Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[hotatlboi]

Compared to what the culture around them was doing, God was booting everything in a more merciful direction. That's a theme throughout the Bible, one even Paul participates in... in material for which he is castigated as a misogynist, when in reality he was, for his day, a women's-libber.

So now we are at "God and/or his followers are usually slightly ahead of their day when it comes to morality".

Again, I find this argument to be completely incredulous. If you are God, why should you care what my current state of moral or societal development is? If I am to obey you, tell me what is right and what is wrong. Just give it to me. How hard is that really?

If God really viewed slave beating as wrong he could have told that to his people in the bronze age. The idea that he would have had to wait for human morality to catch up or he wouldn't be understood is total baloney. He had no problem issuing such mundane and stupid commands like not wearing linen with wool.

 

[Kulindahr]

hotatlboi, all you keep doing is setting your own standards and saying God doesn't live up to them. You want things done a certain way, and if it doesn't match that, you toss it off as false.

You're very ignorant of sociology. People can only be moved so fast, or they reject change. No God worthy of any respect is going to do the magic you demand, or give commands that will cause people to walk away. You can tell from the history in the Bible that even as slowly as He moved, people rebelled.

I don't know what the deal was with mixing two kinds of fiber, but that one doesn't take an alteration in worldview to follow. The incredibly radical changes you think God should have made would have required a severe worldview shift, meaning they wouldn't have sunk in. The truth of that is illustrated by the fact that it's been over 45 years since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and most people still don't get it. Usually, change like that has to be generational -- as is often argued in this forum with reference to gay rights, that the only way to get equality is wait till the old generation dies off.

As for the regulations on slavery, for then they were ahead of their time: kill your slave? Then you die, too. Injure your slave? Sorry, he's a free man now. He's served you six years? Time to give him good clothes, all the food he can carry, and some animals so he can start his own farm. Jubilee came up? All your slaves go free now, even if they've only been there six months, and you supply them all with the goods to make a start on their own.
Hebrews hearing those would have freaked, grumbled, complained... and took decades before there was even fair compliance .
And note that the provisions for Hebrew slaves were roughly as generous as for a man's own family! He had to take care of them, keep them whole, and provide the foundation of a new life when they left. The message was "all men are your family"... a message we still need to pound home today.
Today's society has yet to even reach the level of the morality of the Torah.

 

[hotatlboi]

hotatlboi, all you keep doing is setting your own standards and saying God doesn't live up to them. You want things done a certain way, and if it doesn't match that, you toss it off as false.

You're very ignorant of sociology. People can only be moved so fast, or they reject change. No God worthy of any respect is going to do the magic you demand, or give commands that will cause people to walk away. You can tell from the history in the Bible that even as slowly as He moved, people rebelled.

LOL, you keep saying I want magic. That's not what I want at all. I simply find it far more likely given what I've said to view the Bible as a collection of manmade texts. What I "want" from God is some kind of indication that he exists or reason that I should listen to what he has to say. Nothing in the Bible I find greater than what man produced either then or now. That says to me that it's far more likely that man was the author, that his sensibilities and moralities improved over time and that's why we see an improvement from the OT to Jesus, not because God chose to "move slowly" to accommodate man.

Today's society has yet to even reach the level of the morality of the Torah.

Utter hogwash, as I've demonstrated.

In fact I find it incredibly ironic that anyone posting on this website would seriously make this kind of statement. According to the Torah, all homosexuals should be killed. (And even if you get around this by taking the "temple prostitution" interpretation, that's clearly not what Paul meant when he referred to it in Romans).

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL, you keep saying I want magic. That's not what I want at all. I simply find it far more likely given what I've said to view the Bible as a collection of manmade texts. What I "want" from God is some kind of indication that he exists or reason that I should listen to what he has to say. Nothing in the Bible I find greater than what man produced either then or now. That says to me that it's far more likely that man was the author, that his sensibilities and moralities improved over time and that's why we see an improvement from the OT to Jesus, not because God chose to "move slowly" to accommodate man.


Utter hogwash, as I've demonstrated.

In fact I find it incredibly ironic that anyone posting on this website would seriously make this kind of statement. According to the Torah, all homosexuals should be killed. (And even if you get around this by taking the "temple prostitution" interpretation, that's clearly not what Paul meant when he referred to it in Romans).

I keep saying you want magic because you keep insisting that God could have just changed everyone -- that's magic, not growth or learning.
All you've demonstrated is a refusal to consider anything beyond laundry-list theology, i.e. not reading what's there. Your interpretive methods are the same as "Rev" Phelps, who picks and chooses and ignores concepts for details. He and you both ignore the human element and treat God as a magician. That's not the God of the Bible -- either his version, or yours (which are very much the same, and both false).

