Spirituality
11 Nov 06
21 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH, I don't think you really understood what I said, because the heroin analogy makes no sense in
I don't see why that makes God "equivocal" about Levitical Law.
In the original, pre-Levitical covenant (signified by the Ten Commandments, iteration 1), there were no detailed laws (e.g. dietary ones) or punishments. When He saw His People weren't ready for that yet, He switched to a more detailed regimen. That doesn't mean the latter was intended ...[text shortened]... regimen of methadone instead. Indeed, he might even "command" the son to take methadone.
this context.
Assuming that you take the Levitical presentation as an accurate reflection of God's desires, God
provided His Law, wherein it unequivocally states that adulterers should be executed (it doesn't
actually specify the means of execution), and that said execution should be effected by the
people. This means that, at least at some point in time, God thought it was permissible to
execute people for adultery.
Now, if Jesus was saying 'What God really, really meant was that the execution will take
place at the seat of Judgment,' then this represents Divine Equivocation, because the text
command a specific action (which was meted out for around 1000 years) which was clarified by
Jesus afterwards (and after an inestimable number of slaughters).
That would be like George Lucas' equivocation in the mouth of Obi Wan Kenobi, when he first
claims that Darth Vader killed Anakin Skywalker, but what he really, really meant was that
the persona of Darth Vader killed all that Anakin was and assumed him (which, for the good of the
galaxy far, far away, turned out not to be true, anyway). Unlike Lucas' equivocation, though,
this 'interpretation' didn't result in the slaughter of thousands of other people by Luke like the
Levitical reading.
As I said, the other option is to understand the Levitical code as cultural and not Divine; Moses
realized that adultery tore at the fabric of their fragile society and, in the mouth of God, gave these
commands to intimidate the Israelites into behaving. Jesus, by contrast, realized that these
'laws' were, in fact, not Divine but, instead barbaric and instructed people to that end.
Nemesio
21 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo he viewed divorce as something a woman cannot get because she is property of the man and that won't change no matter what the religion. Still going on today.
He did condemn divorce and adultery, though.
[b]What happened to the rest of his message that contradicts such strong punishments?
His message was one of forgiveness, not turning a blind eye.
There's a difference.[/b]
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioLH, I don't think you really understood what I said, because the heroin analogy makes no sense in this context.
LH, I don't think you really understood what I said, because the heroin analogy makes no sense in
this context.
Assuming that you take the Levitical presentation as an accurate reflection of God's desires, God
provided His Law, wherein it unequivocally states that adulterers should be executed (it doesn't
actually specify the means of execution), and t ...[text shortened]... fact, not Divine but, instead barbaric and instructed people to that end.
Nemesio
I did understand what you said the first time around, though I apologise if I wasn't clear in turn.
I think the heroin analogy does make sense because, in the Christian view of salvation history, God is trying to rehabilitate mankind from its fallen state. I've used the parental analogy in several other threads as well. Would you argue that a parent who tells a 4-yr old child not to talk to strangers is equivocating because what he "really really" meant was that the child could talk to strangers when he/she was old enough to judge for himself/herself which strangers are "safe" and which ones are not?
This means that, at least at some point in time, God thought it was permissible to execute people for adultery.
The term 'permissible' here is ambiguous. If you mean something like 'licit' or 'non-morally-culpable', then I'd agree. If you mean something like 'morally permissible' then, as per the heroin addict's father above, I'd have to say no.
Now, if Jesus was saying 'What God really, really meant was that the execution will take place at the seat of Judgment,'
That's not what Jesus is saying; nor what I said He said.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou use the parental analogy frequently when discussing the God - people relationship but in nearly every case it is an extremely poor analogy as at least 90% of parenting techniques have two main characteristics:
I think the heroin analogy does make sense because, in the Christian view of salvation history, God is trying to rehabilitate mankind from its fallen state. I've used the parental analogy in several other threads as well. Would you argue that a parent who tells a 4-yr old child not to talk to strangers is equivocating because what he "really re ...[text shortened]... old enough to judge for himself/herself which strangers are "safe" and which ones are not?
