Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

It would only suggest God sanctioned it if the bible was a point-for-point literal inscription meant to solely express the voice of God — but that is not what it is. The bible is a collection of writings of men who were inspired by God. There are different writing styles and cultural influences, but the same divine inspiration, which in turned is communicated properly through a living teaching authority (the Church) which is also inspired.

How is one to distinguish a collection of writings inspired by God versus an equal collection inspired by the dreams of men if nothing substantively divine might clearly speak through the writing?

I know that someone is going to wrong me, but it isn’t the surprise that arises when I am wronged that angers me, and it isn’t the disappointment that angers me. It is the fact that I was wronged that will anger me. It may also disappoint me or surprise me.)

A neighbor is known in the neighborhood to borrow items and fail to return them. You have been specifically warned that he is looking to borrow your rake. Sure enough he arrives and asks to borrow your rake. You lend it to him because you are neighborly (and, perhaps you have several). He fails to return it. You are not surprised. Are you angry?

No, this is not what I said. “The bible is not required to arrive at ‘God proper’” is not the same statement as “God’s message to mankind is superfluous”.

If it does not assist in arriving at ‘God proper’ what might be its purpose?

I’m not too sure about the ‘how’, but I do know that choosing something that leads to death is a bad decision, whether you are fully aware that it leads to death or not.

Why might not choosing a book that does not arrive at ‘God proper’ potentially lead one to death?

 

[minkymurph]

Is God to be considered thoughtful for having allowed women captured in war to be raped by their captors and then discarded if they are not found pleasing? Given that women had few financial means available at the time, would not setting such a one free have been akin to consigning her to dire poverty?

What makes you think they were raped, and why do you think they would have ‘discarded’ them?

Giving a female slave their freedom didn’t entail turning them out into the street with nothing. She would also have been free to marry someone else, which as a slave she wouldn’t.

Being honest Jelrak, do you actually want answers to these sort of questions?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Exactly. Saul was rebuffed as king. He was rebuffed as king because while he was a good one for a while, his crimes you have listed above made him a bad one. Therefore, he was no longer a fit king, and should have stood down. That would have demonstrated genuine repentance, in that he had genuinely seen the error of his ways and failures as ruler of Israel, and a willingness to once again embrace the law, and humility.

Was Saul’s repentance genuine, or did he desire to return to God because he wanted to hold onto his throne, and for his son to inherit it? When a monarchy was established in Israel, God did not say the eldest son should automatically inherit the throne. This is the failing of monarchy - succession. It doesn’t automatically follow a good ruler’s eldest son will also be one. If Saul had stood down as king and given his loyalty to David as the next one chosen, perhaps he would have been forgiven.

Regardless of the details, does the tale itself not make clear that God’s mercy seemingly is limited? Further, is it not plain that God’s Omniscience was not in proper order when he chose Saul to begin with?

Ah wikipedia; now there’s a reliable source.

The link was for the benefit of explaining my error. The original source of the information was in the writings of a former papal adviser (whose name now escapes memory). When asked why he resigned his post, one of his comments was that the gospel is not a reliable record of real events, but a tapestry of fabrications. This was one of the examples used to support his claim.

There are many conflicting theories concerning the source of the Gospels, and there is evidence that they are ‘layered,’ in that insertions were made into the original Gospels at a later time. It’s possible this story was not recorded in the original Gospel, and was a later edition. We don’t have any of the original texts to be certain, and we know in the first instance the message of the Gospel was passed on orally. People by an large didn’t go down to the market and buy a pile of scrolls, and keep it in their house as their personal copy of the bible. However, this does not mean the story wasn’t in existence.

Equally possible is that the story was suppressed because some feared it might lead to more adultery. Regardless, if the Old Testament is not a reliable source for God’s word, and the New Testament seemingly suffers from evidence of tampering, how might a god of perfect justice be at all surprised if many ultimately consider both as fiction?

Where are we going with this?

An aside into nowhere, apparently.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Such as?

Satan had no room for conjecture, therefore he had no space in which to conceive of a rebellion and then have a change of heart.

