- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Mar 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If God believed a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts 3500 years ago (and is indeed unchanging) then he still believes a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts. - Yes, Sonship put forward a very articulate explanation about the overriding importance of procreation at the time of Deut 25, but in an unchanging God, this still reflects very badly (for this atheist at least) on the nature of this God who would advocate such harsh measures.
If God does exist, i personally believe He would be horrified that people were linking him in any way to passages like Deu 25 which are clearly written, not just by man, but by primitive man with primitive attitudes towards both justice and woman.
And God still believes that He has provided the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering, the consecration offering, the meal offering, the drink offering for people to be reconciled to God though they have done hated things.
You see, all or the offerings prescribed for the priests were types of Christ as the all-inclusive atoning offering saving us from what God hates.
So you have a couple of things going on here in the law of Moses. You have God revealing His hatred for sin and you also have God prescribing offerings to atone for sin and reconcile people to God.
Don't forget all the offerings.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't say that we could not understand it, but it was not written for us. Most of the Torah has no application for Christians. Jews, yes, Christians, not so much. But we can see it as a history, and understand what came before. Knowing the past helps us decide the future, if only to avoid those mistakes.
Was he not aware that the vast majority of readers of the text would in fact be Christians in the 21st century or later?
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by SuzianneFair comment. When you say though:
Well, I think a case can be made for what you say. It's just not a typical case a Christian would take, is all. Yes, God is an "unchanging God". It's man who changes. The 3500-year-old text was written for ancient man, to be understood by ancient man. Ancient man could hardly be expected to understand the "Love God and love your neighbor" message of Ch ...[text shortened]... at chance. And yeah, evil still exists, and so we're going to mess things up. A lot of things.
' The 3500-year-old text was written for ancient man, to be understood by ancient man. Ancient man could hardly be expected to understand the "Love God and love your neighbor" message of Christ, especially in an age when warfare was a daily occurrence...'
does this mean then that only the NT speaks to, and is of any relevance to, modern man? (As if OT verses were written to be understood by ancient man, then they would now surely be defunct?) The danger here of course is if difficult verses in the NT are also brought into question and likewise explained away as being written to be understood by man in an early state of progress. Suddenly we are left with an ancient text that speaks to nobody in a modern context.
For the bible to be a 'living document' with 'current relevance' then it needs to speak to modern man just as clearly as it spoke to ancient man, and it needs to do this in its entirety or not at all.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonshipYes, and Christ became the 'new and improved' version of the law, offerings and all.
[quote] If God believed a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts 3500 years ago (and is indeed unchanging) then he still believes a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts. - Yes, Sonship put forward a very articulate explanation about the overriding importance of procreation at the time of Deut 25 ...[text shortened]... ing offerings to atone for sin and reconcile people to God.
Don't forget all the offerings.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt's late here, and past my bedtime. Tomorrow after church.
Fair comment. When you say though:
' The 3500-year-old text was written for ancient man, to be understood by ancient man. Ancient man could hardly be expected to understand the "Love God and love your neighbor" message of Christ, especially in an age when warfare was a daily occurrence...'
does this mean then that only the NT speaks to, and is ...[text shortened]... st as clearly as it spoke to ancient man, and it needs to do this in its entirety or not at all.
there seems to be some confusion regarding how the Jewish system with its emphasis on ordinances relates to the Christian which has its emphasis on the exercise of conscience.
Its helpful if one understands the Mosiac Law as being temporary and for a specific purpose. Its was created to provide an environment conducive for the manifestation and acceptance of the Messiah, that is why it emphasized sin, the need for blood sacrifice and atonement.