1. If the parent was omnipotent there would be considerably better ways of achieving the same result. (don't let you son get on heroine in the first place)
2. There are better ways of achieving the same result when only the child's benefit is considered. Many parental techniques are to the benefit of the parent as much as the child. (easy way out)
Also your implication that old testament jews were a bunch of 4 year olds (spiritually) makes me wonder whether you are implying that they were not morally culpable as they were not yet capable of judging morals on their own.
I also don't see how you can justify murder as an acceptable deterrent to promiscuity even with a 4 year old. If say, all spanking, is morally wrong then using it on children is still morally wrong whatever the perceived benefits.
Your concept of God seems like a rather poor parent to me.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead1. If the parent was omnipotent there would be considerably better ways of achieving the same result.
You use the parental analogy frequently when discussing the God - people relationship but in nearly every case it is an extremely poor analogy as at least 90% of parenting techniques have two main characteristics:
1. If the parent was omnipotent there would be considerably better ways of achieving the same result. (don't let you son get on heroine in the hatever the perceived benefits.
Your concept of God seems like a rather poor parent to me.
Perhaps not. Can you calculate the implications of alternatives throughout space and history?
2. There are better ways of achieving the same result when only the child's benefit is considered.
Ditto. Sometimes it's not just that individual child, but also what's most beneficial for all one's children that needs to be considered.
Also your implication that old testament jews were a bunch of 4 year olds (spiritually) makes me wonder whether you are implying that they were not morally culpable as they were not yet capable of judging morals on their own.
Not at all.
I also don't see how you can justify murder as an acceptable deterrent to promiscuity even with a 4 year old.
Do you accept murder as an acceptable deterrent to murder?
Your concept of God seems like a rather poor parent to me.
Or maybe your concept of a good parent is impoverished.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf that is necessary in order to understand a particular action of Gods then the whole idea of using an analogy to 'explain' his actions is totally flawed from the very beginning. Why didn't you just say "God told people to kill adulterers because that was the best thing to do and we cannot question it because you cannot calculate the implications of alternatives throughout space and history"
Perhaps not. Can you calculate the implications of alternatives throughout space and history?
Do you accept murder as an acceptable deterrent to murder?
No. But that is not relevant as I am not Christian.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf that is necessary in order to understand a particular action of Gods then the whole idea of using an analogy to 'explain' his actions is totally flawed from the very beginning.
If that is necessary in order to understand a particular action of Gods then the whole idea of using an analogy to 'explain' his actions is totally flawed from the very beginning. Why didn't you just say "God told people to kill adulterers because that was the best thing to do and we cannot question it because you cannot calculate the implications of alte ...[text shortened]... an acceptable deterrent to murder?
No. But that is not relevant as I am not Christian.[/b]
Not at all. Just because one cannot completely understand something doesn't mean one cannot use analogies to to get a general or imperfect sense of what it entails. Can you understand how light is both a particle and a wave? Can you visualise 4-D objects? Does that mean you cannot work with either?
No. But that is not relevant as I am not Christian.
I don't see what not being Christian has to do with it. Your question presupposes certain ideas; I'm asking what those are.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt was you that made the claim not me. You cant have it both ways.
Not at all. Just because one cannot completely understand something doesn't mean one cannot use analogies to to get a general or imperfect sense of what it entails. Can you understand how light is both a particle and a wave? Can you visualise 4-D objects? Does that mean you cannot work with either?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong. You made the claim that there were "better" ways for an omnipotent (and, though unstated, morally perfect) being to do something. I pointed out that our own limited intellectual capabilities makes it impossible for you to justify such a claim.
It was you that made the claim not me. You cant have it both ways.
This is a different matter from understanding (or at least getting a general sense of) why a particular course of action might be the best (or not good -- as the case may be).
No one's trying to have it both ways.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer
The term 'permissible' here is ambiguous. If you mean something like 'licit' or 'non-morally-culpable', then I'd agree. If you mean something like 'morally permissible' then, as per the heroin addict's father above, I'd have to say no.
I was going to address my problems with the analogy, but, since you just wrote the above, there
is no point. You believe that the Jews who slaughtered people caught in adultery were not morally
culpable for murder as a direct result of their reading Levitical Law which came from God.