I’ve no idea, because I have no idea, physically, what hell is like.

OK

One would. However, it would depend on how interested one is in finding the truth, why they desire a relationship with the person and to what extent.

What might happen to the suitor if a direct question placed to the betrothed yielded only an ambiguous response, if indeed anything at all?

 

[minkymurph]

Satan had no room for conjecture, therefore he had no space in which to conceive of a rebellion and then have a change of heart.

Really?

What might happen to the suitor if a direct question placed to the betrothed yielded only an ambiguous response, if indeed anything at all?

If human nature is anything to go by, he/she may want the person even more.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Where they all to become slaves? Did God command the dissolution of families, and forced marriage? Where Israel entitled to act as an aggressor nation?

Dissolution Of Families
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them.

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Forced Marriage
Marrying a Captive Woman

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

16 The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws

Entitlement To Aggression:

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations —the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

13 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.”
36 So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it— 37 these men who were responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the Lord.

Numbers 32

32 The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2 So they came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, 3 “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon — 4 the land the Lord subdued before the people of Israel—are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. 5 If we have found favor in your eyes,” they said, “let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan. ”
6 Moses said to the Gadites and Reubenites, “Should your own people go to war while you sit here? 7 Why do you discourage the Israelites from crossing over into the land the Lord has given them?

14 “And here you are, a brood of sinners, standing in the place of your fathers and making the Lord even more angry with Israel. 15 If you turn away from following him, he will again leave all this people in the wilderness, and you will be the cause of their destruction. ”
if you will arm yourselves before the Lord for battle 21 and if all of you who are armed cross over the Jordan before the Lord until he has driven his enemies out before him — 22 then when the land is subdued before the Lord, you may return and be free from your obligation to the Lord and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the Lord.

23 “But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out.

Community enslaved
22 Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, “Why did you deceive us by saying, ‘We live a long way from you,’ while actually you live near us? 23 You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God.”

24 They answered Joshua, “Your servants were clearly told how the Lord your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to wipe out all its inhabitants from before you. So we feared for our lives because of you, and that is why we did this. 25 We are now in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right to you.”

26 So Joshua saved them from the Israelites, and they did not kill them. 27 That day he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the community and for the altar of the Lord at the place the Lord would choose. And that is what they are to this day.

This passage in Deuteronomy is not a set of commandments. The only commandments spoken by God in the OT are the Ten. They are given to Moses, and then Moses explains and implements the law. Going back to a previous post on this topic, did God communicate these exact words to Moses on the mountain?

Seemingly Moses claimed the commands were of God (and certainly God did not dispute same). Further, is Moses’ act of climbing a mountain proof that God spoke to him even then?

Certainly, the author often writes ‘the Lord has said,’ or ‘God has said.’ Did God actually say it in those exact words, or is it an interpretation of Revelation?

If the author is given permission to claim “the Lord has said” which neither God nor Jesus ever countermands how might one draw any alternate conclusion?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is so wrong and self centered that I’m shocked that you would propose it. Right and wrong has nothing to do with a person’s personal desires. Hitler wanted power. Does that make what he did, right? Of course not. Right is that which is aligned with God’s will. Wrong is that which opposes it. God, as the creator of the universe, is the only one qualified to define right from wrong.

What was proposed was merely the basic underpinning of empathy. If Hitler had paused and considered if he would have truly wished to be on the other end of his regime he would have desisted.

Seemingly God did not concern himself overly much with the victims of the holocaust so it seems difficult to conceive of how he might have been the pivotal reason, rather than the West’s empathy for the plight of the oppressed, that the allies might have fought to prevail.

Perhaps the truth is you just don’t understand the lessons being taught in the Old Testament. Have you ever considered your starting point in your journey toward knowledge? Ask yourself honestly about your approach. Is it " The church teaches this lesson that I don’t get, what am I missing?" Or is it " This doesn’t make sense to me, the church must be wrong. Only by taking the first approach are you open to learning and if you aren’t open, you will not learn.

