Hypocrisy starts at the top?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I don't believe that is how it went. Can you quote the conversation?

As soon as you can quote where Mary is asked whether or not she approved. Her saying ok after the fact is irrelevant.

 

[Kenny]

As soon as you can quote where Mary is asked whether or not she approved. Her saying ok after the fact is irrelevant.

I don't believe it was after the fact. After she asked "How" can this happened, she said "OK--fine with me". That is called "approval".

It was never after the fact.... unless you can prove it otherwise with her statements.

MSG
“And did you know that your cousin Elizabeth conceived a son, old as she is? Everyone called her barren, and here she is six months pregnant! Nothing, you see, is impossible with God.” And Mary said, Yes, I see it all now: I’m the Lord’s maid, ready to serve. Let it be with me just as you say. Then the angel left her.

ESVUK
And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

TLB
Mary said, “I am the Lord’s servant, and I am willing to do whatever he wants. May everything you said come true.” And then the angel disappeared.

NLT
Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

PHILLIPS
“I belong to the Lord, body and soul,” replied Mary, “let it happen as you say.” And at this the angel left her.

YUP! After the fact and with permission.

 

[Kenny]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

So, I guess since you didn't answer my #4 comment, it is because you don't have an answer?

 

[Kenny]

2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.

Actually, the original word for "kill" is "murder".

I always bring to reality the issues of humanity and how we, as humans, have to deal with it.

The options in WWII was either have mass genocide performed by Germany and Japan or we have two atomic bombs in Japan and a literal barrage of bombs over Germany.

Which one is really classified as murder? Maybe in the eyes of the beholder?

So, it depends on the circumstances, the reasons and the options.

What say ye?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That too, or atheists entrenched in scientism .

I agree, you should not chat with them either.

:;

 

[AlexanderG]

Actually, the original word for "kill" is "murder".

I always bring to reality the issues of humanity and how we, as humans, have to deal with it.

The options in WWII was either have mass genocide performed by Germany and Japan or we have two atomic bombs in Japan and a literal barrage of bombs over Germany.

Which one is really classified as murder? Maybe in the eyes of the beholder?

So, it depends on the circumstances, the reasons and the options.

What say ye?

I mean, it's all up for interpretation and what you "feel" is correct, right? And there's no reliable method to tell whose interpretation is more accurate beyond their personal insistence.

My understanding is that the commandment not to kill or murder was for the Israelites alone. Namely, they could murder anyone outside of their religion as much as they wanted and that would be fine. Using that reasoning, anyone murdering a Christian would be fine, or vice versa. Was this commandment carried forward into Christianity? I don't know, because Christians I talk to seem to contradict each other and themselves, saying on the one hand that the OT commandments are no longer applicable because of a "New Covenant" but also that some of them still are.

I did respond to your point #4. Maybe you missed it. I said in a nutshell that you could justify any moral atrocity using the same reasoning, by theorizing that the victim could have secretly consented to it. I don't find biblical passages about Mary's state of mind at the time convincing at all, since no one was there at the time to witness the event or read her mind. It reads like a legend written decades afterward, which all the evidence would indicate it is.

 

[Kenny]

I mean, it's all up for interpretation and what you "feel" is correct, right? And there's no reliable method to tell whose interpretation is more accurate beyond their personal insistence.

My understanding is that the commandment not to kill or murder was for the Israelites alone. Namely, they could murder anyone outside of their religion as much as they wanted and that would be fine. Using that reasoning, anyone murdering a Christian would be fine, or vice versa. Was this commandment carried forward into Christianity? I don't know, because Christians I talk to seem to contradict each other and themselves, saying on the one hand that the OT commandments are no longer applicable because of a "New Covenant" but also that some of them still are.

I did respond to your point #4. Maybe you missed it. I said in a nutshell that you could justify any moral atrocity using the same reasoning, by theorizing that the victim could have secretly consented to it. I don't find biblical passages about Mary's state of mind at the time convincing at all, since no one was there at the time to witness the event or read her mind. It reads like a legend written decades afterward, which all the evidence would indicate it is.

It would appear that it is "your interpretation" that you want it to be correct.

And the answer about the Israelites is a definite "no".

Again, you equate "murder" with "kill". All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. Do you have a scripture to support "they could murder anyone outside of their religion as much as they wanted and that would be fine"? In the interest of supporting your position, you must have something other than your viewpoint.

Ex 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Ex 23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Lev 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Doesn't sound like murder to me...

The New Commandment is to pray for you enemy. It doesn't address what to do when at war or if a country wants exterminate yours. Do you have a scripture for it?

PS The post before my addressing murder vs killing has the scriptures that expresses that Mary was not only willing but asked for it to be done as it was spoken so you really have no support (other than an opinion) that rape had occurred.

 

[Kenny]

I did respond to your point #4. Maybe you missed it. .

Actually I was talking about #80 that you didn't respond to.

 

[alypius]

In the NT ─

Where does it say that God will do that merely for offending Him?

 

[blü 2]

Where does it say that God will do that merely for offending Him?

Do what? As the passages I quoted show, the matter is ambiguous, with some authors liking the idea of hell as eternal torment, some content that death for the unbeliever is simply termination, and an ambiguous element in the middle.