“…but believing one thing while a clear contradiction to that belief exists does little to improve humanity.” - Scule
So, you’re saying that if one (I) were better able to explain their (my) beliefs or debate them, they (I) would somehow be improving humanity? Could you explain/clarify how exactly one (I) would be improving humanity by NOT believing or having faith in something? lol. I think debating “faith” is a waste of time (intelligent discussion, research, study of the Bible and other resources…all good).
A “clear contradiction” to “that belief” exists. What belief exactly are you referring to? I’m sure that in debating, people can come up with “clear contradictions” that seem understandable to them…however, that which you are trying to contradict is not understandable to you, so how can you contradict it? And in saying that, I would say that those who have “faith” don’t necessarily understand everything either. That’s why it’s called faith.
Why I’m about to respond to the Cynic, I have no idea…lol…but here goes…
“The Bible says that God does make people do evil things. remember when God kept “hardening the Pharaoh’s heart?” why did he do that? Did the Pharaoe have free will if God was the one who was hardening his heart?”
The Bible says that God MAKES people do evil things? Cite please. Someone in another thread referred to a scripture about God creating good and evil. When I had someone look through a reference manual to clarify that scripture, it was said that the “evil” referred to was the evil of punishment. For example, we obviously perceive things differently than God. He apparently perceives punishment (which He metes out for those who use their free will to choose sin) as evil. (The Bible also says He is a just God). He does not get joy from punishing, therefore He must consider the punishment “evil”. (At least that’s what I took the reference book to say. I could be wrong, God knows).
Why did God harden Pharoah’s heart? Don’t know. Pharoah’s free will/choice was to keep God’s children from leaving. God chose to harden Pharoah’s heart in order that his children go free, as promised…he could have handled Pharoah in any number of ways I suppose, this was the way he saw fit.
IWLN to Lynn73 - “I know from first hand experience that you were taught not to question it.”
I’m curious about this statement. Are there religions that tell their “believers” not to question what they are taught? I’ve personally never associated “no questions asked” with religion or faith.
I agree with what Scule said. I’ll leave it to him.
If you believe that G-d is the creator of everything, then of course G-d created evil, as in sin. Man could not have created it or sinned in any way without it already being a part of our world. He created the “tree of good and evil”. That wasn’t the tree of good and punishment. The Bible meant evil. If evil meant punishment in that context, wouldn’t it have been the tree of reward and punishment? If G-d is omniscient, he knew what would happen. I’m not knocking G-d here. It’s an unpopular opinion, but I think our world with good and evil is the best way for us to learn and grow. It was a gift. But yes, G-d makes people do evil things, even if it’s just by virture of making evil available. Besides the Pharoah quote, there are also other instances in the Bible where this type of thing is referred to. I can’t find it right now, but G-d also closes Israel’s eyes to the truth, until the time is right; which means they were not doing G-d’s will. So he made them sin.
For myself, in the Christian church; I was full of questions about the contradictions. For example, how could an all-benevolent G-d make Jesus the only way to salvation, when there are so many who will never know him? That omniscient G-d knew we were going to sin, so why are we supposed to be so repentent over following his plan. Why does an all-benevolent G-d let us suffer? How did Satan get the upper hand on an omnipotent G-d. Adam and Eve and evolution. The list is endless. In my experience, most questions were not welcome, if they addressed those contradictions. I was told that I lacked faith. I felt like G-d gave me a brain, to recognize when something couldn’t be right. Turned out, he did. I realize that the nature of G-d requires some things to be taken on faith. But all critical thinking shouldn’t have to be abandoned.
IWLN - I can’t begin to debate the idea of God creating evil - I’m not that well-versed in the scripture to back up any points I would try to make on either side of the argument. If I feel the need to research it, I will, for myself and not to debate.
“He created the “tree of good and evil”.” - In Genesis, it says He created “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”. I’d have to, as I said, do research to discuss this further…but again, I see no point. Everyone has their own opinions or beliefs.
I will agree, IWLN, that faith does not throw out the need for critical thinking. I think it’s very important for people to examine their faith (or lack thereof).
Yogini
(I just want to add, that I’m really not using “not being a good debater” as an excuse. I’m just being honest. I don’t want to get in over my head in discussing these issues. I’ll leave that to people who can articulately and intelligently converse about theology. I didn’t want to get into a theology discussion in GD anyway…this started off on another board.)
Well, they WERE Godless Mohammedans, after all. :eek:
Hey! I have a Wiseass Font!
Aldeberan and my other Muslim pals, that was meant as a snotty, if feeble, joke, thus the use of the Comic Book font and the archaic and offensive “Mohammedans.” Please do not take it personally.
The reason I debate these issues is not to try and convince any one that I’m right, because honestly who really knows? It’s to see what I can learn, from other people’s perspectives, theist and atheist. Thanks for your thoughts. I have complete faith in G-d, just not in some of the “tall tales” that are told about him.
IWLN - I have a question if you have a minute. You posted this above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneYogini
“…but believing one thing while a clear contradiction to that belief exists does little to improve humanity.” - Scule
"So, you’re saying that if one (I) were better able to explain their (my) beliefs or debate them, they (I) would somehow be improving humanity? Could you explain/clarify how exactly one (I) would be improving humanity by NOT believing or having faith in something? lol. I think debating “faith” is a waste of time (intelligent discussion, research, study of the Bible and other resources…all good).