I explained quite clearly that today's society is nowhere near the moral teaching of the Torah: we're nowhere near living up to the concept that all men are family, or even its demands of personal responsibility. The Torah teaches the same thing that Jesus did, i.e. love your neighbor as yourself -- all you have to do is read in its social context, to grasp that.

 

[hotatlboi]

I explained quite clearly that today's society is nowhere near the moral teaching of the Torah.

And I've tried to explain to you why that is, again, utter hogwash.

I don't imagine we are going to get much further since that is such a fundamental disagreement between us.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I've tried to explain to you why that is, again, utter hogwash.

I don't imagine we are going to get much further since that is such a fundamental disagreement between us.

"Fundamental" is right, since you subscribe to the fundamentalist, laundry-list school of theology. Taking a work as a whole is always helpful for getting its meaning, but you ignore that.

 

[bankside]

Kulindahr, again you decline to elucidate the meaning of the whole, other than to assure us that it deflects all criticism and makes sense and so on. I know myself to be capable of shifting smoothly between macroscopic views and detailed views of a given subjects, and I'm one of those who still hasn't seen substantive support for this claim that it all comes together in the big picture.

Pardon me if I attempt to predict that the most likely response will not be some kind of explanation...but instead a deflection that I've missed it because I "took a detailed view, and then a macro view, but not a transcendent view" or something else like that.

 

[hotatlboi]

"Fundamental" is right, since you subscribe to the fundamentalist, laundry-list school of theology. Taking a work as a whole is always helpful for getting its meaning, but you ignore that.

I've studied the Bible as a whole, but like I've said, I don't find any other part of it resolving the issues I've mentioned plus many more.

And if it indeed came from God, I would expect it to be accurate, consistent and such in whole, not in part.

Looking at it as a whole just magnifies many of the internal inconsistencies that exist, rather than resolving any of the factual or moral deficiencies I've discussed. In effect, it simply presents more problems rather than solving any.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, again you decline to elucidate the meaning of the whole, other than to assure us that it deflects all criticism and makes sense and so on. I know myself to be capable of shifting smoothly between macroscopic views and detailed views of a given subjects, and I'm one of those who still hasn't seen substantive support for this claim that it all comes together in the big picture.

Pardon me if I attempt to predict that the most likely response will not be some kind of explanation...but instead a deflection that I've missed it because I "took a detailed view, and then a macro view, but not a transcendent view" or something else like that.

He claims he knows the Bible, so I'm trying to remind him of what he's read. Any reading of the prophets shows what the Torah really meant, for those not able to see it for themselves.
And I gave the example of what the slavery laws really mean, taken in cultural context. Given just that, anyone who knows the material should be able to see the progression -- in fact he concedes the progression, but interprets it by his own standards and dismisses it.

Anyone who can read the Prophets and not see that the Torah is all about mercy, justice, and faithfulness is just blind, because those are what the Prophets are about, and all the Prophets do is expound the Torah.

 

[hotatlboi]

Anyone who can read the Prophets and not see that the Torah is all about mercy, justice, and faithfulness is just blind, because those are what the Prophets are about, and all the Prophets do is expound the Torah.

If you are going to go off like this then I'm not going to spare my opinion either.

Anyone who can read the Torah and feel that it is the epitome of moral instruction (you basically conceded this by claiming that even today's secular morality is not superior to it), given by an almighty God, a supreme example to be emulated for all of time, is more blind than I can care to describe. cheers

 

[Kulindahr]

I've studied the Bible as a whole, but like I've said, I don't find any other part of it resolving the issues I've mentioned plus many more.

And if it indeed came from God, I would expect it to be accurate, consistent and such in whole, not in part.

Looking at it as a whole just magnifies many of the internal inconsistencies that exist, rather than resolving any of the factual or moral deficiencies I've discussed. In effect, it simply presents more problems rather than solving any.

My best guess is that you're rebelling against your past, and want to see the Bible in some way so you can reject it.
The fact that the Torah was already teaching to treat all others as part of, or even better than, your own family, blows your assertions about its failings out of the water.

 

[hotatlboi]

My best guess is that you're rebelling against your past, and want to see the Bible in some way so you can reject it.

Sorry dude, don't even try to bring psychoanalysis into this. You're just making yourself look stupid now.

Like I said WAY back, I don't see the Bible the same way you do. DEAL WITH IT. You seem to be unable to do this.

I don't care for your interpretation, but I've said I respect it. The fact that you are unable to do the same is the most fundamentalist behavior which has been exhibited in this thread. You've said over and over in effect "you don't see it my way, so you're blind/stupid/dumb/ignorant/whatever". So sad

 

[Kulindahr]

I've shown what the Torah is about, what is right there in plain sight, but you ignore it and turn to misinterpreting passages to make it look horrid.

