Bush And Moses

[DRMIZER]

by William Edelen

During the election campaign, the Rev. Mark Craig, Senior Minister of a Dallas, Texas Methodist church, one of the largest in America with a congregation of 12,000, climbed up into the pulpit and in his sermon compared (then) President-elect George W. Bush to Moses "being chosen by God to lead the people." As often happens when preachers get carried away with the sound of their own voice while looking down into all of those upturned faces, he crossed the line from theological ignorance to stupidity. In this case, he even crossed on over into insanity.


When I read this, I thought..."My gawd....I hope Bush is not Moses!" Moses was the Slobodan Milosevic of the Old Testament who ordered ethnic cleansing...rape...genocide and a scorched earth policy. That brilliant Deist, Thomas Paine, who gave us the words "The United States of America," wrote this about Moses:


"The character of Moses is the most horrid tale that can be imagined. Moses was a wretch that committed the most horrible atrocities that can be found in the literature of any nation. For Moses said unto them (according to the bible) ‘kill every male among the little ones....and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him....but all of the women that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.'" Among the most detestable villains in history you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to God, to butcher the boys...massacre the others...and to rape their daughters...."


If you want to read about this slaughter, blow the dust off your bibles and turn to the book of Numbers, Chapter 31. It will tell you that "God" has been the greatest cosmic hitman in our history as a species.


Comparing George W. Bush to Moses must be among the most insane statements ever made by a preacher.


From the clown of the Crystal Cathedral to the nearest bible-pounding church, most preachers just cannot resist pouring forth absolute nonsense to all of those upturned faces.


Have you ever realized that the typical church service on a typical Sunday morning bears a striking resemblance to a court of law? The minister wears a robe, most often black, like a judge. He is elevated above the audience, like a judge. The pews and pulpit closely resemble the furniture of a courtroom. The minister preaches law from that idol that has replaced God, called the Bible. The audience (subjects) are supposed to symbolically prostrate themselves before all of this. The judge (minister) interprets the law...and then throws the book at them. (law: bible)


No wonder it is almost impossible to think your way beyond all of these trappings to the enlightenment of a more refined spiritual consciousness if you have been subjected to this kind of authoritarian structure since early childhood.


The preacher of one of the largest Methodist churches in America said Bush was another Moses.


It is this kind of insanity from organized religion that stands as a great wall, as the greatest obstacle, to our spiritual evolution as a species.

http://www.freethinkerscs.com/articles/bushmoses.html

[Michele]

lol this is kind of timely because I just finished reading deuteronomy wherein it can be strongly argued God working through Moses was a terrorist too (forget mohammed). And he wasn't all that thrilled with the sloven state of his chosen people either. God that is. Moses had to go up to the mountain twice for God's sake who had already destroyed two kingdoms for the chosen, men women and children. Hmmm if one wonders where all our Judeo Christian moral selectivity might originate. I will take the teachings of Christ over the OT any day.


"The character of Moses is the most horrid tale that can be imagined. Moses was a wretch that committed the most horrible atrocities that can be found in the literature of any nation. For Moses said unto them (according to the bible) ‘kill every male among the little ones....and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him....but all of the women that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.'" Among the most detestable villains in history you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to God, to butcher the boys...massacre the others...and to rape their daughters...."

kind of helps put all those out of context koranic verses in their worldly perspective. For those who enjoy placing things in context that is. Now I guess it is on to the book of Numbers... as if Deuteronomy doesn't justify full out slaughter enough.

[MikeD4o7]

Ancient texts display ancient beliefs and ethical systems. What amazes me is that people even today can somehow confuse something like that for the command of some great God. No amount of rationalization can sufficiently explain how the intentional slaughter of innocent civillians and children could possibly be considered just or encouraged by a God that is anything other than a villain.

[cpwill]

lol, well you sure are working into the wrath-of-God texts, aren't you?

[cpwill]

Ancient texts display ancient beliefs and ethical systems. What amazes me is that people even today can somehow confuse something like that for the command of some great God. No amount of rationalization can sufficiently explain how the intentional slaughter of innocent civillians and children could possibly be considered just or encouraged by a God that is anything other than a villain.

realize also that most of the stories are exagerated; tribes that are "wiped out" every 'man woman and child" have a disturbing habit of appearing on later chronologically.

[MikeD4o7]

realize also that most of the stories are exagerated; tribes that are "wiped out" every 'man woman and child" have a disturbing habit of appearing on later chronologically

Well I'm sure you know that in reality, I don't even believe most of it happened at all. I'm more concerned with the message it's sending.

[cpwill]

the message it was intended (at the time of writing) to send was, roughly "dont' mess with israel" placing ourself in the times, we see that wiping out an enemy tribe wasn't really considered the way we would consider it today (genocide), and that such a concept as "innocent non-combatants" hadn't really entered into people's heads' yet. basically, this is rather like americans telling stories about Sgt York, with the numbers of captured germans increasing every time until finally someone writes it down and the account is thus frozen.

[MikeD4o7]

the message it was intended (at the time of writing) to send was, roughly "dont' mess with israel" placing ourself in the times, we see that wiping out an enemy tribe wasn't really considered the way we would consider it today (genocide), and that such a concept as "innocent non-combatants" hadn't really entered into people's heads' yet. basically, this is rather like americans telling stories about Sgt York, with the numbers of captured germans increasing every time until finally someone writes it down and the account is thus frozen.


I agree with what you're saying concerning society's views at the time... and I do think it's important for understanding the text, but I don't see it as an excuse for condoning it. Wouldn't it be a form of moral relativism to apply different moral standards to different societies in different time periods? I don't see why we should consider it acceptable for God to send a message in a way that we all know now is immoral.

[cpwill]

which is why one also has to take a look at the literary process and decide if the order to slaughter all men, women, and children A) ever even existed and B) came from God.

[MikeD4o7]

which is why one also has to take a look at the literary process and decide if the order to slaughter all men, women, and children A) ever even existed and B) came from God.


But if we admit that much of the OT didn't happen, or that much of it was someone else's message erroneously attributed to God, then what are we left with? How is the distinction made between what came from God and what did not? How flimsy of ground can we put the OT on before the whole thing falls through?

[cpwill]

we aren't saying the OT didnt' happen; we're saying that much of the histories have been exagerated, altered, etc.

[MikeD4o7]

So how do we distinguish between which parts were exaggerated or altered beyond recognition and which parts are the actual messages from God. Since the idea is that God's message is found in the Bible, how do we give credibility to one passage saying "God meant this" then deny that credibility to another passage saying "God meant that". It seems the only way to reconcile the differences or confusion would be to ask God himself, but considering many claim that God talks to them, and many claim God has told them things which contradict with what many others have said God told them.... it leaves us in a pretty undesirable position.

[Michele]

So how do we distinguish between which parts were exaggerated or altered beyond recognition and which parts are the actual messages from God. Since the idea is that God's message is found in the Bible, how do we give credibility to one passage saying "God meant this" then deny that credibility to another passage saying "God meant that". It seems the only way to reconcile the differences or confusion would be to ask God himself, but considering many claim that God talks to them, and many claim God has told them things which contradict with what many others have said God told them.... it leaves us in a pretty undesirable position.

very good points... and regardless of what the final judeo christian analysis is today, please do note how cpwill RIGHTFULLY points out context in time and place as well as the potential for exaggeration... funny that didn't seem to matter in terms of interpreting koranic verse. Some didn't seem to wish to factor in context and time, nor were many concerned with whether or not the verses were complete or from which book they came out of.

