Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[viole]

Hi
It seems to me that the use of the word WE somehow lumps all humanity into the same group somehow. That is inacurate. Morals are subjective to the circumstances aren't they?
..........................................................
But yes in a general sense ....We are morally similar to God........ because we were created in His image.
We know that the world we navigate is not one of Black and White dominated by instinct like our animals cousins. Choice brings consequence that need to be addressed. We live in a world of GREY not black and white.
................................................
I entered this because of your quote about "slashing babies up against a wall" and your appeal that this is somehow unacceptable behaviour for GOD to order of his people.

An eye for an eye seems to be a very moral principle. It is this exact principle that is extrapolated upwards to get to the passage that you claim is immoral. If the underlying principle is sound then so is the expansion.
If this was the exact same outcome that Israel were going to be subjected to if they lost is it still immoral?
....................................................
At the end of the day morality is defined as ...principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. If both sides in a conflict agree to the rules of the conflict and are willing to take their chances how is the unsueing conflict immoral by any definition of the word? Surely "we makes our choices and we takes our chances "is moral at the core. That is biblical morality at its finest.

Peace





.

What would Jesus do? The Christ you claim to follow.
Accept to lose, or slash babies against walls to protect Himself?

Ciao

- ciole

 

[Muffled]

Of course not. But you would if you insist my morality comes from the authors of that book.

Ciao

- viole

I don't believe I would insist but I suggest you take a long hard look and try to figure out where it did come from. For instance my parents taught me that hard work is good. That would seem to come from my parents but i Would suggest that thousands of years ago a Biblical author wrote opposing sloth and that got passed down to my parents over generations.

 

[Muffled]

There is no indication of this since I cited direct citations describing slavery of foreigners by the Hebrews. The slavery described is bought and sold standard slavery.

With Hebrews among Hebrews it is described as indentured servitude.

I believe there is no such thing but perhaps you are referring to American slavery as the one with which you are most familiar.

I believe the bought and sold kind is the indentured kind in the Bible. A person sold himself into slavery. I believe there is no indication of a slave trade in Israel.

 

[Muffled]

By "selectively cite scripture" you must mean your recognition that scriptures are AGAINST slavery, for example, love your neighbor as yourself.

I believe I can love my neighbor by making him my slave.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe there is no such thing but perhaps you are referring to American slavery as the one with which you are most familiar.

I believe the bought and sold kind is the indentured kind in the Bible. A person sold himself into slavery. I believe there is no indication of a slave trade in Israel.

They're probably referring to this:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:44-46

That's not indentured servitude. That's outright slavery - the owning of human beings as property. The people mentioned in these verses are not selling themselves into slavery. They're being bought and sold and passed down as property.

 

[Moz]

And what if someone doesn't think "an eye for an eye" is a "very moral principle?"

Dashing babies heads against rocks doesn't strike me as a particularly moral thing to do, even if someone slashed your own baby's head against a rock first. Does it seem "very moral" to you, and something that a "very moral" God would endorse as a "very moral" thing to do in a book that is meant to teach mankind universal moral principles?

Hi
If you do not think eye for an eye is moral then i guess that's what you think. I would have doubts about the moral compass of one who did not see the morality in the principle but i get a lot of that on here anyway.

The bronze age polities need to be cut some slack, they were living at a time when they did not have many institutional levers, especially in the field of international relations. Terror, fear and intimidation were the way that these polities warned each other to keep clear. There is an declaratory style that all of these peope used to communicate when confrontation was looming. Hyerbolic poetic descriptions of what you are gonna get if you dare to fight us is at the top of the list.
A lot of the stuff you are objecting to is exactely that. BUT... Yes.. War is hell and i am sure tha plenty of innocents were run over in the process. It was ever thus.
If you look at the later history of the region you will find that people who you think were genocided were actually existing in the area living amongst the Jews.

If you can read the entire Bible and come to the conclusion that Jehovah is a blood thristy tyrant who ordered his people to rape and pillage their way through history then that's cool. We pays our money and takes our chances.
Peace

 

[Moz]

What would Jesus do? The Christ you claim to follow.
Accept to lose, or slash babies against walls to protect Himself?

