Origin of Morality

[Pah]

1) God showed mercy to the town Jonah was hoping to see thrashed. Maybe you should read that one over again. He also showed mercy to the Hebrews in Exodus; to the harlot in Josh. 6; I could point out a hundred more, but it's pointless, you get the picture.

I must have misled you - my context was with the genocides commanded by God

2) Genesis 6:3 does not limit man to 120 years. This is a common misconception made by people who don't understand the scriptures. It means that in 120 years from that date the flood would wipe out humanity. "Methuselah" means "He dieth and He sendeth out." The flood came in the year he died. He was righteous, y'know, God wasn't gonna kill him, so He said that when Methuselah died the floods would come, and He knew it was gonna be 120 years. Many people have lived beyond 120 years since then. Are we to believe God's decree was just overlooked? This 120 years, when "the longsuffering of God waited," was the time period when Noah preached and tried to save other people; but they all laughed at him. I rounded up to two hundred for some reason. It should be 120.

I'm sorry you focused on the parenthetical. But you haven't answered my point (even lowering the time span to 120 years). I'm looking for biblical reference that Noah warned people after God made a convenent with him fixed within a time span of less than 100 years.(600 years old when the rans came and 500 years old when his children were born). The actual time is less than 100 years because when the covenent was made God spoke of sons old enough to have wives and the rains were still in the future.. Please focus of this time line.

3) I'll give you just one. When Ai defeated the Israelites God told them it was because someone had taken the "accursed thing." God showed Joshua who it was but Joshua narrowed down the search slowly in an effort to give Achan a chance to come forward before he was rooted out. This was a way in which the Lord offered mercy but it was denied. Achan was stoned and burned with His family and all his possessions.

Again Dan, you are not answering the question. The context here is those people, meaning the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, the first born of all Egypt and the tribe of Benjamin (I suppose you will calim mercy here because not all of the tribe was exterminated but nearly so). Add to these all that were killed by the flood (oh, yeah - God was merciful to Methuselah - allowing him to die a natural death).

Where is the mercy for those people?

Where is the mercy for those men who oppose being conquered or subjugated (how dare they defend themselves and their women and children). Would you say the women and children being taken as "plunder" were thus given mercy? Deut 20: 12-15

In fact, Dan, you and others who read the bible and understand the bible will rememebr Deut 7:1-2 and repeated in Deut 20:16-17

4) But it's not "the more good." If you have faith then you know obeying God is the only "good" choice you can make. Your arrogance would have gotten you stoned had you lived in the times of the ancient Israelites.

I really hate to bring it up, but we heard that excuse at Nuerenburg - I was only following orders, I did nothing wrong. I don't know how the war crime judges would have handled such an excuse if those criminals would have said the "boss" was "holy" and "good".

5) You don't understand the Bible at all. You only think you understand what other incompetent scholars breastfeed you.

I don't uderstand the bible because I have no faith, no guidance from the Holy Spirit (so says SOGFPP) - right? And I can't have faith or the Holy Spirt's guidance unless I read the bible - right? Sure sounds like a closed, circular system to me. Yeah, Dan, I only read the bible in the light of its literalness and what little I have learned of the social setting when it was written (I'm no scholar of those times). Now I will admit, I do not read it in the original language but that is your proclaimed expertise and I sure that if the literal words I've read regarding God's barbarism are not as intended in the original, you can show me the real meaning in each of those cases I've mentioned above. Oh heck, I'll repeat them just so there is no misunderstanding -the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, the first born of all Egypt, the tribe of Benjamin the victims of the flood)

-pah-

 

[dan]

1- No, you haven't misled me. That was going to be genocide, but He showed mercy. He didn't do it.

2- But Noah was told of the flood well before that time. My sources are deuterocanonical, and since you don't even believe in the Bible I'll keep them to myself.

3- Their mercy is in a place you don't understand and don't believe in. You have to have the eternal perspective for any of this to make sense, and you don't. Life is not only what we experience here on earth. They will receive mercy far in excess of their suffering.

4- That's a strawman if I ever saw one. The difference is that the Nazi's weren't taking their orders directly from God. If God exists then His will is the most important. If His will is more important then I'm gonna follow it. If you don't believe in God then don't argue the semantics of His actions. If He is everything that the Jews believed He was then His was the only will you could in good conscience follow.

5- Why do you denounce the barbarism of a God you don't even believe in? You sit here and say, "Let's assume for a second that the Bible is correct. This here proves, then, that it cannot be correct. If the Bible were true then it couldn't be true." You do not understand the nature of God, so don't judge His actions from a completely biased perspective.

 

[Pah]

Before I begin, Dan, you have no right to deny me comment - not in this forum and not in my country. As you have a right to proclaim "biblical truths", I have a right to judge them and counter them as appropiate. Now let's hear no more of a requirement to have faith to read and hear public discourse and find disagreement.

1- No, you haven't misled me. That was going to be genocide, but He showed mercy. He didn't do it.

Got text for that?

2- But Noah was told of the flood well before that time. My sources are deuterocanonical, and since you don't even believe in the Bible I'll keep them to myself.

It seems you are saying the bible is not fit for instruction. Certainly unsupported assertion isn't going to carry the day and, it seems, since there is no mention of Noah in Deuteronomy, we are going to be subjected to interpretation.

You will have to prove that Noah knew of the flood before the covenent and warned the people.

3- Their mercy is in a place you don't understand and don't believe in. You have to have the eternal perspective for any of this to make sense, and you don't. Life is not only what we experience here on earth. They will receive mercy far in excess of their suffering.