No they all just were held up as proof as the Koran was evil... well look at deuteromony and now I see Numbers... out of the context of the appropriate diadactic well what do you know GOD IS AS EVIL.

Which is the whole point interpretation matters as does message especially if the word of god as it is disseminated through what the Judeo christians seem to insist is the TRUEST WORD OF GOD does factor in here.... and their interpretations are OBVIOUSLY morally selective and morally relative. And both of those books can be as misinterpreted as any of the verses from the Koran by any one Jewish or Christian identity group. Wherein the chosen and her supporters are given special favor even to ulilize terror if they need be as per the word and actions of God or G-d!

seems all the monotheistic religions can be interpreted in an equally corrupted manner wherein the rely upon mortal interpretation and a kind of righteous exclusivity. In the mean time deuteromony tells us God didn't even choose the isrealites because he felt them righteous and clearly they had some problems in terms of following God's word as well.

Thank God these books are relatively meaningless to me, but for an intellectual exercise.

You might know the answer to this Mike... who was responsible for the beheading Of John the Baptist? LOL.

So much for the need for context and perspective. OUt of context and only a judeo christian perspective or interpretation will hardly do. Unless of course we wish to enact the butcher of God and Moses from out the OT and then pretend we are most righteous because uh mohammed is a rapist and a terrorist. what a laugh really!

[MikeD4o7]

You might know the answer to this Mike... who was responsible for the beheading Of John the Baptist?


As far as I know, Herod was... at least that's all that Josephus indicates, and Josephus is pretty much the go to guy for 1st century Judea history. The Gospel of Mark seems to partially blame Herodias, but Josephus doesn't give any mention of it.

[Michele]

As far as I know, Herod was... at least that's all that Josephus indicates, and Josephus is pretty much the go to guy for 1st century Judea history. The Gospel of Mark seems to partially blame Herodias, but Josephus doesn't give any mention of it.

yes I know! it was a tongue and check question. What I find interesting is that for theatrical purposes it seems Oscar Wilde focused on Salome Herodias's daughter... but I only have a vague recollection of that play.

[cpwill]

So how do we distinguish between which parts were exaggerated or altered beyond recognition and which parts are the actual messages from God. Since the idea is that God's message is found in the Bible, how do we give credibility to one passage saying "God meant this" then deny that credibility to another passage saying "God meant that". It seems the only way to reconcile the differences or confusion would be to ask God himself, but considering many claim that God talks to them, and many claim God has told them things which contradict with what many others have said God told them.... it leaves us in a pretty undesirable position.

it does get pretty tricky; basically, one takes the message each text contains and one looks at it; one also considers who the writers of the text were (deuderonomists tended to look at things a bit differently than elohimists;)), and when it was written. prophets, for instance, could very well have been first-generation writings; like the early books of the new testament; and thus extremely accurate. genesis, however, is a bit off;).

[MikeD4o7]

it does get pretty tricky; basically, one takes the message each text contains and one looks at it; one also considers who the writers of the text were (deuderonomists tended to look at things a bit differently than elohimists), and when it was written. prophets, for instance, could very well have been first-generation writings; like the early books of the new testament; and thus extremely accurate. genesis, however, is a bit off.


I think the problem is that we're not just looking at exaggeration or even mythology... it's more than that. What we see is that even the underlying message behind the stories, no matter how exaggerated or fictitious the stories may be, is not condonable. The historically accuracy of various parts of the OT really aren't significant for this argument... unless of course you want to say that any of the authors were not only prone to errors in recording history, but also in recording God's message? Which do you not trust particularly concerning historical matters; the J, E, or D?

[heel31ok]

DRMIZER, allow me to quote another great statesman, "There you go again!"

[heel31ok]

MikeD, the text stands as is . The ones who would say it is myth or legend handed down would water it down and open it to being something other than what it really is. The truth is that in the context of that time and in the reality of that time it was the right thing to do. God is just and righteous and so are His decrees. I see no problem with what transpired when done according to the will and direction of God even in the matters of the destruction of those He deemed wicked and unredeemable! As harsh as that may sound ther were and are some now who fit in that category.

[heel31ok]

cp, as we have discussed before , I do not think Genesis is off at all in fact I believe it is right on!

[DRMIZER]

DRMIZER, allow me to quote another great statesman, "There you go again!"Oh, which statesman was that? ;)

[heel31ok]

Ronaldus Maximus !

[DRMIZER]

Ronaldus Maximus !Got it!!:D

[Craig]

I see no problem with what transpired when done according to the will and direction of God even in the matters of the destruction of those He deemed wicked and unredeemable!

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

- Blaise Pascal

[Michele]

MikeD, the text stands as is . The ones who would say it is myth or legend handed down would water it down and open it to being something other than what it really is. The truth is that in the context of that time and in the reality of that time it was the right thing to do. God is just and righteous and so are His decrees. I see no problem with what transpired when done according to the will and direction of God even in the matters of the destruction of those He deemed wicked and unredeemable! As harsh as that may sound ther were and are some now who fit in that category.

wow so at every turn judeo christian terrorism is the right thing to do. And God himself sanctions it. and therefore throughout the ages there are times based on the interpretation of deuteronomy that judeo christain terrorism is holy and thus this is how they got to sanction their every move because after all in the face of evil killing men women and children was an action utilized by God himself. Even though it is clear from the chapter that those God ran his campaign of terror for were not above reproach either and that was by God's estimation. Well Thank you for making that crystal clear.

But no thank you I pass. I will take the teachings of christ over the psychopathology of God in the OT any day. With the teachings of christ it isn't as easy, it seems to me, to practice the form of selectivity which is a message inherent in deuteromony for sure. The Israelites sinned and yet they were chosen. Sorry I don't buy it. There is a hint of moral manipulatoin in this. By the time JC spoke on the mount that form of selectivity would not cut it. His two greatest commandments upon which all laws are weighted makes the form of selectivity as evidents in Deuteronomy more difficult to justify. There isn't evidence of a loophole in the teachings of Christ.

[Michele]

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

- Blaise Pascal

amen! really no wonder so much evil has been embraced by those invoking god's name. Look at hitler something tells me he might have been at odds with deuteronomy himself. Really it is a very screwy message coming out of that chapter, and on top of Hitler invoking christianity he also was an occultist and an eugenist. What a lethal combination.

so he is reading deuteronomy and wonders wait a minute we have these people who can't seem to follow God's teachings wandering round the desert for 40 years. While even though they themselves are not righteous God is slaying men women and children in their name in the hopes that at some point his chosen will follow his law. What kind of mishigah message is that?

Oh one day you will be good but in the meantime I have promised you land and though you are not good yet I will slay whole kingdoms in preparation for that day when you will be good. Right. It waxes like cognitive dissonance to me if ever I heard it.

And who was it wrote this? from whose word? Well no wonder mortal and selectively moral men waltz round with the sword in one hand and their bible in the other and Christ was nailed to the cross. Really it is like a grimm fairytale.

[heel31ok]

Michelle, to answer most of your questions, yes!

[Michele]

Michelle, to answer most of your questions, yes!