Ciao

- ciole

Hi

I gave you a lot of points of discussion in my post that could have been discussed and this is what you come up with.... It seems that all you are after is a "gotcha" momment and are not willing to discuss the issues in any depth.

I think the principle of "mutally agreed outcome" is a very moral base to begin from. If we build up from there then i do not see how the events that follow can be labeled immoral. Brutal or Draconian yes ... But it was a HARD world.

Having looked into this stuff deeply from all sides over a lot of years i do not beleive that the conquest was as brutal as the propoganda promised.

But to answer the loaded question. .. If Jesus was a soldier under Joshua's command he would have done what was required. Not happliy, not joyfully and not with the intention of plunder but with a grudging acceptance of the necessity of brutal action when required.

Peace

 

[Moz]

What would Jesus do? The Christ you claim to follow.
Accept to lose, or slash babies against walls to protect Himself?

Ciao

- ciole

Hi

I'd like to inject something else into the discussion that i do not think you guys take into consideration at a deep enough level.

Due to a very strange and somewhat unique mixture of geography, geo-politics and religion my fraternal family line was locked into a small christian enclave in the mountains of Lebanon/Syria surrounded by an Islamic Ocean for over a 1000 years. I remember growing up listening to tales from by Grandfather of MY family going back for century after century. (I wish i had of listened and learned more before he passed. My dad was more focused on making it in the New country than telling me stories of the old) They were actually the custodians of a large portion of the "Cedars of GOD" near Bshari and had extensive dealings with their Islamic overlords. A history that my generation let drop to my now older self's chagrin.
The point of the story though is that some societies and peoples are VERY aware of who their family was going back dozens of generations. No TV means telling stories around the fire and the stories were often the deeds of the family in the past. It is how they built solidarity and community. The reverse of this is of course that any WRONGS done to the family are also remembered and internalized.

With that in mind a lot of the early disputes between the Jews and the nations around them were rooted in familial disagreements going back 500+ years. The descendants of Ishmael and Abrahams later children, the descendants of Esau and the nations that sprang from them all laid claim to lands that the Patriarchal founder of the line had decreed would be passed through the line of Isaac and then Jacob. When the sides clashed they were all very well aware of what they were doing.
It seems petty to the modern mind that does not consider their family line back past the immediate family but the ancient world was very different. The fact that the nations who opposed Israel were repudiating the authority of their collective founder by opposing Jacobs descendants taking rightful headship of the region was a VERY real issue. There were some tribes that sided with the Jews because they recognized the legitimacy of the claim they were making. In these instances of internecine warfare through out history and by no means unique to this situation the bloodshed was especially bloody.
If we are to judge these people we should at least try and understand how they view the world.
Peace

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe there is no such thing but perhaps you are referring to American slavery as the one with which you are most familiar.

I believe the bought and sold kind is the indentured kind in the Bible. A person sold himself into slavery. I believe there is no indication of a slave trade in Israel.

No, I am referring to Hebrew slavery of foreigners as cited. Yes, American slavery was justified by those holding slaves using those citations cited in this thread.

Indentured servitude.was described in the Bible as Hebrew indentured servants of Hebrews.

 

[viole]

Hi

I gave you a lot of points of discussion in my post that could have been discussed and this is what you come up with.... It seems that all you are after is a "gotcha" momment and are not willing to discuss the issues in any depth.

I think the principle of "mutally agreed outcome" is a very moral base to begin from. If we build up from there then i do not see how the events that follow can be labeled immoral. Brutal or Draconian yes ... But it was a HARD world.

Having looked into this stuff deeply from all sides over a lot of years i do not beleive that the conquest was as brutal as the propoganda promised.

But to answer the loaded question. .. If Jesus was a soldier under Joshua's command he would have done what was required. Not happliy, not joyfully and not with the intention of plunder but with a grudging acceptance of the necessity of brutal action when required.

Peace

I don't know what you mean. If Jesus is God, then I wonder if Jesus would have done the same. I expect that a God is consistent with His moral imperatives and justifications.