Hank makes everything nice and you get your reward when you leave town. No thanks, Dan

4- That's a strawman if I ever saw one. The difference is that the Nazi's weren't taking their orders directly from God. If God exists then His will is the most important. If His will is more important then I'm gonna follow it. If you don't believe in God then don't argue the semantics of His actions. If He is everything that the Jews believed He was then His was the only will you could in good conscience follow.

I'm sorry you fail to see (or ignore) the analogy. It is really very simple.

[/quote]5- Why do you denounce the barbarism of a God you don't even believe in? You sit here and say, "Let's assume for a second that the Bible is correct. This here proves, then, that it cannot be correct. If the Bible were true then it couldn't be true." You do not understand the nature of God, so don't judge His actions from a completely biased perspective.[/QUOTE]

I will continue to judge and proclaim God's atrocities in light of morality. I have left childhood where it was dictated to me "do as I say and not as I do". If God can not provide proper example in morality, then his love and whole being is suspect. It has always been amazing to me to see Christianity "pick and choose" the laws of the Bible and the morality of God.

You have not addressed the particular examples I provided and the injunction to annihilate and show no mercy.

 

[dan]

1- Jonah 3:10: "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God turned away the evil that He said He would bring upon them; and He did it not." In this story God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh to preach their destruction. He soesn't want to do it at first, but then does it and waits outside the city because he wants to see some mass genocide; and God shows mercy on them because they repented. Jonah gets mad and God scolds him for not having mercy.

2- Do you accept the Bible as fact?

3- Your little anecdote is not a fit argument. I've explained my contempt with it already. If you don't believe in an afterlife why are you arguing the righteousness of God's actions? You cede the existence of God for the sake of the argument but you deny everything associated with it. There's no way to argue with such a set of circumstances. You're acting like a child.

4- And that's argumentum ad hominem. I'm not stupid. If there were a correlation I would address it, but your argument has nothing to do with mine.

5- His atrocities do not exist if He does not exist. Which one is it?

As far as mercy, you have no idea how long God commanded those people to repent before sending the Israelites. They were wicked people. Prophets could have been telling them to repent for decades. We have no idea, the Bible is not that comprehensive. You're judging God's moral philosophy based on your own narrow moral philosophy. How immature can you be?

 

[Pah]

I will make this a personal warning, Dan, not a moderator warning. You are not allowed to use such phrases as "You're acting like a child" and "How immature can you be?" I advise you to return to civil discourse before another moderator notices.. Now as to your arguments

1- Jonah 3:10: "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God turned away the evil that He said He would bring upon them; and He did it not." In this story God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh to preach their destruction. He soesn't want to do it at first, but then does it and waits outside the city because he wants to see some mass genocide; and God shows mercy on them because they repented. Jonah gets mad and God scolds him for not having mercy

.

I see no threat of destruction from God in Jonah 1:2. Jonah took it upon himself in Jonah 3:4 to proclaim the city would be overturned in 40 days. It seems that Jonah 3:10 is another biblical discrepancy. Perhaps, Dan, with your knowledge of the original language, you can explain this.

But, Dan, God did not send a "Jonah" to the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, or Egypt. Did God give warning to these before he commenced his genocide and infanticide? And please explain how a warning is mercy.

You have yet to address this issue. and I have raised it repeatedly.

2- Do you accept the Bible as fact?

Of course the bible is a fact and is the only source for God's word. Why not go to the bible in the language I know instead of pandering to those who, you will have to admit, are human and make mistakes?

But, again Dan, you have failed to answer the implied question or counter the point. How did Noah know of the flood from the canonical message of Dueteronomy, or any other doucumented place in the bible, before God made a covenent with Noah? Please explain.

I think I have asked at least 3 times.

3- Your little anecdote is not a fit argument. I've explained my contempt with it already. If you don't believe in an afterlife why are you arguing the righteousness of God's actions? You cede the existence of God for the sake of the argument but you deny everything associated with it. There's no way to argue with such a set of circumstances. You're acting like a child.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the "God scenario" reduced to simple language, but the shoe does fit although it seems to have a nail through the bottom of the shoe that makes it uncomfortable.

I cede nothing. I merely repeat what the bible says and question what you say about what the bible says. As I've said before, the bible is the only source of God. Geez, I get critized for not proving the "negative" and for showing the error in the "positive".

4- And that's argumentum ad hominem. I'm not stupid. If there were a correlation I would address it, but your argument has nothing to do with mine.

Nobody said you were stupid. I gave you the out by saying you could be ignoring it rather than tackle the simple comparision which still does not say you are stupid.

You do not think that (in your words) "obeying God is the only "good" choice you can make" is equivalent to (in my words) "I was only following orders, I did nothing wrong"?

To re-word your statement - I was only following God's orders, it is the only "good" choice I could make" (therefore, I could not go wrong)

5- His atrocities do not exist if He does not exist. Which one is it?

As far as mercy, you have no idea how long God commanded those people to repent before sending the Israelites. They were wicked people. Prophets could have been telling them to repent for decades. We have no idea, the Bible is not that comprehensive. You're judging God's moral philosophy based on your own narrow moral philosophy. How immature can you be?

Your first statement and question has already been answered. His immoral behavior exists as the written word of the bible which does nothing to say in reality that God exists. I can judge God by the biblical text and the standards of morality most people accord. I make no double-standard because I have faith in the bible as some in the faith wouold do.

If you have to resort to conjecture to explain how mercy might have been shown or that prophets may have spoken to the issue of wickness, then all biblical interpretation can be considered conjecture. You have no alternative source and you shouldn't "make things up".

Now Dan, for the umpteenth time answer the questions

-pah-