You know heel. I can't say I have learned much about god reading this damned bible. But I will tell you this. I in a very strange way do understand why we are in the state we are in. And it does harken in ways back to this book... and for all we know it has nothing whatsoever to do with God... but a wish for one people to claim a piece of land from which they were thrown off centuries ago.

For I must tell you I don't see anything godly here.... not by my apparent misinterpretation of god and religion... Most exactly today we attempt to bring to pass God's word supposedly and at any cost for just another people who are as flawed as everyone else, according to this book... there is no more absolute evil than that. To have whole collective psyche's actually back a proposition as flawed as this one. Believe beyond belief that this one thing must come to pass even as we see the unrest it has caused?

well we are all damned to hell then. And of the whole book I will take Jesus out of it completely because of everything thus far that I have read it is only that part as well as the gospels of John that actually seem to make any sense whatsoever ( of what I have read of it thus far that is). Jesus seems to have given us a formula to rise above the strange psychopathology evident in the Old Testament and still we clutch to the Old testament in literal terms. do you not see the fall out from this proposition that one people must have one lousy piece of land and at the utter resignation of any form of will of humanity as a whole.

Do you not see how that very book has also backfired unto these very same people. As anyone who reads deuteronomy based in other aspects of spiritual and universal law has to read that book and go huh? It rings like a double message. It goes contrary to our cliches of goodliness. Something is oddly off with this Chapter (and I haven't even read numbers yet). Whatever angst occurred then remains with us today....why would we chose to maintain this angst over peace? it seems to me the mistake is having accepted it all as God's doing and God's intention and God's word.

The Judeo Christians it seems to me take all knowledge and wisdom from man right from the beginning in the book of Genesis... and having done so they have us reliant upon a highly falliable God... having indoctrinated that somehow the world order hinges upon one people having a land regardless of the fall out and damage to any other people?

how is it we have accepted this? (I haven't but I know many believers have) it is anti-human let alone anti-christ. I will take the nag hammadi interpretations (or the gnostic interpretations) of genesis over the the Judeo Christian interpretations anyday. For in having eaten from the tree of knowledge we were given our own will which is not a sin at all.. it is our own power of majic. Look at all the self help books they talk about the power of exercising our will contrary to the judeo christian interpretation that will have us with no will of our own. The power of our ability to visualize an end and bring it to pass. and I myself have exercised that power myself. Think if masses of people exercised the willful power of visualization contrary to prophecy, rather than to have resigned to these flawed biblical horrors that some wish to have come to pass. These seem to be flawed proposition that the Judeo Christians have attempted to force upon the earth. And do not get me wrong I do not reject a god being... but that being I have alluded to in my life in my own vague way is in no way shape or form the God as described in deuteronomy. That is not my God. Although I know bad things occur. I believe they occur not due to God but due to man.

I never had read the bible. I rejected it in the most inituitive way without having read it... just judging from the hypocrisy I picked up as a child from my priests when I when to church as it came through in their homilies... One day I just of my own volition walked out of the church (I was catholic).

Certainly I do not wish to indict the whole religion ( I won't do that with Islam I see no reason to do that with Christianity), yet... something is gravely amiss with this book. The more I read it but for the teachings of Christ, the more confusion it brings to my mind not clarity or enlightenment.

[heel31ok]

The whole Hitler thing is a little over the top. The change in the way God dealt with people came when Jesus came. A new Covenant was made with those who believe in Him . The Law was not for the deliverance of people, it is a hard task master and it's requirements are more than we can afford to pay on our own merit. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the requirements it had as it pertains to the consequences of breaking the Law. Death was that requirement and the bill that came due required payment. Jesus did not shy away from that payment with an excuse that the two greatest commandments exempted even himself from this debt. He knew the Law better than anyone and knew that death was the only way to give the greatest example of the two greatest commandments. He did not protest the unjustness of the Law .; He said He did not come to abolish the Law , but to fulfill it. This legitimizes the authority that the Law carries. If one chooses to live under the law then only the Law can judge him/her. The way God dealt with the other nation in the OT was fair and just. They were given plenty of opportunity to live in harmony with the Hebrews. But they proved themselves as wicked and lovers of themselves more than lovers of God. They were idolaters and followed false gods . They sacrificed their children to the false gods and were reprobate . As in the account of Soddom God gave a chance for deliverance if Lot could find a certain number of righteous people in the town but none were found. God is the judge of our hearts and he judged their hearts as wicked and unredeemable. You may not like what happened but the record is clear and not seeking our approval. It is fantasy and pure optimism on the part of critics of the OT record just because they do not agree with what happened. The only loopholes being invoked are those who want to create their own god by maintaining only the parts they agree with are accurate and the hard to accept parts have to be misinterpretation and inaccurate retellings of myths and legends. this world is a violent and wild place and has been for a long time. man has brought on alot of this , all of this himself and has put into motion events and conclusions to events that cannot be dumbed down and sanitized to fit a politically correct , all inclusive world view of tolerance of evil and intolerance of the elimination of evil . You are mistaken in thinking God was killing other peoples trying to convince his chosen people to follow His Law. He destroyed them because of what they themselves did ,it is personal accountability.God dealt with His chosen on their own merits and that is why their disobedience led to the 40 years of wandering in the desert. When a new generation had come up then they were allowed to enter the promised land. It waxes like a covenant that God cannot go against His own Word . A covenant is not like a contract it cannot be ruled invalid if one party breaks the agreement. You are just mad at God because plays favorites in your eyes to the exclusion of others. The exclusion is only to those who reject Him. The promise is to all people who will accept Him and be grafted into the true vine.All have the opportunity to be the chosen people.
Who waltzes around with a sword in one hand and Bible in the other ? Also, I am not quite understanding the part about Christ nailed to a Cross and what you mean about that.

[Michele]

The whole Hitler thing is a little over the top. The change in the way God dealt with people came when Jesus came. A new Covenant was made with those who believe in Him . The Law was not for the deliverance of people, it is a hard task master and it's requirements are more than we can afford to pay on our own merit. Jesus fulfilled the Law and the requirements it had as it pertains to the consequences of breaking the Law. Death was that requirement and the bill that came due required payment. Jesus did not shy away from that payment with an excuse that the two greatest commandments exempted even himself from this debt. He knew the Law better than anyone and knew that death was the only way to give the greatest example of the two greatest commandments. He did not protest the unjustness of the Law .; He said He did not come to abolish the Law , but to fulfill it. This legitimizes the authority that the Law carries. If one chooses to live under the law then only the Law can judge him/her. The way God dealt with the other nation in the OT was fair and just. They were given plenty of opportunity to live in harmony with the Hebrews. But they proved themselves as wicked and lovers of themselves more than lovers of God. They were idolaters and followed false gods . They sacrificed their children to the false gods and were reprobate . As in the account of Soddom God gave a chance for deliverance if Lot could find a certain number of righteous people in the town but none were found. God is the judge of our hearts and he judged their hearts as wicked and unredeemable. You may not like what happened but the record is clear and not seeking our approval. It is fantasy and pure optimism on the part of critics of the OT record just because they do not agree with what happened. The only loopholes being invoked are those who want to create their own god by maintaining only the parts they agree with are accurate and the hard to accept parts have to be misinterpretation and inaccurate retellings of myths and legends. this world is a violent and wild place and has been for a long time. man has brought on alot of this , all of this himself and has put into motion events and conclusions to events that cannot be dumbed down and sanitized to fit a politically correct , all inclusive world view of tolerance of evil and intolerance of the elimination of evil . You are mistaken in thinking God was killing other peoples trying to convince his chosen people to follow His Law. He destroyed them because of what they themselves did ,it is personal accountability.God dealt with His chosen on their own merits and that is why their disobedience led to the 40 years of wandering in the desert. When a new generation had come up then they were allowed to enter the promised land. It waxes like a covenant that God cannot go against His own Word . A covenant is not like a contract it cannot be ruled invalid if one party breaks the agreement. You are just mad at God because plays favorites in your eyes to the exclusion of others. The exclusion is only to those who reject Him. The promise is to all people who will accept Him and be grafted into the true vine.All have the opportunity to be the chosen people.
Who waltzes around with a sword in one hand and Bible in the other ? Also, I am not quite understanding the part about Christ nailed to a Cross and what you mean about that.