Would Jesus have killed women, children, etc. to save Himself? Is that part of His teachings: to kill babies if that is required to save yourself?

If not, why not? Is God schizophrenic?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

I don't know what you mean. If Jesus is God, then I wonder if Jesus would have done the same. I expect that a God is consistent with His moral imperatives and justifications.

Would Jesus have killed women, children, etc. to save Himself? Is that part of His teachings: to kill babies if that is required to save yourself?

If not, why not? Is God schizophrenic?

Ciao

- viole

Hi
Nope. I have no problem answering this new weak question but FIRST you need to address a couple of things. This is a debate and not an inquisition.

I gave a reason why the issue is NOT a contradiction of any moral code and you need to tell me why i am wrong. You CAN NOT judge these things in reverse from some retroactive 21st century pseudo moralizing that condemns the majority of mankind as immoral monsters while ignoring the context in which they actually lived.

I explained the tribal familial background to this and the seriousness with which ancient peoples held these issues. If the engagement was according to mutually agreed upon terms where is the immorality in what follows? You must answer this for the next question you pose to even be asked.

If all that you have is the refrain that killing babies is bad then this is not a real world historical discussion but some fantasy gotcha session. Debate the issues if you can.

Just so that you know the principles that you are dealing with ..... the allies in ww2 bombed civilian targets, incinerating tens of thousands of German and Japanese children, this was done in supposed retaliation for the German blitz during the Battle of Britian portion of the war. Both sides in the conflict now New The Rules that each was fighting under and did not see these as moral issues after that time. Were they correct?

Peace

 

[viole]

Hi
Nope. I have no problem answering this new weak question but FIRST you need to address a couple of things. This is a debate and not an inquisition.

I gave a reason why the issue is NOT a contradiction of any moral code and you need to tell me why i am wrong. You CAN NOT judge these things in reverse from some retroactive 21st century pseudo moralizing that condemns the majority of mankind as immoral monsters while ignoring the context in which they actually lived.

I explained the tribal familial background to this and the seriousness with which ancient peoples held these issues. If the engagement was according to mutually agreed upon terms where is the immorality in what follows? You must answer this for the next question you pose to even be asked.

If all that you have is the refrain that killing babies is bad then this is not a real world historical discussion but some fantasy gotcha session. Debate the issues if you can.

Just so that you know the principles that you are dealing with ..... the allies in ww2 bombed civilian targets, incinerating tens of thousands of German and Japanese children, this was done in supposed retaliation for the German blitz during the Battle of Britian portion of the war. Both sides in the conflict now New The Rules that each was fighting under and did not see these as moral issues after that time. Were they correct?

Peace

I already know that morality is relative. And that things valid today, might not have been valid back then, and the other way round.
So?

But what is in the Bible has been commanded by God in person, not some Bronze Age barbarian (according to Christians, of course). So, you seem to indicate that God morality is relative, too. Fine. I thought it was objective and unchanging, but it seems the jury is still out on this.

So, your turn: would have Jesus commanded the same? Kill the women and children of your enemy, slash their babies against the walls, etc. if that helps you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

I already know that morality is relative. And that things valid today, might not have been valid back then, and the other way round.
So?

But what is in the Bible has been commanded by God in person, not some Bronze Age barbarian (according to Christians, of course). So, you seem to indicate that God morality is relative, too. Fine. I thought it was objective and unchanging, but it seems the jury is still out on this.

So, your turn: would have Jesus commanded the same? Kill the women and children of your enemy, slash their babies against the walls, etc. if that helps you.

Ciao

- viole

Hi
Thank you.
I am not sue if you understand the restrictions that the Biblical God is under when dealing with mankind. According to the way the Bible lays out the events in Eden. God banished mankind to make their own way after they rejected his Sovereignty. Mankind in general make their own rules and God's interaction with humanity is always in tension with this fact. Gods standard is to Love your enemy and to not take life.... if mankind followed THAT standard then none of this stuff would have happened. The events that are within geo/political history are not conducted under Gods standards but the standards of the opponent. By the rules they chose to establish in these matters.