If one is taught easy submission to authority rather than the use of independent reason how might one be certain one is not being led astray by the authority figures in one’s nearest vicinity? If one is not to question a given authority, how is conversion from one religious regime (authority) to another to be possible? Is the Muslim to question his source of authority, but not the Christian?

Further, if God’s message is not to be easily interpreted, save by laborious study and much re-working of the text, of what value is it truly? Could not any body claim the authority to interpret its message in any way necessary to support their own existence?

Finally, might it truly be considered exceedingly difficult to determine that when Moses claimed God commanded him to slaughter the Midianites it was neither metaphor nor a means for a loving deity to provide an example for his people to witness his infinite love for mankind? Is it not necessarily clear that either:

1. Moses was misrepresenting God–in which case may he not have equally contrived his entire account of God’s interactions with him, including the bestowing of the 10 commandments?
2. God was not particularly concerned about appearing loving at that given moment;
3. The entire tale was a fabrication–in which case would such not bring into question the validity of the entire Old Testament, while equally invalidating the New?
4. God has changed over time, perhaps acting barbarically when surrounded by barbarous peoples and civilized when around the more enlightened.
5. God is not as he appears.

You only need worry if you can’t bring yourself to do what God wants for you.

Certainly it might have proven difficult to bring oneself to slay the Midianites.

Perhaps a more accurate consideration of the issue might be that it is seemingly difficult to do what one is unsure that God [rather than men using the voice of God to further their own aims] really wants one to do.

Its perfectly apparent to me that you already believe in God’s existence, otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about any of this.

It is fair to conclude that a belief in God is a possibility, but currently there are several difficulties:

1. If a god, which god?
2. If God, which temperament?
3. If God, which degree of religious fervor must be adopted?

Your real struggle, it seems to me, is that you have preconceived (and incorrect) notions about the nature of God that you can’t reconcile.

Quite possibly.

Some of this appears to me to be simple misunderstanding about God.

Arguably.

The rest is a struggle to put others first - which is a struggle for most people by the way.

Less perceptive.

It has nothing to do with God viewing criticism. Satan wanted to be God. He was not content with what he had – he wanted more.

According to the account was it not more accurate to suggest that he disliked change and did not wish to be subservient to mortals?

Many, many people fall into this trap. Do you see it in yourself?

Not at all: one with a retiring personality tends to avoid positions of power.

Honestly, this is the first step toward holiness for most people. It continues to give me hope for your journey toward truth.

Thank you.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I think those in heaven have learned to love completely and that such love can only be manifested if there is something to do with that love. So I think there are duties to fulfill in heaven, but not necessarily trials.

OK

Two points: Sometimes punishment is also meant as a deterrent for others. And again, Hell is where people go who don’t want to do God’s will. They are getting their wish.

Hell as a deterrent has the slight disadvantage of not being seen. Is it truly an attribute of pure love to torture (or allow torment to befall) millions of individuals so as to sustain a rumor?

Arguably none therein are likely getting any sort of wish that might be reasonably conceived.

Is it not the selfless who might choose suffering and the selfish who generally choose to avoid it?

People make bad choices all the time and that doesn’t make them mentally unstable. They just prioritize the wrong thing or fail to think through the ramifications. People steal or kill and end up in jail or death row, right?

Is it not arguable that in order to fail to consider such fairly obvious ramifications one must be either mentally deficient or otherwise unstable?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I gave the example of the Midianites. How come the Midianites, in addition to the Canaanites and many others, appear again in the Judges if they were completely eradicated?

Some had successfully fled the invasion?

In addition, God did not say the Israelite’s didn’t have to share the region with anyone else.

Actually, is not his command on this quite explicit?

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations —the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Other tribes had been promised land, as demonstrated by the scriptures I quoted. The Israelite’s were not to take land promised to other tribes, and other tribes were not to take their land. Bear in mind land was everything to these peoples. If you had no land, you didn’t survive.