sorry this does not compute. you are giving me an interpretation of god's intent based in what appears to be the perspective solely of this one people and a people who were not very good at following God's laws either. When the kingdom's that were slayed don't appear to have a perspective in this telling, how is this the full truth of the matter? Because your cleric or rabbi tells you so at the completely irrelevance of any others but the Hebrews. It seems the question begs to be asked...What is wrong with this picture?

And based on only this one perspective we have a justification for slaughering all around them. It is not as if hebrews were the only outcasts in the history of our whole civilization. It seems you wish me to believe the Hebrews are chosen basically because the hebrews themselves say they are? You seem to be the Christian do you need me to explain to you why this very interpretation stands in defiance of the teachings of Christ considering the decision to cruxify him also falls on the hebrew clerics as well.

sorry... this interpretion does not compute. All of mankind is to fall under peril because of only one people? sorry I don't buy it.

[DRMIZER]

sorry... this interpretion does not compute. All of mankind is to fall under peril because of only one people? sorry I don't buy it. Neither do I. It's quite narrow minded to assume this as fact.

[Michele]

Neither do I. It's quite narrow minded to assume this as fact.

and here is another question that has me going:

If they are chosen as hebrews then why must they convert? This belief with no question stuff is evil to me... sorry ... my mind has not been clarified by reading this damn bible I am at a lose for how it has clarified others... really I am... I am so at odds with it in my most deepest understanding... it is like waking up one day and finding everything you identified with is gone or something... I feel somehow shaken... I say this is an evil the notion of one chosen for which all others can be killed if necessary and then it switches up again wherein I am told that after all others are killed then the chosen are to convert. Well why did God bother to pick a chosen for which all others can be sacrificed and promise them a land which is to be taken by the Christians at the end of the whole deal? and people do not question the utter confusion inherent in these interpretation? really I don't know who to talk to now or where to go for any sense of serenity at the moment on this point.

what were they chosen for? to take this one lousy piece of land so that ultimately it can be conquested by the better others (those christian) that the chosen are taking the land of which they won't even let any other but hebrews purchase due to racist purity issues. How do people not see something is gravely wrong with these interpretations.

nor do the so called believers seem to see just how backward this logic is. Believers might as well just rip up our bill of rights and our declaration of independence...

[heel31ok]

Yes I do need you to explain because what you are saying is only an interpretation of what you think is the way things are supposed to be. Not based on a standard except that of your own making. I base my standard on the written Word of God. You may not believe in it , but that is my standard. So your arguments are not valid because argue from out of the air instead of from a standard. I do understand that these things do not compute to you that is the chasm we are facing in this discussion. I fear that will always be the case. Everything is an interpretation if you want to use that argument, the difference is I believe the interpretation of the Bible is as written . No one is good at following God's Laws but that does not disqualify God's grace or faithfulness to do what He said He will do. Read the account of Abram/Abraham and you will have the reason why God chose who He did. He called Abraham andAbraham answered that call. God has called all of us now is our time to choose Him. The Kingdoms that were destroyed do have a perspective in this matter because they had a choice ,they made there choice and suffered the consequences. God did not institute a democracy , no one is equal to God to that degree. You are totally fixated on the "others", who might that be? The others that you consider to be the ones left out are the ones who have left God out and not aligned themselves with Him. This is not about the Hebrews , this is about God and what He wants.This is about God and His plans. The Hebrews were the vehicle He used to reveal Himself to the whole world.Jesus Christ,His life and His death are all in line with the written Word . He never contridicted the previous Word. His Bible was The Law and He follwed it to the letter and the spirit! That is why it was said He was without sin. If he had broken one law then He would be guilty of all the Law and would have to pay the penalty. This would negate His ability to be The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. The sacrifice would have been of non effect. The lamb had to be spotless.
What interpretation stands in defiance of His teachings? The religious leaders of the Hebrews did call for and instigate the crucifiction. They were wicked and Jesus said so. They were wicked because they did not follow the Law, but added to it making it a burden to the people .The Torah stands as the word of God and Jesus was a follower of the Torah. His teachings do not defy the Law but go hand in hand with the Law. All of mankind does fall under peril because of one people, or should I say one person. You fall into peril because of the one person , you. I fall into peril because of the one person, me! The ones destroyed in the OT fell into it because of their own choices;. Personal responsibility is what it boils down to.

[DRMIZER]

Michele,
You're going to have to stop this ranting. You're making too much sense!

[Michele]

I believe the interpretation of the Bible is as written . No one is good at following God's Laws but that does not disqualify God's grace or faithfulness to do what He said He will do.

that is utter hogwash... you can't possible say with certainity what the true word of God is but for the interpretations handed to you. I am not working off any learned interpetation... I am just reading the book cold and spew forth what I find insulting to me as a human being. Perhaps I am utterly wrong... I can't say for certain. All I know is it is unnatural in a world filled with others that there is one chosen under which all others can be sacrificed. And why should the Hebrews be accepted if they were unwilling to accept any other?


Read the account of Abram/Abraham and you will have the reason why God chose who He did. He called Abraham andAbraham answered that call. God has called all of us now is our time to choose Him.

I will read abraham but I will read it from the perspective of all three monotheism... for you will never get me to believe what you spew forth as what you believe to be the word of God from this one book is indeed the word of God. You speak from your one conditioning and perhaps my opinion will change for I will never be led by any one religion who states that all revolves around one people regardless of their actions. Which is what is stated in deuteronomy in so many words regardless of Moses second trip to the mountain and all the damn laws he brought down. The hebrews appear to have needed their own land because they couldn't conform or co -exist with the people in those kingdoms THEY TELL US did not wish to welcome the Hebrews.... well gee why were they unwelcomed? Because THEY TELL US GOD SAID THEY WERE THE LESSER OF ALL KNOWN EVIL.

Where is your proof of exactly what constitutes god's word. And that word is to excluse people that don't accept the completely dominion of the Hebrews? come on... the commandments are clear... as are the teachings of christ as for covenants with god and any one people having an exclusive contract with him... sorry... I can't even imagine why anyone would even wish to believe that... IT IS SO UTTERLY ELITIST... so far as I can see at this point in time.

responses continued in next post.