But what is in the Bible has been commanded by God in person, not some Bronze Age barbarian (according to Christians, of course).
Fair enough this is true..... however the conquest of the promised land was in the 1300's BCE well over a 1000 years into what was already a fully established military world. Multiple empires had already risen and fallen by this time and the rules of war that these people played by were well established.

So, you seem to indicate that God morality is relative, too. Fine. I thought it was objective and unchanging, but it seems the jury is still out on this.

Every time that the Father deals in any way with humanity his "absolute morality" has to be relevatised so as to deal with imperfect creatures. His standard is for there to be no sin.. his absolute morality calls for the ending of ALL sin and this would mean human nonexistence.
His love and compassion called for him to put a hold on his judgement to allow for his side of the issue to be made manifest through the Line of Abraham and for his creation to be able to choose which side they follow. The at the END of the story he is able to excersice his absolute morality in judging a fully informed humanity. That's what the 1000 years of peace in Revelations is for.


So, your turn: would have Jesus commanded the same? Kill the women and children of your enemy, slash their babies against the walls, etc. if that helps you.

I know the "slash the babies" is a provocative line that appeals to the emotion, and i am sure that it happened to some extent but this is NOT the standard practice except for certain tribal familial conflicts as i tried to explain in an earlier post.
Having said that then YES Jesus would have done what was necessary. Although if are to put Jesus in the picture we should also remember that He is the One who will resurrect "on the last day" every human who has ever lived . He is also the one who leads the armies that destroy this worlds political, religious and economic system in the battle of Armageddon. Jesus is not the weak milksop that the baby in the manger image leads one to believe. He is a King who will do the things that Kings need to.

If the Caananite nations had have accepted the Jews as the hegymon's of an Abrahamic tribal confederation things would have been different. It is a point of connection that 4000 years after Abraham the Islamic armies launched a conquest of the Holy Land using their claim of descent from Ishmael as firstborn of Abraham as their justification. These things have very long legs.

Peace.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi
Thank you.
I am not sue if you understand the restrictions that the Biblical God is under when dealing with mankind. According to the way the Bible lays out the events in Eden. God banished mankind to make their own way after they rejected his Sovereignty. Mankind in general make their own rules and God's interaction with humanity is always in tension with this fact. Gods standard is to Love your enemy and to not take life.... if mankind followed THAT standard then none of this stuff would have happened. The events that are within geo/political history are not conducted under Gods standards but the standards of the opponent. By the rules they chose to establish in these matters.

But what is in the Bible has been commanded by God in person, not some Bronze Age barbarian (according to Christians, of course).
Fair enough this is true..... however the conquest of the promised land was in the 1300's BCE well over a 1000 years into what was already a fully established military world. Multiple empires had already risen and fallen by this time and the rules of war that these people played by were well established.

So, you seem to indicate that God morality is relative, too. Fine. I thought it was objective and unchanging, but it seems the jury is still out on this.

Every time that the Father deals in any way with humanity his "absolute morality" has to be relevatised so as to deal with imperfect creatures. His standard is for there to be no sin.. his absolute morality calls for the ending of ALL sin and this would mean human nonexistence.
His love and compassion called for him to put a hold on his judgement to allow for his side of the issue to be made manifest through the Line of Abraham and for his creation to be able to choose which side they follow. The at the END of the story he is able to excersice his absolute morality in judging a fully informed humanity. That's what the 1000 years of peace in Revelations is for.


So, your turn: would have Jesus commanded the same? Kill the women and children of your enemy, slash their babies against the walls, etc. if that helps you.

I know the "slash the babies" is a provocative line that appeals to the emotion, and i am sure that it happened to some extent but this is NOT the standard practice except for certain tribal familial conflicts as i tried to explain in an earlier post.
Having said that then YES Jesus would have done what was necessary. Although if are to put Jesus in the picture we should also remember that He is the One who will resurrect "on the last day" every human who has ever lived . He is also the one who leads the armies that destroy this worlds political, religious and economic system in the battle of Armageddon. Jesus is not the weak milksop that the baby in the manger image leads one to believe. He is a King who will do the things that Kings need to.