Numbers are frequently exaggerated in the OT. It was a common way of writing in the Ancient Near East. Concerning the passage I gave you on the war with the Midianites, it highly unlikely these numbers are accurate for many reasons. One being, it’s unlikely the region would have been able to sustain a population of that size. It’s unlikely the number of slaves freed from captivity in Egypt are accurate. A secular reading of history would suggest as far as the Egyptians were concerned, nothing more happened than a bunch of slaves escaping.

What we have in the OT is ‘triumphanalist’ history, these great victory’s of the Israelite’s, tribes annailated, and they became slaves of Israel. The reality is they were more likely minor skirmishes between tribes. These tribes lived as nomads, and the entire population of Israel, or any other tribe, would not all have been in the one place at the one time. So, the war with the Midianites rather than wiping out the whole population of Midiantites, was a skirmish with one group. In which case, all males in that particular group may have been killed, as most males became warriors. The Geneva convention didn’t exist then, and if males escaped they could regroup by gathering reinforcements, and attack again. It was also common to fight to the death, the last man standing rather than surrender.

Agreed.

Irish history gives us good insight into wars between tribes and ‘kingdoms.’ A king was considered rich and powerful according to the amount of land he controlled, number of livestock warriors, and children. From time to time and for various reasons, livestock became depleted; for example disease. More boys than girls may have been born in one year, crops may fail, warriors die and are killed in battle etc. etc. The only way to remedy this was by ‘raids’ on other tribes who had more - the alternative was death. In addition, sometimes kings attempted to expand their kingdom, by driving another tribe out of it. Sometimes they may have engaged in preemptive strike if another king presented a threat.

This is likely what was happening in the biblical accounts of the nation of Israel. However, at Deut 20 we see the beginnings of Just War theory in terms of conduct in war.

All in all, phrases like ‘total destruction,’ and similar phrases should not be taken literally. In my view a literal reading of scripture spoils it, in addition to not making any sense. In addition, success or failure in battle was often attributed to pleasing or displeasing a god respectively. Therefore, the Deuteronomistic historian attributes success or failure in battle to pleasing or displeasing God. Had this been the case, we could say it would have necessary for God to manipulate events to ensure the Israelite’s were attacked, and ensure the aggressor nation was victorious. History tells there are many reasons other than divine retribution for military defeats Israel experienced.

I gave you the example of King Hezekiah. He negotiated with the Babylonians, kept his kingdom and averted war. Israel were counseled not to form an alliance with Egypt against Babylon. They chose to ignore that advice, and were defeated.

Fair enough, but does not all of the above merely trivialize the details, rather than eliminate the sentiment? Does it not merely suggest that God, rather than lovingly being involved with his people, was aloof from the activities of mankind and allowed them to attribute to him whatever they wished? Essentially does it not simply allow one to efface God from the record?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Exactly. So is it the reasoning of the leader, or a command from God?

Ah, I better understand your position. Thank you.

 

[minkymurph]

Dissolution Of Families
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army —the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them.

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Already offered opinions based on biblical scholarship concerning passages such as these.

Forced Marriage
Marrying a Captive Woman

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

16 The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws

Rape not condoned, payment had to be offered - but I understand why some would argue this is not a serious enough penalty.

Forced marriage - misinterpretation of scripture - already explained why, based on biblical scholarship, I would hold this opinion.

Entitlement To Aggression:

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations —the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

13 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.”
36 So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it— 37 these men who were responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the Lord.

Numbers 32

32 The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2 So they came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, 3 “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon — 4 the land the Lord subdued before the people of Israel—are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. 5 If we have found favor in your eyes,” they said, “let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan. ”
6 Moses said to the Gadites and Reubenites, “Should your own people go to war while you sit here? 7 Why do you discourage the Israelites from crossing over into the land the Lord has given them?

14 “And here you are, a brood of sinners, standing in the place of your fathers and making the Lord even more angry with Israel. 15 If you turn away from following him, he will again leave all this people in the wilderness, and you will be the cause of their destruction. ”
if you will arm yourselves before the Lord for battle 21 and if all of you who are armed cross over the Jordan before the Lord until he has driven his enemies out before him — 22 then when the land is subdued before the Lord, you may return and be free from your obligation to the Lord and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the Lord.