[Michele]

He never contridicted the previous Word. His Bible was The Law and He follwed it to the letter and the spirit!

oh really than why was the rabbinical high priests so at odds with Christ? obviously there was some questioning of beliefs and ritual as some who were hebrew converted to christianity according to the teachings of Christ... so something was questioned. and those that converted were cast out by those practicing classical judaism which I assume was the practice during the time of the old testatment. You really wish me to believe that at this time it was only the Hebrews and the Christians that held the true guidance? while at the same time there exists disparity between them in regard to interpretation and the Hebrews do not factor in the New Testament at all.

what I am at odds with is taking at the word of some commentator at the time that he had recorded correctly God's word. And when I speak of the other. I mean any other then the chosen. Even that Christians some believe that once the holyland is taken then the Jews are to be converted INDICATES THERE IS A DESCREPANCY IN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS COVENANT wouldn't you say... for how is it that after these thousands of centuries the Hebrews are to conquest the holyland only to have to convert or relinguish their lives if not their land.

or do you not believe in that part of the covenant?



That is why it was said He was without sin. If he had broken one law then He would be guilty of all the Law and would have to pay the penalty. This would negate His ability to be The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. The sacrifice would have been of non effect. The lamb had to be spotless.


this is cracking me up... your complete adherence to the literal aspects of this story. and what is that message then those most spotless are also sacrificed while those less spotless reign as long as they are hebrew? please...



have one more post

[Michele]

continued from two posts above.



What interpretation stands in defiance of His teachings? The religious leaders of the Hebrews did call for and instigate the crucifiction. They were wicked and Jesus said so. They were wicked because they did not follow the Law, but added to it making it a burden to the people

I am not speaking of the cruxificion as standing in defiance of christ's teachings. I am talking about the inability of the Hebrew to accept the other. loving thy neighbor as thyself is not inherent to the laws of the Hebrews for if it was co-existence would have been easier for them... but it isn't as proven by this determination to take a piece of land wherein only Jews are equal amongst each other not amongst any other. That premise in and of itself stands in defiance of the teachings of Christ. The very nature of the Jewish state is anti-Christ and anti-other. Their is no sense of the other. Which defies Christ's second law. So in this truth then It seems to me that Christ had to have questioned the history as recorded in deuteronomy as well as God's wrath upon the other. I mean don't you see the psychology of a people cast out of egypt to then conjure up a story wherein they are the most righteous? Most anyone who is chasticed by the many tends to feel they are the more righteous so in my mind it makes sense that would come a story wherein would reside an interpretation that santifies themselves along with a belief that if they were more righteous they would come unto a land that would be their own... and yet without an ability to love their neighbors as themselves... it was never going to come to be... and therefore they would always bring with them the angst of having had been cast out as undesirable...

For even in the Koran the hebrews where accepted until it was said they chose not to follow the word of God. so it appear to me that what transpired at that time within those cast out was a kind of time regression. I don't even believe myself what I am saying... and I am not saying this in definitive terms... but just to sound it out... It just seems odd to me that God would santify one chosen people particularly in light of the historical descrepancies that are evident ... it seems foolhardly to take your interpretation at its word. For you may thing it is yours but it isn't you are handing me the doctrinal interpretation . I myself am just reacting to the book as I have read it with no bible study just based in my sense that all men are created equal.

The covenant as you describe it is whole based in an eye for an eye as well as a very cold revenge factor. That all by itself goes against the teachings of christ.


I feel intuititively we need to look at all three perspectives. I will not fool myself into believing that even then we would come to an equitable understanding.


.The Torah stands as the word of God and Jesus was a follower of the Torah. His teachings do not defy the Law but go hand in hand with the Law. All of mankind does fall under peril because of one people, or should I say one person. You fall into peril because of the one person , you. I fall into peril because of the one person, me! The ones destroyed in the OT fell into it because of their own choices;. Personal responsibility is what it boils down to.

I don't have a disagreement with what you wrote here. I have no problem with personal responsibility but the chastising of others based on a notion of a chosen people is a whole other kettle of fish.

now if you are telling me the chosen is to be interpreted in a more metaphoric sense in that they are you and me.... that is a whole other way to look at it.... but if they were you and me... and they and them... then the whole concept of the Jewish state falls into question again. as it negates completely love they neighbor as they self which is Christs second law.

And it always did for the aim from the beginning was not that the other accept them as neighbors but that the other acquiese the land to them completely. Where does loving a neighbor come into that equation?

[Craig]

I do not accept the argument that an action which is considered appalling, evil, and sinful under any other circumstance is not so when ordered by God. Such an assertion is the highest form of hypocricy, and if it does indeed have truth value, I have no interest in that God whatsoever anyways.

[cpwill]

however, if you define evil as that which is against God's will, then the situation changes, does it not.

[Craig]

however, if you define evil as that which is against God's will, then the situation changes, does it not.

No, because God is supposed to be a moral absolute. Absolutes don't change because of time and context; that is ethical relatavism. A God who declares that thou shalt not murder and yet commands His people to deliberately kill other human beings is inconsistent and hypocritical. Likewise, many of the Old Testament laws no longer apply any more, despite the fact that they are set forward by a God who is an absolute and unchanging. These are problems of the most fundamental sort, but I have yet to hear an apologist use a defence that was not predicated upon God being exempt from His own rules to justify His actions.

[cpwill]

yes, however, that does not mean that we can necessarily recognize the absolute; within this debate; it is God's will that is perfect and human logic that is all-too-faulty.

[DRMIZER]

No, because God is supposed to be a moral absolute. Absolutes don't change because of time and context; that is ethical relatavism. A God who declares that thou shalt not murder and yet commands His people to deliberately kill other human beings is inconsistent and hypocritical. Likewise, many of the Old Testament laws no longer apply any more, despite the fact that they are set forward by a God who is an absolute and unchanging. These are problems of the most fundamental sort, but I have yet to hear an apologist use a defence that was not predicated upon God being exempt from His own rules to justify His actions.Finally, a member who will not be detered by circular, symantically- twisted, ill-focused logic!!
:bow :thanks:

[Michele]

however, if you define evil as that which is against God's will, then the situation changes, does it not.

How does one do that if one can see god slay whole kingdom's men women and children. So in certain instances is it okay to kill a whole kingdom men women and children? Just because at one point BC we see him instruct moses to do just that based on the account of a mortal man at the time?

We either don't kill innocent civilians or we do. Which is it? And if an act of this nature can be exacted for a people who can't seem to follow God's will or his laws where do we draw the line?

[Blueangel]

I'm agnostic but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth seeing Bush and Moses in the same sentence.

[Craig]

yes, however, that does not mean that we can necessarily recognize the absolute; within this debate; it is God's will that is perfect and human logic that is all-too-faulty.

Perfect? Come up with an excellent refutation for what I said, and then maybe I will allow for God's will being "perfect". There is nothing perfect about an absolute being who willfully breaks His own rules. Murder is sin, and sin is an abomination in the eyes of God, so there's absolutely no excuse for Him to have ordered a genocide. And I challenge you, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise.

[MikeD4o7]

Perfect? Come up with an excellent refutation for what I said, and then maybe I will allow for God's will being "perfect". There is nothing perfect about an absolute being who willfully breaks His own rules. Murder is sin, and sin is an abomination in the eyes of God, so there's absolutely no excuse for Him to have ordered a genocide. And I challenge you, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise.