I've shown that the Torah is about all men being brothers (the later prophet summed it as "Have we not all one Father?"), which humanistic morality only recent caught up with, and you ignore that and dive back into making it look horrid.
How can you read Genesis and Exodus and not see that they're about love, faithfulness, and mercy?

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry dude, don't even try to bring psychoanalysis into this. You're just making yourself look stupid now.

Like I said WAY back, I don't see the Bible the same way you do. DEAL WITH IT. You seem to be unable to do this.

I don't care for your interpretation, but I've said I respect it. The fact that you are unable to do the same is the most fundamentalist behavior which has been exhibited in this thread. You've said over and over in effect "you don't see it my way, so you're blind/stupid/dumb/ignorant/whatever". So sad

The difference is similar to trying to use arithmetic to calculate the orbit of Mars, and using calculus. You're saying that I'm wrong for using calculus, and I'm trying to tell you that arithmetic is not going to cut it. You point at a tiny piece of orbit, and say, "Arithmetic says this!", and when I tell you that calculus gives you a more precise answer, and in fact will give you the entire orbit, which arithmetic can't do, you cry "That's just your opinion!"

The prophets plainly say what the Torah is about: love, mercy, faithfulness, justice. The Torah says that anyway, but the Prophets had to expound on it because people were looking at details and not seeing the themes.

 

[hotatlboi]

The difference is similar to trying to use arithmetic to calculate the orbit of Mars, and using calculus.

No, it's not similar to that at all. Interpreting an ancient text (a religious one especially) is necessarily subjective. It has no similarity at all to mathematics.

Your analogies are even more flawed than your interpretive constructions.

 

[hotatlboi]

How can you read Genesis and Exodus and not see that they're about love, faithfulness, and mercy?

At this point I'm just going to go with...

 

[bankside]

He claims he knows the Bible, so I'm trying to remind him of what he's read. Any reading of the prophets shows what the Torah really meant, for those not able to see it for themselves.
And I gave the example of what the slavery laws really mean, taken in cultural context. Given just that, anyone who knows the material should be able to see the progression -- in fact he concedes the progression, but interprets it by his own standards and dismisses it.

Anyone who can read the Prophets and not see that the Torah is all about mercy, justice, and faithfulness is just blind, because those are what the Prophets are about, and all the Prophets do is expound the Torah.

Well, you've risen to my challenge so thank you. I'd say that we all interpret by our own intrinsic standards, whether we dismiss or accept something. If you have personal autonomy of thought, it is your brain judging the content of the Torah & Prophets to be moral, or good, or helpful, by your own standards. At least it is the atheist contention that judgement of this nature is within. God would not need meatpuppets. One might claim that this judgement is shaped by faith or that man is made in His image so the divine is intrinsic. But allowing for a moment my own god-given brain, how could it come sincerely to such a differing understanding than your own?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, you've risen to my challenge so thank you. I'd say that we all interpret by our own intrinsic standards, whether we dismiss or accept something. If you have personal autonomy of thought, it is your brain judging the content of the Torah & Prophets to be moral, or good, or helpful, by your own standards. At least it is the atheist contention that judgement of this nature is within. God would not need meatpuppets. One might claim that this judgement is shaped by faith or that man is made in His image so the divine is intrinsic. But allowing for a moment my own god-given brain, how could it come sincerely to such a differing understanding than your own?

Okay, but the other side is arguing that a real God would have made meatpuppets.

I approached the Old Testament looking to see what it said, not ready to make any judgments, as had been hammered into us in philosophy class: unless you grasp the system on its own terms, you can assess it. When I saw how much the Prophets were drawing from the Torah, expounding what it meant, I went back to the Pentateuch with new eyes.
A sort of "Whoa!" moment came in what we call the "Ten Commandments". Right near the start, God forbids making images of anything in the heavens, on the earth, or under the earth -- but not two chapters later, He's ordering up for the Temple images of thinks in the heavens and things on the earth, and if taken (as it can be) to include the sea, things under the earth. Apparently, He's violating His own command!
With a little thought, it becomes obvious -- since the Bible says God can't be against Himself -- that He's trying to make the point that we tend to worship things we make with our own hands, and that we're not supposed to do that, but that in the proper place, there's nothing wrong with those 'images'.
And each of the three sets is directed right at a known religion that exalted those material things, so God is further making the point that material things, being created, aren't even worthy of worship.
The the prophet takes it up with the lesson, "They have eyes, but they can't see; they've got ears, but they can't hear", about idols, driving home the impotence of man-made things to rescue us or even hear our pleas. And that is so far ahead of its time that it's mind-boggling.
The Micah sums up the whole Torah with the rhetorical question, "What does the Lord require of you? (It is) to carry out justice, and to love mercy, and to live humbly".
I don't think humanistic stuff caught up to that until the nineteenth or twentieth century, and then only prodded by people drawing ongoing lessons from the Bible.