As for the verse itself it seems to our modern ears rather harsh but never the less the right of a man to beget progeny was a serious issue especially as lineage was of paramount importance. To amputate the unfortunate womens hand did not deprive her or her husband from begetting progeny where in the act of grabbing and possibly injuring someone else may have compromised their ability to beget life. Thus when one weighs up the justice of the matter both as to its its seriousness and its implications then it seems that despite its harsh nature as to be at least balanced in view of the injuries which might be inflicted and taking the right of a man to have children away.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think that it's possible to convincingly argue that the penalty was proportionate even in those days. Also I don't believe your rationale, their reason for having this penalty would be more likely to have to do with taboos than worrying about "the right of a man to beget progeny", for one thing it's quite unlikely that grabbing his balls would cause him to be infertile. It's more likely to be to do with ritual cleanliness than reproductive consequence.
there seems to be some confusion regarding how the Jewish system with its emphasis on ordinances relates to the Christian which has its emphasis on the exercise of conscience.
Its helpful if one understands the Mosiac Law as being temporary and for a specific purpose. Its was created to provide an environment conducive for the manifestation and ...[text shortened]... ew of the injuries which might be inflicted and taking the right of a man to have children away.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, if God prioritized a person's ability to play badminton over the ability to procreate, then the situation would have been reversed with the man having his private parts cut off, if he dared pull on the playing arm of the woman?
there seems to be some confusion regarding how the Jewish system with its emphasis on ordinances relates to the Christian which has its emphasis on the exercise of conscience.
Its helpful if one understands the Mosiac Law as being temporary and for a specific purpose. Its was created to provide an environment conducive for the manifestation and ...[text shortened]... ew of the injuries which might be inflicted and taking the right of a man to have children away.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes without a doubt God transcends time, we do not, we are in that little sliver of time
Surely God transcends time?
called now and depending on when our sliver of time is in the grand stream of the ages
we will be stuck with what is common for those around us and the understanding we bring
to the table. So God is tasked with the prospect of giving all of us a clue into truth so that
we can grasp it.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBut i have just done that with incontrovertible reason and unassailable logic. To make or risk making someone sterile when you yourself have the opportunity to beget children is taking away someones right to beget life. It has nothing to do with taboo, hoodoo, voodoo or anything else, you simply made that up. As for whether grabbing someones scrotum actually makes them infertile or not is neither here nor there. Are we to exonerate people because their attempted murder failed? are we? really?
I don't think that it's possible to convincingly argue that the penalty was proportionate even in those days. Also I don't believe your rationale, their reason for having this penalty would be more likely to have to do with taboos than worrying about "the right of a man to beget progeny", for one thing it's quite unlikely that grabbing his balls would c ...[text shortened]... infertile. It's more likely to be to do with ritual cleanliness than reproductive consequence.
Ritual cleanliness???? you wired to da moon.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukereductio ad absurdum duly noted through attempted use of an absurd analogy. You also wired, da moon.
So, if God prioritized a person's ability to play badminton over the ability to procreate, then the situation would have been reversed with the man having his private parts cut off, if he dared pull on the playing arm of the woman?
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe absurdity lies in the biblical verse referenced, not the analogy it inspired.
reductio ad absurdum duly noted through attempted use of an absurd analogy. You also wired, da moon.
At least you are well placed sir and aptly qualified to defend the absurd, especially when armed with your Latin phrasebook and street talk dictionary.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukesorry ghastly one your analogy is logically fallacious and a reductio ad absurdum because it vainly attempts to treat playing badminton the same as potentially sterilizing someone by grabbing their scrotum, as if they were synonymous. haw! haw!
The absurdity lies in the biblical verse referenced, not the analogy it inspired.
At least you are well placed sir and aptly qualified to defend the absurd, especially when armed with your Latin phrasebook and street talk dictionary.
You think people from da street don't talk Latin and read philosophy, sigh.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWarning woman not to yank a man's scrotum is a 'man made' warning if ever i've heard one. Wouldn't surprised me in the slightest if Deut 25 had continued by instructing a women to have her other hand cut off if she ventured into a man's shed.
sorry ghastly one your analogy is logically fallacious and a reductio ad absurdum because it vainly attempts to treat playing badminton the same as potentially sterilizing someone by grabbing their scrotum, as if they were synonymous. haw! haw!
You think people from da street don't talk Latin and read philosophy, sigh.