M
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Did Ad extirpanda promulgate a dogma? If so, then it was an exercise in infallibility. If not, then it was an exercise in leadership, which is covered by mere prudential judgement.
I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here. A “papal bull” is a type of formal document. “Prudential judgment” speaks to how one reaches a decision (and, correspondingly, the type of decision reached).
F
Freddy
Guest
I think we’re all aware of the church’s teaching. It appears to be a problem when there are biblical examples when it is ignored.Freddy:
The church has always and unambiguously taught that this is not so. Therefore a better understanding of the scripture is required. I have not the knowledge to provide it.
R
Rau
Guest
Which may suggest an inadequate understanding of the scripture.
J
JamesATyler
Guest
Or to justify it, you can determine that the Nazis really ask, “Is there someone here that deserves to be shot dead for being a Jew.” That’s the real question, isn’t it? That’s the way I hear it, I think. “These are not the Jews you are looking for.”
edit: “There is nobody here you are allowed to kill.” but in their language “There are no Jews here.” I think it is justified to “lie” in this example however you have to answer the real questions which sound like lies. To Nazis, it is a lie. To me, it is true. There are no “Jews” here. Using their definition of “Jews” of course.
edit 2: You could say. “Oh you mean those dirty, rat like, money hoarding, greedy, corrupt, terrible people who deserve to be murdered on the spot, called Jews?” “No we don’t have any here.”
edit 3: In other words. The people the Nazis were looking for didn’t really exist. They were made up versions of people that they rationalized it was OK to kill. No one ever told a lie to a Nazi while that Nazi was looking for the evil cartoon character that only existed in his head.
edit 4: I assert it would be a lie to say the ones a Nazi looks for are in your basement when there are only Jews there.
edit: “There is nobody here you are allowed to kill.” but in their language “There are no Jews here.” I think it is justified to “lie” in this example however you have to answer the real questions which sound like lies. To Nazis, it is a lie. To me, it is true. There are no “Jews” here. Using their definition of “Jews” of course.
edit 2: You could say. “Oh you mean those dirty, rat like, money hoarding, greedy, corrupt, terrible people who deserve to be murdered on the spot, called Jews?” “No we don’t have any here.”
edit 3: In other words. The people the Nazis were looking for didn’t really exist. They were made up versions of people that they rationalized it was OK to kill. No one ever told a lie to a Nazi while that Nazi was looking for the evil cartoon character that only existed in his head.
edit 4: I assert it would be a lie to say the ones a Nazi looks for are in your basement when there are only Jews there.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s an interesting perspective, eh?
When we find a difficult verse in the Bible, the unbeliever’s response is “clearly, it’s a problem with God,” while the believer’s response is “clearly, it’s a problem with our understanding of the text.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
… how one poster constantly attempts to hijack threads to promote his pet peeve about literal inerrancy in the Bible?
We’ve explained to him that the Old Testament books, certainly before Judges and Kings, are not historical science books, but allegorical stories underpinning the theology that God revealed to the scribes.
… how one poster constantly attempts to hijack threads to promote his pet peeve about literal inerrancy in the Bible?
We’ve explained to him that the Old Testament books, certainly before Judges and Kings, are not historical science books, but allegorical stories underpinning the theology that God revealed to the scribes.
F
Freddy
Guest
No, I think it’s a problem with the understanding as well. You have to keep remembering that I don’t believe that God exists so I can hardly think it’s a problem with Him.Freddy:
It’s an interesting perspective, eh?
When we find a difficult verse in the Bible, the unbeliever’s response is “clearly, it’s a problem with God,” while the believer’s response is “clearly, it’s a problem with our understanding of the text.”
Recent conversations have some people trying to justify the killing of young children. And we get different arguments from different people with different views about it. In fact, we have different arguments from the same people on ocassion.
And you’re right up to a point. They are difficult passages. If you take them literally. If you really think that a city was actually destroyed by God, including all the children, because He thought that all the adults were irredeemably immoral then you have some awkward questions to ask. But if you realise that it’s a story to warn people about the wrath of God and you really don’t mess with Him, then it’s entirely acceptable.
Remember the final scene of Unforgiven? When Munny threatens the townsfolk? That he woukd kill anyone who stood against him. And kill their family. And kill all their friends. Kill everyone who knew them. Truly biblical vengence! And that’s what Soddom and Gomorah is. A biblical story about divine vengence for anyone who lives an immoral life.
F
Freddy
Guest
"o_mlly:
A point I have tried to put across to so many people who think the world is but a few thousand years old and who treat Genesis as a biological treatise.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well… but that’s not the whole story.
In the mindset of the day, God controlled everything. Anything that happened, from a regional disaster to a mosquito bite… was the direct action of God.
Moreover, they didn’t have the notion of eternal heaven or eternal hell. So, instead, they believed that if you were good, then you got good things on earth… because God caused it. And, if you were bad, then you got bad things on earth… because God caused it. The entire narrative of Job was the exploration of the tension of that belief (because, after all, they saw that bad things happened to good people and vice versa).
So, early narratives about bad things happening to bad people weren’t about “divine vengeance”… they were about divine justice. Call it a story about “karma”, if you wish. It’s the same notion…
F
Freddy
Guest
OK. We’ll call it divine justice. But you’re right. It was a story meant to warn of the dangers in the here-and-now of being immoral. Because if you don’t He will ‘strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers’. Paraphrasing Ezekiel 25:7…Freddy:
Well… but that’s not the whole story.
In the mindset of the day, God controlled everything. Anything that happened, from a regional disaster to a mosquito bite… was the direct action of God.
Moreover, they didn’t have the notion of eternal heaven or eternal hell. So, instead, they believed that if you were good, then you got good things on earth… because God caused it. And, if you were bad, then you got bad things on earth… because God caused it. The entire narrative of Job was the exploration of the tension of that belief (because, after all, they saw that bad things happened to good people and vice versa).
So, early narratives about bad things happening to bad people weren’t about “divine vengeance”… they were about divine justice. Call it a story about “karma”, if you wish. It’s the same notion…
G
Gorgias
Guest
I remember the shock of going to that verse in the Bible and finding out “hey! that’s not what they said in the movie!!!”
- Status