23 “But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the Lord; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out.

Community enslaved
22 Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, “Why did you deceive us by saying, ‘We live a long way from you,’ while actually you live near us? 23 You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God.”

24 They answered Joshua, “Your servants were clearly told how the Lord your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to wipe out all its inhabitants from before you. So we feared for our lives because of you, and that is why we did this. 25 We are now in your hands. Do to us whatever seems good and right to you.”

26 So Joshua saved them from the Israelites, and they did not kill them. 27 That day he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the community and for the altar of the Lord at the place the Lord would choose. And that is what they are to this day.

By now you must have worked out what I would say to this.

Seemingly Moses claimed the commands were of God (and certainly God did not dispute same). Further, is Moses’ act of climbing a mountain proof that God spoke to him even then?

If the author is given permission to claim “the Lord has said” which neither God nor Jesus ever countermands how might one draw any alternate conclusion?

We can quote scripture at each other from now until the cows come home but by now, I would say you know how I would answer this as I provided a commentary with every scripture I quoted. If you find the commentary I provided unsatisfactory, fair enough, I don’t claim to be infallible. However, you have not said why you would reject that approach in preference for a literal reading, and your posts suggest you are of the opinion the bible should be given a literal reading.

So, do you reject historical, redaction and literary criticism of scripture? If so why?

Do you think the bible should be given a literal reading - why?

Or, does it not actually matter to you either way?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You can’t measure kindness by time spent. An abusive father could spend all kinds of time with their child but it would not be called kindness.

As you wish.

God will lead you to what he wants for you and it won’t be beyond your capability to give. Everyone can’t be St. Francis of Assisi, after all. Don’t worry about the cost. Just start by loving God and your neighbor. Your ability to do so will increase with the grace of God. You won’t be doing it on your own. Just be open to what he wants for you. It begins with trust.

Seemingly some who remain open to trust end up blowing themselves up for their religion. This is not to suggest that a Christian might follow such an extreme path, but simply to posit that trusting an unknown quantity may lead to startlingly different conclusions.

If one knew in advance that one was driven to zealotry, should not their advance into religion be very careful and necessarily measured? Is it not possible that one might not even be wise to pursue it all?

I think this is the natural progression for those that will ultimately become believers. You already believe that a God must exist and ultimately, you know that this is not just a preference. Its clear in your questioning. And questioning is fine. God is found through reason, not blind faith. You just need to take the next step and give God and the Church the benefit of the doubt and test your questions under the context, “what and I missing” The rest will fall into place in short order.

It is possible that a god exists. Certainly it is preferable. At this moment, however, it is in no way clear that the Christian god exists, although he is preferred to the god of Islam–though, seemingly he has a common root in the OT, which might give one pause. Regardless, given it is not logical that one might choose one’s god, does it not seem important to understand how God is likely to behave prior to committing to a given regimen of worship? If God is militant, would a pacifist, regardless of how well meaning, be at all pleasing to him (or vice-versa)?

Because God could see that their presence would be a detriment to the Isrealites living out their role, which was to be the holy people that would eventually bring forth the savior of mankind.

If a god this seemingly callous might exist it would appear quite difficult to consider him good, let alone contemplate devoting to him a life of worship. Perhaps, to him, the destruction of individuals is little more than the toppling of block castles built by a child, but inasmuch as the child might have a differing opinion should his parent do so to him unbidden, so too has this poster a peculiar distaste for wanton slaughter when loving kindness should have proven sufficient.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Your questions are not new ones. They have been answered by God through the church multiple times. Have you read the catechism? scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Thank you for the link.

Love doesn’t end with death, my friend. It is still remembered and cherished and still has the capacity to teach. Death is just another stage to the Christian where as it is the end for an atheist. Christians have hope, whereas atheism can only lead to despair, as you have been experiencing.

