Who's got the scoop on Moses?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Show me it in Genesis, and then show me any archeological source that puts anybody there prior to the canaanites.

I mean give me the #'s of any genesis account of the canaanites commiting genocide on the Shemites.

I have already shown you where this is alluded to in Genesis 12:6. It says that "the Canaanite were then in the land" which carries with it the connotation of "then but not before" as opposeed to "then but not now". As far as archaeological evidence, the earliest record in terms of archaeological sources for the nation of Israel is the Merneptah Stele at around 1200 BCE. Of coarse this was when the nation of Israel actually became the nation of Israel which were formed from the 12 tribes of Jacob as they came out of the land of Eygept. The historical evidence for the Shemites living in the land, however, comes from other Hebrew writings other than the Torah. These sources include the Book of Jubilee that states that the land was originally allotted to Shem and Arphaxad (ancestor of the Hebrews) when it was still vacant, but was wrongfully occupied by Canaan and his son Sidon. The Kebra Nagast speaks of the Canaanites invading existing cities of Shem and Ibn Ezra, similarly notes that they had seized land from earlier inhabitants. Rashi mentions that the Canaanites were siezing land from the sons of Shem in the days of Abraham. This can all be found on Wiki if you are curious. Of coarse you are free to pick and choose which Hebrew writings you enjoy believing. Many even question whether or not the children of Israel even conquered the land of Canaan to begin with. They question the very genocide you insist happened. It seems odd that you are ready to embrace the Hebrew genocide story of the Israelites conquering Canaan but refuse to embrace the Hebrew genocide story of the Canaanites killing off the Shemites. You see the Hebrews were maticulous historians who included the bad, the good and the ugly and do not pick and choose from history what only makes them look good. Nor do they only pick on stories that seem to cast them in a bad light as you appear to enjoy doing. They recorded what actually occured and let the chips fall where they may.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Does there exist, then, some necessity which limits the love of God, limits his freedom? If there is, then God is not God or at least he is not the God that the Church knows.”
Christos is ill-informed regarding the characteristics of God, as it relates to His integrity. The obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rende ...[text shortened]... n He asked,"What think ye of the Christ?" Ths issue is acceptance or rejection of the gift.[/b]

The Lord Jesus Christ made the issue excruciatingly clear, when He asked,"What think ye of the Christ?" The issue is acceptance or rejection of the gift.

That has generally struck me as a Regis Philbin, game-show-host notion of God. Right answer/wrong answer.

Question: do you reject the kind of scenario presented by C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce out of hand?

Originally posted by whodey
I have already shown you where this is alluded to in Genesis 12:6. It says that "the Canaanite were then in the land" which carries with it the connotation of "then but not before" as opposeed to "then but not now". As far as archaeological evidence, the earliest record in terms of archaeological sources for the nation of Israel is the Merneptah Stele at ar ...[text shortened]... o enjoy doing. They recorded what actually occured and let the chips fall where they may.

Like I said ,, What a crock!

Wtf are you,,, a connotation diviner?

meticulous historians ? Is that why their earliest historian was born 50 years after Christ?

this Kebra Nagast?:
"None of the manuscripts of the Kebra Nagast give any indication as to the identity of its compilers, the time when it was written, nor the circumstances under which it was compiled....."
and
"Most scholars do believe, however, that it was compiled soon after the restoration of the "Solomonic line of kings" when the throne of Ethiopia was occupied by Yekuno Amlak (reigned 1270 - 1285)."

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The obverse side of his argument would have nothing limiting God's love, rendering Him equally absurd and unstable.

Why absurd? Why unstable? Especially if God were viewed as the ultimate agent of therapeo?

The fact remains that righteousness and justice guard the whole of His essence.

God’s essence needs to be “guarded”?

...[text shortened]...

EDIT: Well, God's justness--the words are only different in English, not Hebrew or Greek.[/b]

Why absurd? What defines love, if not value? What defines value, if no parameter? Thus, absurdity.

Refresh my memory on the Lewis scenario you reference.

Originally posted by whodey
I have already shown you where this is alluded to in Genesis 12:6. It says that "the Canaanite were then in the land" which carries with it the connotation of "then but not before" as opposeed to "then but not now". As far as archaeological evidence, the earliest record in terms of archaeological sources for the nation of Israel is the Merneptah Stele at ar ...[text shortened]... o enjoy doing. They recorded what actually occured and let the chips fall where they may.

BTW: your speculation that the canaanites took the land by force from the Shemites isn't in your bible, So where, again I ask you, did you get that crock from?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Why absurd? What defines love, if not value? What defines value, if no parameter? Thus, absurdity.

Refresh my memory on the Lewis scenario you reference.

What defines love, if not value? What defines value, if no parameter?