If the Caananite nations had have accepted the Jews as the hegymon's of an Abrahamic tribal confederation things would have been different. It is a point of connection that 4000 years after Abraham the Islamic armies launched a conquest of the Holy Land using their claim of descent from Ishmael as firstborn of Abraham as their justification. These things have very long legs.

Peace.

Your interpretation and 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee. Your trying in a contorted manner trying to justify this as the will of God. Your trying to justify the violence committed against their fellow you humans in what they claimed as the will and law of God, unfortunately ir was their own will and law that determined their actions and laws in tribal world. God's will was their, but it remains they were dominated by an ancient tribal world, that has evolved physically and spiritually beyond the narrow tribal world of the Bible.

 

[Moz]

Your interpretation and 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee. Your trying in a contorted manner trying to justify this as the will of God. Your trying to justify the violence committed against their fellow you humans in what they claimed as the will and law of God, unfortunately ir was their own will and law that determined their actions and laws in tribal world. God's will was their, but it remains they were dominated by an ancient tribal world, that has evolved physically and spiritually beyond the narrow tribal world of the Bible.

Hi
I if you have a criticism of the system of patriarchal hegomony i laid out please show me where i am incorrect.
I can supply you with any number of tribal confederations in the ancient world where a common ancestor and the decisions of that ancestor hold over the people for centuries. Ishmael's descendants rode out of the Desert to conquer the promised land 4000 years after Abraham claiming it as there right as descendants of the firstborn.

It seems strange for you to think that the ancient tribal world, has evolved physically and spiritually beyond the narrow tribal world of the Bible when the accounts you are referring to were written in the 1500's bce. The world of tribal confederation transforming into city sate and nation had been under way for 1000 years already.
One of the earliest comprehensive law codes governing a Nation State was the one delivered by Moses so how you get the idea of a narrow tribal world is strange.
The violence of the ancient world does NOT need to be justified it needs to be understood.

Peace

 

[night912]

Hi
Nope. I have no problem answering this new weak question but FIRST you need to address a couple of things. This is a debate and not an inquisition.

I gave a reason why the issue is NOT a contradiction of any moral code and you need to tell me why i am wrong. You CAN NOT judge these things in reverse from some retroactive 21st century pseudo moralizing that condemns the majority of mankind as immoral monsters while ignoring the context in which they actually lived.

I explained the tribal familial background to this and the seriousness with which ancient peoples held these issues. If the engagement was according to mutually agreed upon terms where is the immorality in what follows? You must answer this for the next question you pose to even be asked.

If all that you have is the refrain that killing babies is bad then this is not a real world historical discussion but some fantasy gotcha session. Debate the issues if you can.

Just so that you know the principles that you are dealing with ..... the allies in ww2 bombed civilian targets, incinerating tens of thousands of German and Japanese children, this was done in supposed retaliation for the German blitz during the Battle of Britian portion of the war. Both sides in the conflict now New The Rules that each was fighting under and did not see these as moral issues after that time. Were they correct?

Peace

This why you are wrong and there is a contradiction. You have been arguing morality and no doubt given some reasons to support your argument, but this is where you got it wrong and your reasons proved that there is a contradiction.

I understand that the morles of the ancient world is different and cannot simply be compared to ours today. But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being debated here is the absolute morality of god, not the Israelites. So whether they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality, there's no barring on the morality of god.

So god commanding them to slay all their neighbors is a clear contradiction of, "love that neighbor."

You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. Son in this case, murder. And obviously, according to the bible and majority of followers of Christianity, Jesus is god. So in doing so, god is doing an immoral act.

Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.

PS
Regardless of having an attempt at making a "gotcha" moment, once the moment presents itself, it's not wrong to say "GOTCHA"

 

[Moz]

This why you are wrong and there is a contradiction. You have been arguing morality and no doubt given some reasons to support your argument, but this is where you got it wrong and your reasons proved that there is a contradiction.

I understand that the morles of the ancient world is different and cannot simply be compared to ours today. But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being debated here is the absolute morality of god, not the Israelites. So whether they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality, there's no barring on the morality of god.