And this is where it comes in that God is above questioning. That meager beings like humans couldn't possibly comprehend God's motivations and shouldn't try. That all that humanity has learned through it's experiences with each other means nothing if it's dismissed by God. Killing an innocent human is wrong... but why? Because God said so... and the second that God tells us otherwise, we'll believe it.

The idea that is God should be held up high, even it means repressing humanity.

[Xan]

I will admit I didn't take the time to read over every post in this thread, though I did read a good amount of it, and based on that I am assuming the discussion as something to with God committing genocide and so forth. If this is not the case, feel free to ignore this post.

I think we need to keep a few things in mind here. Craig stated, "There is nothing perfect about an absolute being who willfully breaks His own rules. Murder is sin, and sin is an abomination in the eyes of God, so there's absolutely no excuse for Him to have ordered a genocide." I agree in some respect, God can't be perfect if he breaks his own rules. Though we need to remember that the ten commandments, one of them including, "thou shalt not murder" was directed to all human beings on earth. According to the Bible God is above human beings. So whether he has to follow these ten commandments is still in question.

Murder in our eyes may be one of the most horrible things anyone can ever committ. And I would have to agree. However, in Gods eyes it most likely wouldn't be, based on what I have gathered from the Bible. If God exists, he knows there is life after this one, one that is far more important then the one we previously hold. So his willingness to order the murders of others may be based on something else.

I guess my point here is we can't look at it from a worldly perspective. I think that asking these sort of questions is exactly what we should be doing. Though I also feel we need keep an open mind since we may not know the entire story.

[Michele]

I will admit I didn't take the time to read over every post in this thread, though I did read a good amount of it, and based on that I am assuming the discussion as something to with God committing genocide and so forth. If this is not the case, feel free to ignore this post.

I think we need to keep a few things in mind here. Craig stated, "There is nothing perfect about an absolute being who willfully breaks His own rules. Murder is sin, and sin is an abomination in the eyes of God, so there's absolutely no excuse for Him to have ordered a genocide." I agree in some respect, God can't be perfect if he breaks his own rules. Though we need to remember that the ten commandments, one of them including, "thou shalt not murder" was directed to all human beings on earth. According to the Bible God is above human beings. So whether he has to follow these ten commandments is still in question.

Murder in our eyes may be one of the most horrible things anyone can ever committ. And I would have to agree. However, in Gods eyes it most likely wouldn't be, based on what I have gathered from the Bible. If God exists, he knows there is life after this one, one that is far more important then the one we previously hold. So his willingness to order the murders of others may be based on something else.

I guess my point here is we can't look at it from a worldly perspective. I think that asking these sort of questions is exactly what we should be doing. Though I also feel we need keep an open mind since we may not know the entire story.

and there you have it the eternal and divine loophole. why enron can loot their employees pension plans and big brother can mete out its equity in selective terms.... as long as the human beings under them adher to the 10 commandments regardless of how the authorities make and break the rules we have some chance at order... and the new world order will proceed undeterred and in the name of God unquestioned. The israelites will have their land and the christians will attempt to take it from them and it is the same as it ever was... the same as it ever was.... nothing morally highminded really hardly divine.

so what's new with God? I think I like his son better. and Him we'd nail to the cross again if we had the chance some of the most holier than thou amongst us still wouldn't recognize him as our savior... savior from who? the double standard of God or would that be our leaders?

[Craig]

Murder in our eyes may be one of the most horrible things anyone can ever committ. And I would have to agree. However, in Gods eyes it most likely wouldn't be, based on what I have gathered from the Bible. If God exists, he knows there is life after this one, one that is far more important then the one we previously hold. So his willingness to order the murders of others may be based on something else.


Nice try Xan, but God hates sin. It is an abomination to Him. Murdering another human being is sinful in the eyes of God. And yet I am expected to believe that this absolute being is exempt from His own rules as to what is good and what is evil? No, I don't think so...

[Xan]

You may be right Craig. I don't know the answers, you don't know the answers. I am not going to automatically consider the teachings of the Bible false because of this. Rather, I will examine it futher, with an open mind.

Unfortunetly, the text couldn't be more straight forward. I wish the lines of good and evil were as clear as Tolkien made them...

[Michele]

Nice try Xan, but God hates sin. It is an abomination to Him. Murdering another human being is sinful in the eyes of God. And yet I am expected to believe that this absolute being is exempt from His own rules as to what is good and what is evil? No, I don't think so...


yes I agree. I am having the same quandary with him myself... based in deuteronomy... along with how easy it is argued his slaying of men women and children was justified... that just floors me... and i haven't read numbers yet ...

[Michele]

You may be right Craig. I don't know the answers, you don't know the answers. I am not going to automatically consider the teachings of the Bible false because of this. Rather, I will examine it futher, with an open mind.

Unfortunetly, the text couldn't be more straight forward. I wish the lines of good and evil were as clear as Tolkien made them...

not sure we are throwing the baby out with the bath water... but you must admit it does warrent some questions at the very least as far as what in the book is truly God's word vs. how might those interpreting God's may alsobe manipulating it for political reasons (to name just one cause of manipulation). To take it all literally is suspect... particularly in solely blind faith...

You gotta admit there is some grave contradictions that do reflect or seem to excuse in relative terms our own mortal frailty wherein good is not as an absolute proposition as interpretation suggests (at least not based in literal terms). Particularly when God seems to be operating himself within a loophole we are all very familiar with and to foward the wishes of one people over another. Not that this is surprising perse but then what becomes our measure... absolutism or relativism... and in the choosing either or would be that based on what or who's standard or ideology and also dependent upon circumstances that leave no room for the defense of those that come under the wrath of a poor interpretation of God's word just like those kingdom's he anilihated men women and children? And for a people that were not yet following God's law to the letter.

That is some message we got going on there... with a message like that one is left to wonder: why be good when good is reliant upon situational ethics and some form authority is the deciding factor whether that authority is good or not. Sounds like a very mortal telling of this story here. Rather than any true word of God. Unless of course God isn't above mortality either.

You see the problem instrinsic to this book or this chapter? or no?

[Xan]

Of course I admit it warrants some questions, which is exactly why I plan on examining it more. I have a ton of questions myself, I don't fully and wholeheartly believe in the Bible. I also admit that a ton of the passages seem to contradict themselves. Though like anything else in this world if we see something that appears to be a contradiction then we need to examine that to make sure it is a contradiction.

Well, thats all I have to say on this for now. I can honestly say I haven't put enough time or the effort into studying the Bible to make a decision on whether or not I believe it all to be true.

[Michele]

Of course I admit it warrants some questions, which is exactly why I plan on examining it more. I have a ton of questions myself, I don't fully and wholeheartly believe in the Bible. I also admit that a ton of the passages seem to contradict themselves. Though like anything else in this world if we see something that appears to be a contradiction then we need to examine that to make sure it is a contradiction.

Well, thats all I have to say on this for now. I can honestly say I haven't put enough time or the effort into studying the Bible to make a decision on whether or not I believe it all to be true.


I am not sure a decision can be made but for perhaps abiding by this word as that of god and therefore divine requires questioning and indeed the book itself may be more falliable than judeo christianity would care to admit. Whatever happen to the geneval bible. I have to look into that. Supposedly much updating and revision did not actually make it to the King James.

