abraham really had killed his son.  (An aside: This is very similar to your "1) Murder as a word means unlawful killing" "No, currently it means killing with intent, genius."!!! PS: It's still unlawful!)

I'm at work so I can't refresh myself on Korah right now, but as far as Rahab is concerned there are two major schools of thought aside from "God's Law didn't apply to Rahab at the time because she was a filthy heathen"—which I personally don't hold.  The first is that the commandment against false testimony suggests that Rahab even had she been an Israelite and subject to the 10 Commandments at the time of her lie, it would have been justified because she had no duty to tell the truth to the soldiers; similarly, you have no duty to tell armed intruders bent on raping and killing your wife and children specifically where they are hiding, and if telling a lie is more beneficial to them than keeping silent then you ought to tell the lie.  I don't find this point of view very compelling.

What I subscribe to is that, similarly to my fireman example which you are so convinced is a strawman, she was rewarded for her confession of faith, not her being a liar and a prostitute.  That God and the Israelites spared her life (as they had promised!) and later accepted her into their society does not in any way imply an acceptance of all their acts.  The Bible is full of characters (Noah, David, ...) who have faith in God AND obvious missteps for which they repent.  Just because Noah is praised for his life and righteousness doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to get drunk all the time and flash your junk at your kids.  Just because David is praised for his life and righteousness doesn't mean it's okay to send people to get killed to fuck their wives.

That we all fuck up and God forgives us even though there's no real reason to and we're just going to keep fucking up is kind of a core tenet of the Christian faith.

[Pacobird]

Here is something that I'm sure Paco will appreciate: From what I can tell, you are basically accusing me of being picky and splitting hairs when trying to determine whether someone has broken the law (Pacobird has graduated from law school).

But we are not talking about the law of Man.  We are talking about the law of God.  This is an important distinction, because if Man finds the laws he creates to be unsuitable to his purposes, he can simply change them as he sees fit.

When God starts playing fast and loose with His own rules, the implications for Man are troubling, to say the least.

That we all fuck up and God forgives us even though there's no real reason to and we're just going to keep fucking up is kind of a core tenet of the Christian faith.

This is the purpose of New Testament theology, but I would argue the forgiveness/redemption aspects of Christianity have way more to do with the influence of contemporary Greek/Egyptian theology than the Old Testament.

[Mongrel]

woop woop woop

maximum safe stupid levels have been breached

all hands abandon thread i repeat all hands abandon thread

[Brentai]

Shut up Iron Mongrel.

[patito]

Mongrel, if you really don't like a thread you could not post in it, in fact you could not read it altogether. Seriously, you posting in it as you're doing is downright annoying.


So, yeah, basically what Brentai said.

[Catloaf]

Words

Perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly.

I'm not saying murder can't be legally/rationally justified

Drethelin, I'm not changing any definitions.

to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

I'm just saying that the act of killing someone on purpose is in itself inherently barbaric and inhumane!

And as far as abortion goes, the reasoning is simple:  A fetus is not a human being.  Rather it is nothing more that a parasitic life form with human DNA that will possibly one day become a human the moment it stops being a parasite and can at least breath on it's own.

[Mongrel]

Shut up Iron Mongrel.

Mongrel, if you really don't like a thread you could not post in it, in fact you could not read it altogether. Seriously, you posting in it as you're doing is downright annoying.


So, yeah, basically what Brentai said.

We are taking this thread straight to Cuba.

[Brentai]

Way too late for that, man.

The part that amuses me the most is that this became a huge long debate over the dubious morality of killing in response to a post which was very specifically about killing in a church.  Which has never been the least bit ambiguous in Christian doctrine.  Even the fucking Inquisition refused to cross that line.

[Mongrel]

Pointless theological debate has been with us for longer than Christianity or even the written word.

Nothing will be solved in some fool thread on a messageboard and not the least meaningful thing can come of this. 

Maybe Thad'll see this and throw all my posts in Jail, but for my money, I can't see why this whole thread wasn't put there in the first place.

[Büge]

Way too late for that, man.

The part that amuses me the most is that this became a huge long debate over the dubious morality of killing in response to a post which was very specifically about killing in a church.  Which has never been the least bit ambiguous in Christian doctrine.  Even the fucking Inquisition refused to cross that line.

Well, I mean, Jesus threw moneylenders out of a church. That's violence, at least.

[Rico]

But we are not talking about the law of Man.  We are talking about the law of God.  This is an important distinction, because if Man finds the laws he creates to be unsuitable to his purposes, he can simply change them as he sees fit.

When God starts playing fast and loose with His own rules, the implications for Man are troubling, to say the least.

Oh, absolutely.  We're in full agreement there.  But, really, that's why I'm having this discussion with Transportation here, who sees this happening in all these stories (he was told as a kid and never read again until yesterday is my guess) where I don't.  I certainly think God by definition has the power and right to throw everything out and give us a whole new rulebook, I just don't think He does.

The internal consistency may be razor-thin, one tiny fact away from throwing the whole thing off, but... yeah, I'm hardly going to apologize for arguing technicalities in a discussion about laws.

[Brentai]

Well, I mean, Jesus threw moneylenders out of a church. That's violence, at least.

I do not think he picked them up and threw them.