The despair is in no small part fueled by the consideration that the only god available appears to be unbending, and far too emotionally distant to provide a strong source of encouragement. Wishing it might be otherwise does not appear to be of much assistance.

 

[minkymurph]

Some had successfully fled the invasion?

In which case, they were not all killed.

Actually, is not his command on this quite explicit?

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations —the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

I don’t see anything in this text to support the view this is a command. Instructions yes, command no.

Fair enough, but does not all of the above merely trivialize the details, rather than eliminate the sentiment? Does it not merely suggest that God, rather than lovingly being involved with his people, was aloof from the activities of mankind and allowed them to attribute to him whatever they wished? Essentially does it not simply allow one to efface God from the record?

It can suggest whatever one wants. Whether it is what the author intended others to believe is another matter.

There is nothing trivial in the taking of a human life, war, rough justice and the dark side of human nature. One does not make a study of history to establish ‘things really weren’t that bad,’ but rather to understand history from the perspective of those who lived during that time period. For example, I wouldn’t concur with the philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, I can understand his reasoning against the historical backdrop in which he wrote.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

They also had consciences and were called to do the will of god by the natural law. St. Paul confirms this about the pagans in Romans.

There is only one true faith and both men espoused it. Remember, St. Paul went to St. Peter to make sure he was consistent with what the Church taught. He talks about this in his letter to the Galatians.

As he also discusses how everyone came around to his point of view regarding not requiring circumcision of the gentiles. Is it not interesting to note that St. Paul is the only source of this information?

Well, Jesus discusses this in Luke with the story of the rich man and lazarus. The rich man begs Abraham for mercy and he is told it is too late. He asks that a man be sent back from the dead to warn his brothers. He is told that he has the prophets to warn them and that if they won’t listen to the prophets, they won’t listen to a man who has risen from the dead. So, in short, you have to take responsibility for your own choices. There are many chances on earth to repent but once you die, your place is set.

Is it not strange to consider that a being of infinite compassion and patience seemingly has a precise limit to its compassion and patience?

Well, he does. As long as you live, you can be saved. But once you die, your choices are permanent.

Is this not somewhat inconvenient given that it is only in death that one might be in actual need of salvation?

It IS universal. Don’t you feel guilty when you sin? and don’t you feel that way, before,during and after it happens. Or are you so used to ignoring your conscience that it no longer matters to you any more?

Does not the good Muslim feel guilty when he fails to perform the full daily regimen of prayers? Does not a devout Buddhist feel guilty should he allow himself a luxurious suite during a vacation? Is not the servant of Vishnu profoundly guilty for having failed to place the Tilak in its accustomed place? Would not a zealous Sikh feel guilty for having abandoned his turban and allowing his hair to be cut? Essentially, is it not possible to feel guilt where no real wrongdoing has occurred, but because of a breach of religious taboo?

Nothing you have said is arbitrary. God warned the people of the repercussions of their actions and then he followed through. In the case of the ark, it showed with great power that the ark was indeed holy. If God had said to not touch the ark and then they did without incident, wouldn’t it have degraded its value? And remember, death does not mean the same to God as it does to you. When good people die because of the actions of their leaders, they still go to heaven. This is not a punishment. It is merely moving to the next step of existence.

Was death truly necessary to show the ark had power? Would not a mere shower of sparks have proved sufficient? Or, perhaps better, a field preventing it from being touched at all?

Further, is it not possible that God’s dealing out death so freely might suggest life’s low overall value in his eyes? If so, what is to guarantee that such a being might not equally scorn the value of an immortal soul? Is not the parent who disrespects the child likely to disdain the adult?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No, the OT doesn’t say much about who should be assisted. The biblical accounts do portray forming military alliances with others in a poor light. My take would be because of the consequences of coming to the assistance of other’s; illustrated by King Josiah and the last King of the Northern Kingdom of Israel - think it was Zedekiah? - who joined a revolt against the Assyrians.