[heel31ok]

No, because God is supposed to be a moral absolute. Absolutes don't change because of time and context; that is ethical relatavism. A God who declares that thou shalt not murder and yet commands His people to deliberately kill other human beings is inconsistent and hypocritical. Likewise, many of the Old Testament laws no longer apply any more, despite the fact that they are set forward by a God who is an absolute and unchanging. These are problems of the most fundamental sort, but I have yet to hear an apologist use a defence that was not predicated upon God being exempt from His own rules to justify His actions.

God is not a moral absolute, He is the moral absolute! What he commanded was not murder then or would it be now! It is war , the enemies were the aggressors. The ones who did not come against the Hebrews were protected by God and He told the Hebrews not to fight them because He would not be with them. The fact is that God worked within His rules and still does today.waht does God say murder is? The Law has not been abolished , it has been fulfilled. Those who choose not to live under the covenant of the fulfillment of the Law remain under the judgement of the Law. It is one or the other there is no other place to be. Law or Grace! All not under Grace are under the Law. I think at this point I would like to ask what your definition or perception of the Law is. We may be talking about different things or different parts of the same thing.

[cpwill]

Perfect? Come up with an excellent refutation for what I said, and then maybe I will allow for God's will being "perfect".

as i stated, that was the assumption. if you accept that "evil" is that which is against God's Will, then the possibility of God' sinning becomes zero.

There is nothing perfect about an absolute being who willfully breaks His own rules.

who say's he's broken them?

Murder is sin, and sin is an abomination in the eyes of God, so there's absolutely no excuse for Him to have ordered a genocide.

murder being wrongful killing; were God to order a killing it would be correct.

And I challenge you, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise.

if you wish to move up a few posts, you will see my answer to the issue of God's "ordering a genocide".

[MikeD4o7]

God is not a moral absolute, He is the moral absolute! What he commanded was not murder then or would it be now! It is war , the enemies were the aggressors. The ones who did not come against the Hebrews were protected by God and He told the Hebrews not to fight them because He would not be with them. The fact is that God worked within His rules and still does today.waht does God say murder is? The Law has not been abolished , it has been fulfilled. Those who choose not to live under the covenant of the fulfillment of the Law remain under the judgement of the Law. It is one or the other there is no other place to be. Law or Grace! All not under Grace are under the Law. I think at this point I would like to ask what your definition or perception of the Law is. We may be talking about different things or different parts of the same thing.


That doesn't set aside the fact that every man in the societies he killed were not deserving of death... even if they were, the taking of the remaining women into captivity as prizes cannot be considered moral.

If we can't judge God by human morals, then how in the world is anyone arriving at the conclusion that God is good? Is God good compared to other deities or something? If we have no way of judging God's actions, then to say that God is good holds the same meaning as saying God is evil... it means nothing.... less than nothing. Either you give us some way to evaluate the morality of God's actions, or we have to conclude that God is not good, not great, not generous, not merciful, not just... etc etc.

[Michele]

as i stated, that was the assumption. if you accept that "evil" is that which is against God's Will, then the possibility of God' sinning becomes zero.
.


not when he partakes in evil himself.

were god to order a killing it would be correct? why because some ordinance or translater says this is so our faith tells us he quotes god's words which just so happen to have sanctified his bloodlust for land and the god of not all people but is people? what a coinicidence as it seems we have before us yet another reanactment of moses' struggle for just his people who could not follow law in faith.

this is very problematic this unquestioning faith in a god who's words have been transcribed by mortals in search of dominian. for if we follow the words in this chapter on moses. while it appears he did suffer clearly from conscious, could be why he had these delusions on the mount after all so much blood fallen at his hand; the people themselves (or his people) were in search not of good but of land... this is flawed in terms of one's seeking. Is both good and god to be equated with land?

the book has little to do with god as far as I am concerned, at least more and more this is the way I feel... it has to do with political authority and the use of an unbelieveable amount of propaganda to get masses to actually believe that if god kills it is okay. I an don't mean by random natural death but even him slaying kingdoms for another (any other) that they can't even follow god's law or his word but most surely they can manipulate his murderous deeds in way to santify both murder and genocide... particularly if it the same people with such a close channel to god himself.

the book is flawed.

[Michele]

That doesn't set aside the fact that every man in the societies he killed were not deserving of death... even if they were, the taking of the remaining women into captivity as prizes cannot be considered moral.

If we can't judge God by human morals, then how in the world is anyone arriving at the conclusion that God is good? Is God good compared to other deities or something? If we have no way of judging God's actions, then to say that God is good holds the same meaning as saying God is evil... it means nothing.... less than nothing. Either you give us some way to evaluate the morality of God's actions, or we have to conclude that God is not good, not great, not generous, not merciful, not just... etc etc.

you and I feel pretty much the same on this you took the words right out of my mouth... something is very off with the reasoning of God.. and it is that flaw, it doesn't strike me as godly but of human kind.

the chapter deuteronomy is now striking me as some form of cognative dissonance of a people in reaction to being cast out who resolve themselves to finding land or retaking land and Moses who I assume is a warrior amongst them has grave post trauma and suffers a mixture of delusion and guilt wherein he believes he sees god along with the evil of his own humanity and that of those he calls his people which is but human nature in its best and worst states.

deteronomy seems a story of the quest for salvation from oneself as well as a kind of nimble form of justification which occured in retrospect perhaps not within moses actual time, for actions that by any means or measures are truly unreconciable or incomprehensible... the bible attempts to reconcile the irreconciable actions of slaughter and violence the basest forms of human expression by attributing them to acts of God... wherein no responsibility is required and therefore you do not suffer any guilt for your actions... the problem is how does anyone really know when they are killing that it is reconcilable with God.

The kingdoms felled in deuteronomy are said to have been felled by God and we are told faith is what we must exercise to just believe this verbatim... and yet look at psychopathology do not many of them say they have done their horror because god told them to?

No this book seems a strange log of a group of tribes struggling with their own sense of morality under great duress as victim of violence as well. So it seems a morality play that is fully human as that flawed humanity dialogues with their own mind in stress, in need, in guilt... I do not see any of the words as convincingly those from god... but more moses searching his own heart and mind for comfort and order while he fells kingdoms killing men women and children with no due process and yet can't fully blame himself for these actions because of his needs and those of his people.

it is the same odd psychology one picks up in the current writings of Benny Morris... It brings no relief or sanctity really but rather one can detact a kind of bi-polarity....

and there was something else I was moved to say about this faith... I have to find the post first. you were responding to another.

You know I never questioned the existence of God. I did reject even wishing to know the dogma... I rejected the book without having read it... but I never spent much time questioning god because sometimes I do need to talk to someone and it has it's comfort to focus on another wiser than you ... but that for all intent and purposes does not mean god is real or existed in the way we have come to learn he did, but rather that is a very positive exercise one can practice in an effort to manifest what one conceives...

which may well say more about the power of human being than any God....

I will be more specific... when I find your post. at present I am for th efirst time wondering hmmm with all this flaw and the obvious pitfalls instrinsic to it in terms of politics... the journey of a tribe... for the first time I find myself thinking you know it makes more sense he doesn't exist then that he does... yet... there is something to be said regarding some form of practice with a higher self or a higher power.

I am not sure that make sense.

[MikeD4o7]

Deuteronomy wasn't written at the time it was set in... I think it wasn't actually composed until the seventh century BCE, which would be over 500 years after the supposed events would have probably taken place. So you have to into account that it's a mixture of very old oral tradition and the author's agenda centuries later. That book and Joshua through Kings are supposed to be sort of directives for Israel as a nation.

