• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and the Law

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Didn't know the Egyptians had 30+ year olds living in their basements.
This was mostly a joke - playing on your response that the "first borns" could have been 30+ years olds:
Plus, the first born in Egypt could have been someone 30+ years old, Not just minors.
Wiping out the guilty party would Not have settled the issue of who governs best.
Ah... so wiping out the first born males (children in some cases) accomplished that. Got it.
Wiping out would have just made God a Bully
Ah, so it isn't bullying to pick on the first-born males of any given group alone. I'll have to remember that when I want to go pick on someone. Oh... and would you consider the flood to be "wiping out", or no?
For who ever heard of anyone being arrested or put in jail for loving neighbor as one's self.
I'm pretty sure there are some things I do for myself that my neighbor would have me arrested for if I tried to do for him... just saying.
So, to me, it is the absence of failing to listen to God's Golden Rule that has resulted in violent behavior.
Amend this to say "The Golden Rule" (dispensing with the "God's" part, you see) and I am on-board with this statement.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Actually the word in question is neither "kill" nor "murder" but "tirtzach". Hebrew has a number of words which refer to death (roots like the aforementioned r-tz-ch, h-r-g, m-t) plus words that refer to methods of killing (y-r-h, s-k-l etc).

In MOST cases (but not 100%) the r-tz-ch root is used to refer to inappropriate extra judicial killing (there is one case I know of where the root is used for extra judicial killing which is not exactly inappropriate...it is complicated) and what is being forbidden is killing without sanction of the courts or God.
So God sanctioned his own killing of the first-borns, therefore didn't break His own law. Got it. Much like Abraham wouldn't have been judged by God for killing His own son, had God actually had him go through with it. Though I feel as though Abraham probably would have still had to answer to the courts. Interesting how that would work, isn't it?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The Flood ' wiped out ' those of Genesis 6:11 ( violent people )
Abraham was demonstrating his confidence in the resurrection.
Abraham and Isaac knew God's promise to Isaac that Messiah would come through Isaac.
Isaac had to be alive in order for that to happen, so they had faith that Isaac would be brought back to healthy physical life. Abraham and Isaac did Not actually have to go through with that but just showed the willingness and confidence that would happen.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So God sanctioned his own killing of the first-borns, therefore didn't break His own law. Got it.
Much like a government that has capital punishment on the books is not held accountable for murder.
Much like Abraham wouldn't have been judged by God for killing His own son, had God actually had him go through with it.
Why do you think that? According to the Jewish understanding, God never intended for Abe to kill his son, so had Abe done it, God would NOT have been happy.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Much like a government that has capital punishment on the books is not held accountable for murder.
Is everyone in agreement with capital punishment not being murder, do you think?

Why do you think that? According to the Jewish understanding, God never intended for Abe to kill his son, so had Abe done it, God would NOT have been happy.
Let's say the angel hadn't made it in time to halt Abraham's hand - who would be at fault in that case?
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I find all of God's laws are summed up in the 'kingly law', or the 'royal law', as mentioned at James 2:8.
Christ fulfilled the temporary Constitution of the Mosaic Law for the ancient nation of ancient Israel - Romans 10:4.
That temporary Law code for Israel was a shadow of what was to come according to Hebrews 10:1
Galatians 6:2 mentions how to fulfill the 'Law of Christ', which is in harmony with Jesus' NEW commandment of John 13:34-35 to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
But my comment is that when "law" is used in either testament it almost always refers to the 613 Laws of Moses, so I'm not citing an opinion but just stating how the word is typically used within the scriptures.

Secondly, just a reminder the the Law is not binding on gentiles.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Is the Abrahamic god above the Law?
Honestly, this is why I respect Dharmic religions better, as morality applies to literally everyone and everything.

would a parent make a rule and then break it?
The hardest part of growing up is realizing your parents didn't follow their own rules.

1 is unnatural, it takes 2 to create life.
What about asexual reproduction? :)

what vibrates and what doesn't?
Put your hands on all the parts and find out.

In other words, if there is conflict between what God says and what men say, then Christians choose to obey God.
But how many actually get their words from God?

Is the God of the Bible a dictator, or rather a Benevolent Benefactor.
Dictator with an amazing talent to make people believe Benevolent Benefactor.

Rather wasn't it Satan who had depraved indifference because besides Job, Satan also challenges ALL of us
God didn't have to take the bait, though.

We can all make a reply to the one who taunts God which is Satan
God's kind of a wuss if Satan can manipulate Him so easily.