Again I would say Irish history helps us here. Kings sometimes came to each others aid, and sometimes not. Ireland had a small population divided into Clans. Sons had a nasty habit of taking revenge on kings, or sons of kings, who had fought with their father, particularly if they defeated them, and it kind just went on and on generation after generation. Therefore, not getting involved in a quarrel that wasn’t your’s in the first place wasn’t a bad strategy, militarily or otherwise.

Agreed.

Depends which ‘Messiah’ of Israel you’re talking about.

Good point.

Only if the condition schizophrenia actually exists. Many psychiatrists argue it doesn’t.

Certainly it has been argued Isaiah, all other prophets and the author of Revelation suffered from some form of mental illness. That’s the impression I got of Nietszche when I read some of his stuff, and it turned out I wasn’t far wrong in that he apparently did end his days in a psychiatric unit.

Therefore, on what do we base the assumption an author of a particular piece of literature is, shall we say, ‘unbalanced?’ In addition, is being somewhat ‘unbalanced’ a bad thing?

There is an argument that to be a great artist, writer, composer, you actually need to be a bit unbalanced. Laid back, practically minded often lack the creativity and the passion to create great works of art or musical compositions. In fact, it is further argued great leaders sometimes need to be a bit ‘unbalanced’ because they have drive and ambition, and the capacity to inspire others.

Where am I going with this? If we’re honest about, as opposed to hiding being a ‘politically correct’ veil, society by and large looks on people with mental health problems, and while people agree in principle they should be able to integrate into society and achieve their full potential, they prefer those with mental health problems do it in someone else’s back yard, and not there’s. Mental health charities are the least well supported by celebreties. I once suggested to a group of Winston Churchill had a mental health problems. One guy in the group was highly offended as he was a big fan of Churchill. Unfortunately, he missed the whole point of my discussion. What I said wasn’t an attempt to discredit Churchill, but rather people who at times suffer mental health problems can still achieve great things, yet polite society would have us believe they can’t.

Some suggest the authors of some books of the bible were mentally unbalanced for the purpose of discrediting the bible, because of societies view of people with mental health problem, and they are people we shouldn’t pay any attention to because they’re nuts.
Fortunately, others who are a bit ‘unbalanced’ gain acceptance as geniuses, such as Issac Newton.

Agreed: a manic personality is often capable of greater efforts–particularly in poetry, art, and religion.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In my view there are Ten commands in the OT - no more. The books of Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy etc. are not books of ‘commands.’

If in your view they are, that’s your prerogative and we’ll just have to agree to differ.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Israelite’s thought this, yes. I think I’ve explained where I would stand on this.

Yes, you have.

Not sure what you’re point is here.

That death in battle was not seen as an arbitrary occurrence. Regardless, this topic has likely passed its usefulness.

There is more to being a good leader than military prowess. The Israelite’s wanted a military leader who could defend them. However, God required the king to uphold the law. This is where the kings of Israel failed, and what made them bad rulers.

Yes, God did assist Saul. When Saul turned away from God, he wasn’t as good a ruler.

OK

God didn’t write scripture, so He doesn’t ‘claim,’ or refer to anything.

Does God sanction scripture? Or does he ignore it? Is it possible God has not even read the Bible, perhaps?

I won’t answer this because I don’t think it’s a serious question.

As you wish.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Assuming Jesus was actually a descendant of David -

The ‘purpose,’ assuming there was a purpose and it wasn’t just straightforward genealogy, would have been to honour David rather than Jesus. As God, he didn’t need ‘honouring,’ and my guess is Jesus wouldn’t be too worried about people looking down on him because he had an ancestor who was a thug.

OK

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What makes you think they were raped, and why do you think they would have ‘discarded’ them?

It is discussed in the book of Deuteronomy or Numbers.

Giving a female slave their freedom didn’t entail turning them out into the street with nothing. She would also have been free to marry someone else, which as a slave she wouldn’t.

How many would have likely lined up to marry someone discarded in this fashion, what with the fascination of virginity in those times?

Being honest Jelrak, do you actually want answers to these sort of questions?

Probably not; there are likely better topics to discuss.