So god commanding them to slay all their neighbors is a clear contradiction of, "love that neighbor."

You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. Son in this case, murder. And obviously, according to the bible and majority of followers of Christianity, Jesus is god. So in doing so, god is doing an immoral act.

Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.

PS
Regardless of having an attempt at making a "gotcha" moment, once the moment presents itself, it's not wrong to say "GOTCHA"

Hi
The absolute morality of God is what the first pair chose to reject when they chose to disobey God and do what they decided they themselves wanted. What we are discussing is the morality that God has to apply within a fallen creation. His morality in these cases is moderated by the circumstances as morality often is.
If you agree the agrument that they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality has some merit. Then where is the immorality?
How can the Israelites have been moral but God immoral for the same action?
............................................
I do not understand why you all expect God to display some sort of pre eden absolutle morality when dealing with fallen creatures. Any lack or contradiction that you perceive is involved in the tension between having to deal with imperfect creatures who are not his robots.
.........................................................................
So god commanding them to slay all their neighbors is a clear contradiction of, "love that neighbor."
I like how you phrase it. Yes the Israeites were told to slay their neighbors, no not neighbors but military opponents who you agreed had a mutual cultural agreement as to the consequences of defeat for both sides.
Why phrase it in such a tricky way?
..............................................................
You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. So in this case, murder
If you consider military action to be murder then fair enough.... but that is hardly a moral slam dunk.
Why is it that the WORST possible spin is always put on it?.... murder.
Why phrase it in such a tricky way?
..........................................................................
What i see is Jehovah picking some 70 year old Chaldean stay at home living in UR in the 2000's bce. Taking this man to a new land and forging a people from his line who he had to knock around for the next 2000 years to get to a position stable enough for the Christ to be made manifest.

None of it was easy. Not much of it was pretty. A couple of times he decided in his ABSOLUTE morality to give the whole thing up and kill all the Israelites because of their continued back sliding to the past only to be talked out of it by a series of prophets and applying a morality relative to the imperfect creatures that he was dealing with. He mitigates his rage, shows mercy, forgives, which are all an applications of relative morality.
.............................................
God tends to manifest His Absolute Morality in outbursts like the global flood. He has to pace himself and not be provoked into that to often.
Peace

 

[viole]

Hi
Thank you.
I am not sue if you understand the restrictions that the Biblical God is under when dealing with mankind. According to the way the Bible lays out the events in Eden. God banished mankind to make their own way after they rejected his Sovereignty. Mankind in general make their own rules and God's interaction with humanity is always in tension with this fact. Gods standard is to Love your enemy and to not take life.... if mankind followed THAT standard then none of this stuff would have happened. The events that are within geo/political history are not conducted under Gods standards but the standards of the opponent. By the rules they chose to establish in these matters.

But what is in the Bible has been commanded by God in person, not some Bronze Age barbarian (according to Christians, of course).
Fair enough this is true..... however the conquest of the promised land was in the 1300's BCE well over a 1000 years into what was already a fully established military world. Multiple empires had already risen and fallen by this time and the rules of war that these people played by were well established.

So, you seem to indicate that God morality is relative, too. Fine. I thought it was objective and unchanging, but it seems the jury is still out on this.

Every time that the Father deals in any way with humanity his "absolute morality" has to be relevatised so as to deal with imperfect creatures. His standard is for there to be no sin.. his absolute morality calls for the ending of ALL sin and this would mean human nonexistence.
His love and compassion called for him to put a hold on his judgement to allow for his side of the issue to be made manifest through the Line of Abraham and for his creation to be able to choose which side they follow. The at the END of the story he is able to excersice his absolute morality in judging a fully informed humanity. That's what the 1000 years of peace in Revelations is for.


So, your turn: would have Jesus commanded the same? Kill the women and children of your enemy, slash their babies against the walls, etc. if that helps you.