I find this position irreconcilable with the normative understanding of 'God is Love.' This is not
Love; this is barbaric. One doesn't need to be omnipotent or even omnibenevolent to see that
the Levitical Law would lead to 'morally impermissible' acts and there were an infinitude of ways
to have presented that information (such as adulterers shall pay a fee or shall be banished for x
number of days or shall forfeit half of their inheritance or whatever) that didn't lead to such heinous
acts.
Or, my solution, that Levitical Law is, in fact, not God's Law (or at least not an accurate reflection
of it) and Jesus saw the absurdity of it and amended it (implying that the rest of Levitical Law should
be reviewed and amended with the same sense of compassion and justice).
Nemesio
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou're free to have your own opinions, of course.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]The term 'permissible' here is ambiguous. If you mean something like 'licit' or 'non-morally-culpable', then I'd agree. If you mean something like 'morally permissible' then, as per the heroin addict's father above, I'd have to say no.
I was going to address my problems with the analogy, but, since you ju eviewed and amended with the same sense of compassion and justice).
Nemesio[/b]
I think that, in the grander scheme of salvation history, if there were a better way of presenting the information (and it's a pretty strong one -- adultery ranks right up there with serious sins like idolatory and murder), God would've. Indeed, He tried (with the original Sinai covenant), but it didn't work.
Jesus knew this and that's why he didn't explicitly repudiate the Levitical law on this aspect when it was put to him (unlike the laws on divorce, qurban, Sabbath etc. etc.)
So, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Your idea of "God is Love" means someone who covers us with rose petals; my idea is more someone who has to struggle with, and sometimes even hurt, an intransigent child in order to raise him/her to be the best he/she can be.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIdolatry is a serious sin like murder?
it's a pretty strong one -- adultery ranks right up there with serious sins like idolatory and murder
Are the masses of people who gather around the Pope as he is paraded by them in his popemobile engaging in idolatry?
On the scale of seriousness that you reference, is idolatry more or less serious than child molestation?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoc, in your opinion which is the worse sin: a school teacher who was in an adult movie 11 years ago or the priest who molested a child?
Idolatry is a serious sin like murder?
Are the masses of people who gather around the Pope as he is paraded by them in his popemobile engaging in idolatry?
On the scale of seriousness that you reference, is idolatry more or less serious than child molestation?
Another question: Can you guess which one lost their job and can't get it back while the other was transfered to another job?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, there are several problems here.
I think that, in the grander scheme of salvation history, if there were a better way of presenting the information (and it's a pretty strong one -- adultery ranks right up there with serious sins like idolatory and murder), God would've. Indeed, He tried (with the original Sinai covenant), but it didn't work.
First, the idea that 'He tried but it didn't work:' This is like the dubious claim that God made
humankind perfect, yet it still fell in literalist readings of the Creation story. If you are going to
make claims about the whole of salvation history (with the implications that God understood all
the future implications of His decision and thus always chose the most efficacious route), then
why should God's methods ever produce a substandard result?
Second, the idea that the 'non-morally culpable' executions of adulterers was the best way of
presenting things sure seems to attest to what Bbarr called COG (Callousness of God), wherein
given two possible states of affairs, God did not take a route which entailed less suffering. After
all, if God capable of effecting any and all things, then certainly it is within the capacity of His
infinite sagaciousness to come up with a plan that doesn't entail the slaughter of people who have
fallen from grace.
Indeed, Jesus pointed the way for this to come to pass. That an astronomical number of people had
to be slaughtered before Jesus gave His brethren the 'true path' attests to a callous God, indeed.
That these people had to be executed to optimize the scheme of salvation history (rather than
give the Jesus Law instead of the Levitical one in the first place, for example), does not speak of a
God of love at all, and I don't mean rose petals and scented oils. I mean the God of forgiveness,
repentance, generosity, and compassion of which Jesus spoke.
Nemesio
24 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Since acting in an adult film is not a crime and has no analytical bearing on the teacher's fulfillment of her professional role, while child molestation is a terrible crime directly antithetical to the role of a priest, I expect the priest was the one who was immediately terminated.
Doc, in your opinion which is the worse sin: a school teacher who was in an adult movie 11 years ago or the priest who molested a child?
Another question: Can you guess which one lost their job and can't get it back while the other was transfered to another job?
That was a very easy question. Pretty much a no brainer.