[François]

When God starts playing fast and loose with His own rules, the implications for Man are troubling, to say the least.

And it came to pass, that [Jesus] went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

The law exists solely for the benefit of those who follow it and its only value is in that benefit. Keeping an obsolete or situationally harmful law for the sake of tradition is a terrible backwards mistake.

[Büge]

Well, I mean, Jesus threw moneylenders out of a church. That's violence, at least.

I do not think he picked them up and threw them.

Then Jesus went into the temple, threw out everyone who was selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the moneychangers' tables and the chairs of those who sold doves.

Well, it's up for interpretation... but he did cause trouble.

[Transportation]

What I am saying here is that God's law prohibits a very specific kind of killing.  This type of killing did not happen even when the Israeli army was slaughtering unarmed, defenseless women and children. This type of killing would not have happened if Abraham really had killed his son.  (An aside: This is very similar to your "1) Murder as a word means unlawful killing" "No, currently it means killing with intent, genius."!!! PS: It's still unlawful!)

If certain killings are permitted then what is an unlawful killing defined as? You seem to be missing the point that God has laws forbidding murder and then redefines what murder is when it's useful to do so.

For example, every genocidal maniac in the world's history did not consider what they were doing murder, since they had some trumped up cause or another. We can, of course, condemn them as murderous. Yet God is magically immune to this kind of treatment! Anyway, a morality tangent is a bit pointless because Abrahamic Gods can all be easily demonstrated as immoral through sins of inaction. Onwards!

But anyway, what is an unlawful killing? No, seriously, answer the question. How is Abel's murder different from Abraham's son's ordered murder?  Hint: God told one of them to do it, using a special Hebrew code word that makes it totally different from murder.

It doesn't magically stop being murder if you say it's not. I mean, I can't get away with that.

I'm at work so I can't refresh myself on Korah right now, but as far as Rahab is concerned there are two major schools of thought aside from "God's Law didn't apply to Rahab at the time because she was a filthy heathen"—which I personally don't hold.  The first is that the commandment against false testimony suggests that Rahab even had she been an Israelite and subject to the 10 Commandments at the time of her lie, it would have been justified because she had no duty to tell the truth to the soldiers; similarly, you have no duty to tell armed intruders bent on raping and killing your wife and children specifically where they are hiding, and if telling a lie is more beneficial to them than keeping silent then you ought to tell the lie.  I don't find this point of view very compelling.

First off they're stupid and/or dishonest:
Joshua 2:4-6 (New International Version)

But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them." 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.

That's straight up lying. And, again, notice the legalist tap dancing how God can exploit foreigners to do things his laws forbid because they're not part of the covenant. Also, the men wouldn't kill her if she wasn't hiding them in the first place!

What I subscribe to is that, similarly to my fireman example which you are so convinced is a strawman, she was rewarded for her confession of faith, not her being a liar and a prostitute.

New American Standard Bible (©1995); James 2:25

In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

So says James, anyway. I'd think he was an expert since he knew the guy.

That God and the Israelites spared her life (as they had promised!) and later accepted her into their society does not in any way imply an acceptance of all their acts.

Similar to how I can condemn a criminal (Rahab) and accept his stolen goods (Jericho) without being morally culpable or contradicting myself.

The Bible is full of characters (Noah, David, ...) who have faith in God AND obvious missteps for which they repent.  Just because Noah is praised for his life and righteousness doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to get drunk all the time and flash your junk at your kids.  Just because David is praised for his life and righteousness doesn't mean it's okay to send people to get killed to fuck their wives.

That's nice.

That we all fuck up and God forgives us even though there's no real reason to and we're just going to keep fucking up is kind of a core tenet of the Christian faith.

Pretty sure God makes worse mistakes and isn't really in a position to forgive anyone, but whatever.

[Transportation]

Oh, absolutely.  We're in full agreement there.  But, really, that's why I'm having this discussion with Transportation here, who sees this happening in all these stories (he was told as a kid and never read again until yesterday is my guess) where I don't.

:irony: But I mostly replied to this so I could:

 I certainly think God by definition has the power and right to throw everything out and give us a whole new rulebook, I just don't think He does.

...do you know what the new covenant is?

[Transportation]

Triple post, sorry for debating in the debate forum

And it came to pass, that [Jesus] went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

The law exists solely for the benefit of those who follow it and its only value is in that benefit. Keeping an obsolete or situationally harmful law for the sake of tradition is a terrible backwards mistake.

I think you're missing the key point that if the ultimate authority of morality, God, let's you break his laws when it's "convenient" (which has a nebulous definition) he is both A: contradicting himself and thus leaving it all up to mortals to make the judgment call; rendering his codified system pointless.

[Misha]

Pointless theological debate has been with us for longer than Christianity or even the written word.

Nothing will be solved in some fool thread on a messageboard and not the least meaningful thing can come of this. 

Maybe Thad'll see this and throw all my posts in Jail, but for my money, I can't see why this whole thread wasn't put there in the first place.

I hear this a lot when this sort of debate crops up and while it's true that no random conversation between dudes will change the world, individual people can indeed be convinced of the error of their mode of thought in this way. I have personally been told that my reasoned arguments have lead someone away from faith. changing how one person thinks is not a whole lot but it's definitely something meaningful.