28 Dec 21
@pb1022 saidPerhaps the young adults had a more advanced morality than the God who sent the bears to maul them and stayed to defend each other from the barbaric attack.
I said “injured” is an interpretation you cannot dispute. Mauling does not mean killing.
And you’ve got nothing on the other points?
If the young adults ran away, how did the bears manage to maul 42 of them?
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
28 Dec 21
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOr perhaps they didn’t.
Perhaps the young adults had a more advanced morality than the God who sent the bears to maul them and stayed to defend each other from the barbaric attack.
My point is, you don’t know and neither do I.
I posted an interpretation of that passage that you can’t dispute. Is my interpretation completely favorable toward God? Yes. But you can’t dispute it.
And your interpretation is completely unfavorable.
@pb1022 saidIn Leviticus 21:9 we find, "The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire."
I said “injured” is an interpretation you cannot dispute. Mauling does not mean killing.
Are you similarly going to play down the punishment and say burned doesn't necessarily mean burnt to death?
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
28 Dec 21
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI’d have to look at that passage and get back to you; the same way I did with the bears.
In Leviticus 21:9 with find, "The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire."
Are you similarly going to play down the punishment and say burned doesn't necessarily mean burnt to death?
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
28 Dec 21
Moral controversies of the OT basically are controversies, imo, because people look at the passages without realizing how wicked, evil and depraved man was back then. Sacrificing children to false gods is only one of the morally reprehensible things man was doing.
28 Dec 21
@divegeester saidI'd have thought coming to terms with those darker passages would have preceded the acceptance of God. (Rather than being an after thought.)
I’m often surprised at how some Christians have a less than adequate familiarity with the moral controversies of the OT.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@ghost-of-a-duke saidChristians take Jesus Christ at His Word (at least I do.)
I'd have thought coming to terms with those darker passages would have preceded the acceptance of God. (Rather than being an after thought.)
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.”
(John 14:9-11)
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@sonship saidIs that the copy-pasted Christ writing in that post, or @sonship?
@Kevin-Eleven
C.S. Lewis was full of bad analogies and attempts at logic.
Um, we've seen some of yours here.
And your logics.
You could have taught the Oxford prof. a thing or two Kevin?
28 Dec 21
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf we are the source what would it matter how we reach our morality, it is our morality, unless you want say there is some rule book, which then means we don’t get to make it up as we see fit. What if some hate nature and nurture because it reminds them of religion and they want survival of the fittest and the stronger such br able to take what they can. It seems to be the path of those that dislike law and order.
It's as if the whole nature/nurture thing has completely passed you by.
28 Dec 21
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNot for me.
I'd have thought coming to terms with those darker passages would have preceded the acceptance of God. (Rather than being an after thought.)