I tend not to think of love in quite so clinical terms I guess. I suppose it is difficult to love something/someone that you place no value on. What parameters on the values for love?

Ultimately, the NT definition of agape is that one is willing to lay down (or put, place, present, give up—tithemi) one’s “soul” (psuche (self, innermost being) for another.

As the Greeks are forever pointing out, agape does not exclude eros or philia; it is not an entirely separate concept. I tend to define it as a “passionate, active caring and concern for”—as noted above, sufficiently passionate as to place one’s psuche for another. And what parameters on that? Of course, such a love might be misguided, but how much rational analysis can it sustain before it ceases to be love?

And, for example, am I only willing to place my being for my wife if she asks? What if she is in an emotional state of distress that prevents her from asking—does that prevent me from actively loving. If she is unable to love in return (for whatever reason), and even treats me unjustly, does that prevent me from loving? (And I am speaking of agape here.) If she had a destructive addiction that I knew how to heal, should I refuse because her addiction is so overpowering that she would refuse to seek release (aphiemi)* while under its sway?

And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior that the game-rule/juridical model seems to require of God. You know, a suspended sentence based on mitigating circumstances may reflect a just decision. The juridical model is essentially transactional at all levels; “grace” and agape are strictly transactional ("let's make a deal" ). It denies God’s ability to heal sinfulness (hamartia: failure, error, as well as deliberate violations) unless the check is tendered at the hospital door, so to speak (a lesser check than strict justness might call for, but a transactional tendering nonetheless). Your absurdities are tied to that model. The dilemma of justice versus mercy is a product of that model.

A “therapeutic” model of soteriology simply eliminates the dilemma. The sick person is not in need of justice but healing. The juridical terms are not called for. Perhaps that is not the Christian viewpoint, at least under the more literalstic sola scriptura versions...

* BTW, the NT does not speak so much of release (aphiemi), or being set free, from punishment—but from sin itself.

_________________

In The Great Divorce, which is a parable-story, Lewis speculates that the people in hell keep themselves there because of their unwillingness to leave, although the bus between heaven and hell runs both ways. Hell in the book is described more as a place of dullness and drabness, rather than a torture-pit. That brief description does not do the book justice; it’s a good read whether you agree with him or not.

Originally posted by frogstomp
BTW: your speculation that the canaanites took the land by force from the Shemites isn't in your bible, So where, again I ask you, did you get that crock from?

What? You only attack one of my sources? What about the Book of Jubilee and Rashi? Come on now froggy, you can do better than that.

BTW When was the last time you believed anything written in the Torah other than the fact that God eats babies?

Originally posted by vistesd
A “therapeutic” model of soteriology simply eliminates the dilemma. The sick person is not in need of justice but healing. The juridical terms are not called for. Perhaps that is not the Christian viewpoint, at least under the more literalstic sola scriptura versions...

Just thought you might enjoy reading what Christ has to say on the subject.

Matthew 9:10 "And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why does your Master eat with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said to them, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go and learn what that means, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice'; for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

The scripture Christ was referring to is Hosea 6:6 which says, "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This is the KJV translation. I like how another translation reads beginning in verse five. "This is why I have torn them to pieces by the prophets, why I slaughtered them with the words from my mouth, since what I want is love, not sacrifice, knowledge of God, not holocausts."

Again we get back to the issue of love. As we see love is the issue at hand just as much in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. And love, as we know, is consensual. This is one of the reasons faith is such an issue with God. As it says in the Bible faith is counted as righteousness and is only what God responds to. Placing ones faith in God is merely agreeing with what he has said. Once this consensual agreement is then in place, he is free to work in your life. This is how I view the matter of faith and love and redemption.

Originally posted by whodey
Just thought you might enjoy reading what Christ has to say on the subject.

Matthew 9:10 "And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why does your Master eat with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus ...[text shortened]... to work in your life. This is how I view the matter of faith and love and redemption.

Part of your post implies (at least it seems to me) that it is God who is calling people away from the juridical model to one of love and therapeo.

Is love always consensual? That is, must the other consent to receive my love before I can give it? (Not talking about sex here.) I’d like to hear Reverend Kirksey weigh in here. Should I prevent the suicide from jumping off the bridge without their consent? At what point does acting loving toward someone without their consent become a form of oppression?

If my wife does not love me anymore and wants to leave, ought I to lock her in? Shoot her? Does not my agape require (I’m assuming now that she’s, for example, not intending to harm herself) that I let her go? But I can’t see where that has anything necessarily to do with justice. I simply let her go with all good wishes (even in my sadness) because I love her and love is not bondage.