I will be more specific... when I find your post. at present I am for th efirst time wondering hmmm with all this flaw and the obvious pitfalls instrinsic to it in terms of politics... the journey of a tribe... for the first time I find myself thinking you know it makes more sense he doesn't exist then that he does... yet... there is something to be said regarding some form of practice with a higher self or a higher power.

I am not sure that make sense.


It makes sense. I think there's some intuitive appeal of a higher power because of how small we are in comparison with the universe... and in ancient times, because there was so much that was unexplained about every aspect of life here on earth. I think all of religion and man-made theology boils down to people trying to answer those questions. You're right on with the journey of the tribe idea. What seems to be striking evidence to me is that virtually all religions throughout history have very reasonable anthropological explanations for their emergence and for their particular beliefs and rituals. There are logical reasons that cows became sacred to hindus, that pork became forbidden to jews, etc etc... there's nothing mystical or miraculous about it.

[Michele]

Deuteronomy wasn't written at the time it was set in... I think it wasn't actually composed until the seventh century BCE, which would be over 500 years after the supposed events would have probably taken place. So you have to into account that it's a mixture of very old oral tradition and the author's agenda centuries later. That book and Joshua through Kings are supposed to be sort of directives for Israel as a nation.

I had thought it was written in retrospect just wasn't sure how many years later and it is obvious the book could be sort of directives for israel as a nation... so how did so much of that (which would be political) come to be mixed in with absolutely divine directives? Now I would believe they were if the scripture had been written by perhaps not an Israelite himself ... that it is written as the word of god which justified the actions of a people in search of nation... makes it highly vulnerable to political manipulation.

Now this seems obvious to me so the next question is how in the world that one tribe or confluence of tribes of people through the Old testament come to be the sole purveyors of gods word ... how is that a god of humanity is depicted as favoring one people? and this very message than picked up by the Christians themselves... Yet all but one writer of the bible is hebrew? is that correct. And most all of the bibile was written well after the fact...

it seems to me as I said a bit of a delusion which stands perhaps as a journal of one group of people... beyond that I would be a self hating human if I am to honor a mortal sect, over a higher ordinance that I have always thought was religion of all people not intrinsic to the sole dominian of one people over the rest... well no wonder I ran from the dogma. For it seems the instruction says there is one god as LONG AS YOU ACCEPT THIS ONE STORY TO BE TRUE HE IS YOUR GOD TOO...

YET for god sake one can not even read this one book without the others in desparity with it... ONLY LED by the indoctrination of the priest, minister or the rabbi. For this God isn't speaking of the good of humanity at all...but of what one people must to do to acquire their dominian so far that I can see... and the hang up comes for in in the knowledge that there is descrepancy, not only as evidence in the history as told within the Koran but even amongst the practioners of Judeo christianity themselves... how long will we argue over tis book? and this is where I am confused at this time..

unless there is no such thing as absolutism and there is not ONE god. It would be like my family insisting you must believe that my great grandfather is your great grandfather without all the evidence and just because I have told you it is true because my great grandfather talked to the shoemaker 1000 years ago ...

the ease with which some will accept this as absolute is kind of a harrowing thought all by itself... obviously between the three monotheism something went down back then and there are more than one perspectives on what did... just like now...

the fact that none in all these years have decided to reconcile this is more evidence to me that there can't possible be a god of all humanity... it is either his god or your god or their god... and than ain't god in my book....

this is one made up story is how I am leaning today. I will investigate further by reading now the histories on the koran as well as the histories of abraham... for this is actually kind of sickening to me.

[Craig]

God is not a moral absolute, He is the moral absolute! What he commanded was not murder then or would it be now! It is war , the enemies were the aggressors. The ones who did not come against the Hebrews were protected by God and He told the Hebrews not to fight them because He would not be with them. The fact is that God worked within His rules and still does today.waht does God say murder is? The Law has not been abolished , it has been fulfilled. Those who choose not to live under the covenant of the fulfillment of the Law remain under the judgement of the Law. It is one or the other there is no other place to be. Law or Grace! All not under Grace are under the Law. I think at this point I would like to ask what your definition or perception of the Law is. We may be talking about different things or different parts of the same thing.

Heel31ok,

There are many different ways God could have chosen to dealt with the aggressors. He is God after all, and that means He is omnipotent, so He is not limited by an option of choices when dealing with the heathens. War is a thing of an imperfect human world, an odd choice to say the least for a perfect God. It is euphemized to justify murder, but in the end, it is still the premeditated act of killing other people. In other words, war is murder on a mass scale, albeit often mutually agreeable for both parties involved.

[USViking]

I thought Charlton Heston was Moses.

[cpwill]

War is a thing of an imperfect human world, an odd choice to say the least for a perfect God.

:) so was david.

[heel31ok]

Heel31ok,

There are many different ways God could have chosen to dealt with the aggressors. He is God after all, and that means He is omnipotent, so He is not limited by an option of choices when dealing with the heathens. War is a thing of an imperfect human world, an odd choice to say the least for a perfect God. It is euphemized to justify murder, but in the end, it is still the premeditated act of killing other people. In other words, war is murder on a mass scale, albeit often mutually agreeable for both parties involved.
God created a perfect world that became imperfect through the sins of man. Sin is the reason there is war and death and sickness and disease. We are not robots to be controlled but are free moral agents who God has allowed to make choices of right and wrong.Man was told from the beginning what the results of sin would be.You are correct, He is God and He is omnipotent and He is not limited by His choices. Therefore it makes sense that the choices He made and makes are perfect and the right ones at all times.Your definition of mureder is just that , yours. God has a different one and that is the conflict you have . The lines of good and evil are not as blurred as the vision of the zeitgeist in which we find ourselves in today. The omniscience of God gives His decision to destroy His enemies validity and neccessity. The hearts of men grew evil and corrupt and from the result, unredeemable. They had a reprobate heart that was evil and set itself against good and even against God Himself. They formed their own moral code and said The God of the Hebrews had no right to rule over them. Their own gods ruled their hearts and sealed their doom.This was no down home community just trying to make a life they were a wicked and perverse generation warring and killing and living uncontrolled by true morality or conscience. War one day will be eradicated and that will be when all wickedness is dealt with. God has the right to judge and use whatever means to carry out punishment for that judgement. He chooses to use men on this earth. That is the M.O. and will be until the end.Genesis 9:4 "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man will his blood be shed for in the image of God has God made man." It is the authority of God that is at the center of this discussion. Some question that authority and some do not .This transcends to the authority of Christ to redeem the lost. Those that believe He has that authority accept him .

[Xan]

Nicely put heel. Also to add a little bit more here, and this goes hand in hand with one of my recent posts.

One of the commandments in question here, "thou shalt not kill" is written just like that. Keep in mind it doesn't make and distinction between humans or animals. However, throughout the Bible God tells others to sacrifice animals for him. Does this mean God his breaking his commandment?

I think what it comes down to is God is above the law. He created life for us and we sinned. Some may say well Adam and Eve sinned, thats not fair that I have to pay for what they did. Well, keep in mind, based on the Bible have you sinned at least once in your life? Have you ever lied or stolen something?

I guess a lot of it relies on faith. Things may seem like they don't fit together, though I have a feeling they do.