However, I find the God of the Bible never puts Himself above the Law. I can't find an actively broken rule.
No killing or coveting? Really?

God could Not go back nor break His ' Do not eat from the forbidden tree or you will die ' Law.
They didn't die, though.

Since the God of the Bible is also Creator (singular) then as being Creator then He would know what is best.
This doesn't follow.

Like an inventor who gives instructions on the best way his invention works and provides an owner's manuel book.
You've never bought something that didn't work like the manual stated, either because the manual wasn't accurate or all the parts weren't included?

The Golden Rule always works when applied in one's life style,
The S&M folks should be allowed to treat others the way they want to be treated?

to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
He refunded the sacrifice three days later, though.

After all, according to Revelation 12:12, Satan brings ' woe ' to Earth for us.
This is why reading almost exclusively Paul or John will be wrong: the Flood wasn't from Satan, the drama in the Exodus wasn't from Satan, etc.

No one innocent/righteous will be in harm's way.
But as all humans have been labeled as evil, it gives him "permission" to kill off everyone, including babies and such.

Besides, the Book of Job proves that with a bit of manipulation God is totally willing to smite righteous people.

Both Job and Jesus under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
Both also begged for the suffering to stop. So ...

Permission or allowed a temporary adverse condition for both Job and Jesus.
If a human does what God allowed for Job and Jesus, they'd be put under the jail.

Both Job and Jesus proved Satan a liar and so can we.
But they both begged for it to stop and wondered why this was happening to them...?


It wasn't just Pharaoh, but according to 1 Samuel 6:6, the Egyptians also hardened their hearts.
Samuel must've forgotten the verse where God specifically hardens Pharoah's heart just so He could use this an excuse to murder people. Even infants. I have a hard time believing some hour-old kid is evil, but hey, first born, so ....

There were nine previous plagues, and instead of stopping they would Not let the Israelites go.
There were multiple attempts to let them go and Moses kept moving the goalposts.

That meant the death of their first born also meant the death of a god, bringing a severe blow to their false religion.
How can you kill the god of a false religion?

Satan I find did Not challenge God's power or strength, so he must have realized God's mightiness.
He challenged God's morality. God took the bait.

Both faithful Job and Jesus, even under adverse conditions, met Satan's challenge and proved Satan wrong.
What were their options? Job and Jesus were going to die anyway, from different reasons. They both pleaded with God to STOP.

That's gotta be it. I mean... would God execute innocent children whose greatest "sin" was merely being born to the "wrong" sort of people in God's estimation? Would He do that?
Not JUST that, but God is so racist that apparently "they all look alike", because He can't figure out a Hebrew from an Egyptian without a literal sign on the door.

Even by Revelation, God apparently can't figure out His own team members without some sort of price tag or something present. Our omniscient God, ladies and gentlemen ....

Plus, the first born in Egypt could have been someone 30+ years old, Not just minors.
But is it moral to kill the first born who JUST exited the womb? What the hell did THEY do?

We can Not read hearts, but God can.
Apparently not, if the only way to be spared was to paint your doorway with blood because God is so incompetent He can't even figure out who His own people are.

He knows when it reaches the point of no more hope that the minors of such people will grow up any different that the parent. As the twig is bent so the tree does grow.
I'm sorry, I thought God could make living beings out of dirt or bone. I didn't realize basic parenting 101 was over His head.

Adam threw us ' under the bus ' Not God.
But God drove the bus over us.

Let's say the angel hadn't made it in time to halt Abraham's hand - whose would be at fault in that case?
Xena's, if I recall. :)
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Is everyone in agreement with capital punishment not being murder, do you think?
In a world where we have choices like paper or plastic and soup or salad, we don't have anything called "everyone in agreement" about any topic.

Let's say the angel hadn't made it in time to halt Abraham's hand - who would be at fault in that case?
The idea of not making it in time when discussing a divine messenger doesn't make sense to me. That presumes that there is an issue of physical space and physical transport. One could say that, in a sense, the angel was always there. He didn't have to "arrive."
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In a world where we have choices like paper or plastic and soup or salad, we don't have anything called "everyone in agreement" about any topic.
Thank you. This was exactly the point I was hoping you would come to.


The idea of not making it in time when discussing a divine messenger doesn't make sense to me. That presumes that there is an issue of physical space and physical transport. One could say that, in a sense, the angel was always there. He didn't have to "arrive."
But, let's just say it didn't make it... just for the sake of argument. In the story, whose fault would it be if Isaac died?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Thank you. This was exactly the point I was hoping you would come to.
No problem. In my culture the general rule is "2 Jews, 3 opinions."