Now, some Christians have said that that is all “hell” is: God lets you go if that’s what you choose, and hell is separation from God. But most insist that’s an eternal decision—if my wife wants to return, discovering that she loves me after all—under what conditions do I refuse her return, if I still love her? Still other Christians assert that separateness from God is a miserable condition that we discover too late. Still others assert it is a state of torturous punishment. At that point, I think one would say that God has stopped loving them—unless loving for God is just feathery feelings.

I am trying to explore these questions by putting myself in the Christian paradigm, so to speak, although that is not, as you know Whodey, where I reside. And although I think, if one reads it metaphorically and symbolically (all the times that aphiemi is given, accompanied by healing, for example), there is Biblical support for the “therapeutic” model, I do not take the Bible literally, nor as “the word of God.” I see the Biblical authors grappling with the same issues...

Originally posted by whodey
What? You only attack one of my sources? What about the Book of Jubilee and Rashi? Come on now froggy, you can do better than that.

BTW When was the last time you believed anything written in the Torah other than the fact that God eats babies?

One thing you have really wrong ,is that I disparage God, I'm saying the the OT is a crock. That god that's written about in the OT doesnt give a ratsass about anbody except the israelites, proving that it's not the father of Christ , because Christ would have to sentence that OT god straight to hell for harming the children at least.

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of your post implies (at least it seems to me) that it is God who is calling people away from the juridical model to one of love and therapeo.

Is love always consensual? That is, must the other consent to receive my love before I can give it? (Not talking about sex here.) I’d like to hear Reverend Kirksey weigh in here. Should I prevent th ...[text shortened]... terally, nor as “the word of God.” I see the Biblical authors grappling with the same issues...

Should I prevent the suicide from jumping off the bridge without their consent? At what point does acting loving toward someone without their consent become a form of oppression?

At the point where their consent becomes an informed one. Refer back to the child-wanting-chocolates analogy.

Now, some Christians have said that that is all “hell” is: God lets you go if that’s what you choose, and hell is separation from God. But most insist that’s an eternal decision—if my wife wants to return, discovering that she loves me after all—under what conditions do I refuse her return, if I still love her?

The point of hell is that, after death, the person will never want to return. One may say that death is also the death of free will.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Should I prevent the suicide from jumping off the bridge without their consent? At what point does acting loving toward someone without their consent become a form of oppression?

At the point where their consent becomes an informed one. Refer back to the child-wanting-chocolates analogy.

Now, some Christians have said that that ...[text shortened]... person will [i]never want to return. One may say that death is also the death of free will.

[/i]At the point where their consent becomes an informed one. Refer back to the child-wanting-chocolates analogy.

Yes, I meant my example similarly to your chocolate example. I just wanted to introduce the "under distress" mental states that adults can have too, leading to self-destructive (or other-destructive) behavior.

I think your point about informed consent is an important one to add to the mix...

The point of hell is that, after death, the person will never want to return. One may say that death is also the death of free will.

That's certainly another spin on it. Does that mean there is no eternal suffering? Or that the condemned would not know what it would mean to not want to suffer?

Originally posted by vistesd
Part of your post implies (at least it seems to me) that it is God who is calling people away from the juridical model to one of love and therapeo.

Is love always consensual? That is, must the other consent to receive my love before I can give it? (Not talking about sex here.) I’d like to hear Reverend Kirksey weigh in here. Should I prevent th ...[text shortened]... terally, nor as “the word of God.” I see the Biblical authors grappling with the same issues...

'Tis a shame they can't understand what Christ was telling them, my friend. It's ok they don't though because it's by works they shall live or die. They fight that idea a lot for some strange reason, probably pride in their faith, although I don't understand why they think that the message is about faith that the Christ is the Son of that sicko god in the OT.Or that salvation is a god given thing.
Maybe I ought to explain the concept of salvation to them , but they are so bent on going to heaven, although that only meant the sky, that they would rebel mentally, so I won't.

Originally posted by frogstomp
'Tis a shame they can't understand what Christ was telling them, my friend. It's ok they don't though because it's by works they shall live or die. They fight that idea a lot for some strange reason, probably pride in their faith, although I don't understand why they think that the message is about faith that the Christ is the Son of that sicko god ...[text shortened]... heaven, although that only meant the sky, that they would rebel mentally, so I won't.

Well, I've got to unplug myself now from the paradigm I've squeezed myself into for this discussion. The squeeze has become too tight; I just wanted to explore an alternative view. My last questions to LH are curiosity questions only.

Originally posted by vistesd
That's certainly another spin on it. Does that mean there is no eternal suffering? Or that the condemned would not know what it would mean to not want to suffer?

I'll probably sign-off this thread after this as well.

The Church teaches that there is eternal suffering, primarily in that the human soul (which was "designed", in a sense, to be eternally united to God) is eternally separated from God. Sort of like a tree separated from the earth ("ground of being", anyone? 😉)

As to the second question, I'm not sure.