I know the "slash the babies" is a provocative line that appeals to the emotion, and i am sure that it happened to some extent but this is NOT the standard practice except for certain tribal familial conflicts as i tried to explain in an earlier post.
Having said that then YES Jesus would have done what was necessary. Although if are to put Jesus in the picture we should also remember that He is the One who will resurrect "on the last day" every human who has ever lived . He is also the one who leads the armies that destroy this worlds political, religious and economic system in the battle of Armageddon. Jesus is not the weak milksop that the baby in the manger image leads one to believe. He is a King who will do the things that Kings need to.

If the Caananite nations had have accepted the Jews as the hegymon's of an Abrahamic tribal confederation things would have been different. It is a point of connection that 4000 years after Abraham the Islamic armies launched a conquest of the Holy Land using their claim of descent from Ishmael as firstborn of Abraham as their justification. These things have very long legs.

Peace.

Therefore, "love your enemy" must be taken with a certain grain of salt, since there are situations where I actually should exterminate my enemy, his family, and his pets.

Are there are other teachings of Jesus that have such exceptions? The Gospel won't say.

Ciao

0 vine

 

[Moz]

Therefore, "love your enemy" must be taken with a certain grain of salt, since there are situations where I actually should exterminate my enemy, his family, and his pets.

Are there are other teachings of Jesus that have such exceptions? The Gospel won't say.

Ciao

0 vine

Hi
If you wish to apply the christian command retroactively then by all means claim whatever prize you think that is worth.

What i know is that no christian engaged in warfare of any kind for centuries after Christ so they took it with more than a grain of salt.

I am sure that you are aware of the distinction made between the time when Gods people were gathered as a single nation and therefore had to engage in collective defense and warfare and the change with the christian message of a faith spread to all peoples. Things changed enemies became neighbors.

Anyway i have really enjoyed the exchange for the most part but to throw the 'love thy enemy" line in shows me that this is a waste of time, you are not interested in understanding or discussing these things within their context.

Peace

 

[night912]

Hi
The absolute morality of God is what the first pair chose to reject when they chose to disobey God and do what they decided they themselves wanted. What we are discussing is the morality that God has to apply within a fallen creation. His morality in these cases is moderated by the circumstances as morality often is.
If you agree the agrument that they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality has some merit. Then where is the immorality?
How can the Israelites have been moral but God immoral for the same action?
............................................
I do not understand why you all expect God to display some sort of pre eden absolutle morality when dealing with fallen creatures. Any lack or contradiction that you perceive is involved in the tension between having to deal with imperfect creatures who are not his robots.
.........................................................................
So god commanding them to slay all their neighbors is a clear contradiction of, "love that neighbor."
I like how you phrase it. Yes the Israeites were told to slay their neighbors, no not neighbors but military opponents who you agreed had a mutual cultural agreement as to the consequences of defeat for both sides.
Why phrase it in such a tricky way?
..............................................................
You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. So in this case, murder
If you consider military action to be murder then fair enough.... but that is hardly a moral slam dunk.
Why is it that the WORST possible spin is always put on it?.... murder.
Why phrase it in such a tricky way?
..........................................................................
What i see is Jehovah picking some 70 year old Chaldean stay at home living in UR in the 2000's bce. Taking this man to a new land and forging a people from his line who he had to knock around for the next 2000 years to get to a position stable enough for the Christ to be made manifest.

None of it was easy. Not much of it was pretty. A couple of times he decided in his ABSOLUTE morality to give the whole thing up and kill all the Israelites because of their continued back sliding to the past only to be talked out of it by a series of prophets and applying a morality relative to the imperfect creatures that he was dealing with. He mitigates his rage, shows mercy, forgives, which are all an applications of relative morality.
.............................................
God tends to manifest His Absolute Morality in outbursts like the global flood. He has to pace himself and not be provoked into that to often.
Peace

So now you're either purposely dodging what I've said by not even addressing my point, or your ignorant of what "absolute morality" is.

And ignoring what I said and just repeating your same refuted points just shows that you no longer want and/or able to reasonably continue with this debate. So unless you are able to look at my point and willingly address it, there's no point in continuing this debate with you. And I am stating my observation about you ignoring my point. Because if you would have read what I said, you wouldn't be repeating the same thing.