But, let's just say it didn't make it... just for the sake of argument. In the story, whose fault would it be if Isaac died?
There is actually on mystical "version" in which Isaac does die. No fault is assessed.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
But my comment is that when "law" is used in either testament it almost always refers to the 613 Laws of Moses, so I'm not citing an opinion but just stating how the word is typically used within the scriptures.
Secondly, just a reminder the the Law is not binding on gentiles.

Thank you for your ^ above^ comments. While on Earth Jesus too was under the "Law".
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Out of my curiosity, how did you conclude the two points above?

First, that Isaac was the promised 'seed' (singular) of blessing, so Isaac would have to be alive to reproduce.

Hebrews 11:17-19 mentions that by faith (confidence) Abraham 'as good as' offered up Isaac......(Genesis 22:9-10,12-13)
..... Abe's messianic offspring would be through Isaac (Genesis 21:12).... Abe reasoned that God was able to raise Isaac up even from the dead, and Abe did receive Isaac from there in an illustrative way.
An illustrative way, or by way of example, as mentioned at 1 Corinthians 10:11.
They ( Abe and Isaac ) were Not tempted beyond what they could bear - 1 Corinthians 10:13.
God provided the sacrifice to be used in place of Isaac, thus showing that all along God had No intention of letting Abraham and Isaac go through with sacrificing Isaac. To me the account shows how much confidence they had in the physical resurrection that they were willing to go through with it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First, that Isaac was the promised 'seed' (singular) of blessing, so Isaac would have to be alive to reproduce.

Hebrews 11:17-19 mentions that by faith (confidence) Abraham 'as good as' offered up Isaac......(Genesis 22:9-10,12-13)
..... Abe's messianic offspring would be through Isaac (Genesis 21:12).... Abe reasoned that God was able to raise Isaac up even from the dead, and Abe did receive Isaac from there in an illustrative way.
An illustrative way, or by way of example, as mentioned at 1 Corinthians 10:11.
They ( Abe and Isaac ) were Not tempted beyond what they could bear - 1 Corinthians 10:13.
God provided the sacrifice to be used in place of Isaac, thus showing that all along God had No intention of letting Abraham and Isaac go through with sacrificing Isaac. To me the account shows how much confidence they had in the physical resurrection that they were willing to go through with it.
Thanks for the above but that's not what I was asking, which was in regards to the supposed reference to the issues of the "messiah" and "resurrection" being in Genesis.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Thanks for the above but that's not what I was asking, which was in regards to the supposed reference to the issues of the "messiah" and "resurrection" being in Genesis.

I find that Isaac was in Genesis.
The promised ' seed' (Messiah) was to come through Isaac. The promised seed of Genesis 3:15.
If there was No resurrection promise, then there would have been No need to be willing to sacrifice Isaac.
Jesus proved to be Messiah and the sacrificial Lamb.
Jesus too had faith, had confidence in the resurrection, otherwise there would have been No need for him to die.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I find that Isaac was in Genesis.
The promised ' seed' (Messiah) was to come through Isaac. The promised seed of Genesis 3:15.
If there was No resurrection promise, then there would have been No need to be willing to sacrifice Isaac.
Jesus proved to be Messiah and the sacrificial Lamb.
Jesus too had faith, had confidence in the resurrection, otherwise there would have been No need for him to die.
If Jesus knew he was going to get out of the whole "death is kinda permanent" thing, it's not a sacrifice at all. It's more like a politician getting a picture taken of him washing clean dishes...
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
If Jesus knew he was going to get out of the whole "death is kinda permanent" thing, it's not a sacrifice at all. It's more like a politician getting a picture taken of him washing clean dishes...
The sacrifice is conditional, and yes, isn't the "same"as the temple sacrifice.

The "suffering christ"jive the church came up with is probably some other god. :)
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Not joking about the "other god", comment. There were myths about resurrecting deities, who knows what pagan priests wanted to keep, from their old religion.

:)
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Kelly of the Phoenix said:
Honestly, this is why I respect Dharmic religions better, as morality applies to literally everyone and everything.

syncretic replied:
Ie you're always worshipping demi'gods, at best.

Not necessarily worshiping any gods, demi or otherwise.
In the dharmic religions the gods aren't lawgivers. Morality and worship are separate issues.
 
Top