A “clear contradiction” to “that belief” exists. What belief exactly are you referring to? I’m sure that in debating, people can come up with “clear contradictions” that seem understandable to them…however, that which you are trying to contradict is not understandable to you, so how can you contradict it? And in saying that, I would say that those who have “faith” don’t necessarily understand everything either. That’s why it’s called faith."
Your quote: “I agree with what Scule said. I’ll leave it to him.”
Can I ask you to explain why you agree with him, if you can and will? Just curious to hear your thoughts.
I’d be glad to try. IMHO. Of course I’m only going by what I thought he meant or what it means to me. There scule, did I qualify that enough? If not, just smite me.
I don’t think scule is saying you shouldn’t have faith. But when a Christian uses faith as kind of a shoulder shrug to give a free pass to the inconsistancies that have just come out of their mouth, it’s wrong and it makes Christianity look stupid, foolish. I got called on that oh… constantly when I first got to SDMB and then had to try and explain what I meant. I was honest enough to admit to myself that my explainations were even lamer than my original assertions. I listed some of the inconsistancies earlier in this thread, but I found out early on that the one’s that sparked the most disgust were that G-d is “all-benevolent” and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. If you(collective) as a Christian agree with the true doctrine of this religion, only people that have accepted Jesus as their saviour will be “saved”. Everyone else is damned. This means that this “all benevolent” G-d has come up with a plan where almost everyone who is in the world now or at least a HUGE percentage of man is going to hell. It defies benevolence. When you press a hard Christian on this, they will explain that that’s why we have missionaries and we are given a choice to believe or not, etc. Muslims, Budhists, Jews, too bad, they better listen. blah,blah,blah. Talking about a benevolent G-d and admitting that other religions are wrong and will be doomed, defies logic. Never allowing that some of those details they hold so dear could possibly be wrong is unwise. Taking Christianity to a large extent on faith, would not be as bad as trying to reconcile the mixed messages it delivers right now. So scule is right. It’s hard not to feel prejudice against Christians, they do make it easy. It was a lot easier for me to be a Christian, when I was almost completely in the company of other Christians. No challenges there. The disparity in the Christian message not only keeps people away, but it also drives some of us away, when we start to look at the message factually instead of emotionally. It can be such a futile exercise to try and discuss any of this with a hard-core Christian, that many people just don’t bother to try any more, well here anyway. Unless we’re having a slow day, then look out. :eek:
I just did cite an example. God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart. God made the Pharaoh say no to Moses. It wasn’t Pharaoh’s choice it was God’s choice. Why?
I could also cite numerous examples of God ordering the Israelites to commit mass murder, to kill babies, to rape women and to take slaves (I hope you would agree that those things are evil) but let’s stick to Pharaoh for the moment.
God created all evil. If God created anything which commits eil, and God is omnoscient, then God created evil. If God is omnipotent then God can eliminate evil simply by willing it. There is no logical way for evil to exist unless it exists by the will of God.
We don’t know his free will choice. It was usurped by God. God hardened his heart so he would say no.
This answer makes no sense. if God wanted the Pharaoh to let his “children” go then why didn’t he soften the Pharaoh’s heart? “hardening” the Pharaoh’s heart worked counter to God’s will (and robbed Pharaoh of his *own free will as well).
Not to mention, God could have simply zapped the Israelites off to the Promised Land any time he wanted. He didn’t seem to be trying very hard to get them free.
I agree with the assessment that God hardened Pharoah’s heart (in a way) by what He commanded Him to do through Moses. It’s the demand He made that hardened Pharoah because Pharoah already determined that he wasn’t going to be moved by what Moses or Moses’ God had to say, thereby hardening his own heart to God. He didn’t know the God of Moses and he was the great Pharoah of Egypt and he wasn’t going to listen.
IWLN, you summed up my point pretty much exactly right. I have no particular beef with people having faith, or with believing in God. I was raised Catholic, baptised, holy communion, confession, confirmation, the works, and went to Catholic school for 13 years, so I understand the perspective of a person of faith. My concern is with faith as a blind instrument of action and belief.
Essentially my point, to OneYogini and any other devout Christian or Muslim or Jew or whatever, is that having an opinion on something is all well and good. Do not, however, expect me or - more importantly - anyone else to respect that opinion if you have nothing with which to back it up. And by that I mean evidence, not Scripture or whatever.
Personally, I never begrudge someone their faith, I think it can be a wonderful thing, something that gives someone strength and comfort when they need it. I cannot, however, accept things without seeing the evidence for them, so if you tell me that God is benevolent, or all-knowing or something, you better have some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, that is fine as your personal belief, but serves no purpose for anyone else.
That’s essentially my point, by which I intend no offence. Indeed, Great Debates can be a tough area, and so often tempers flare that it becomes hard to separate anger from neutrality. Keep praying, OneYogini, and lynn73, if it makes you stronger and gives you hope.
One Jewish interpretation I’ve learned about the hardening of Pharoah’s heart was that his courage was shored up when any other person might have just said, “Fine, whatever, just go away and leave us alone!”
A ridiculous amount of courage was granted to Pharoah to actually give him back his free will of whether to let the Jews go or not. Pharoah took his extra dollop of courage and decided to keep the Jews until the Tenth Plague.
I was also thinking about the creation of evil. God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The possibility was created to give people a choice to exercise free will. Jewish tradition says that angels don’t have it.
I don’t know how to explain mass murders, war, and natural disasters. I do know that God has a plan, even if I’m not privvy to it.
God never ordered Israelites to commit mass murder, but to wage war. The only group of people the Jews were ordered to kill “man, woman, and child” is the group of people who, as the Jews left Egypt, decided to “pick off” the slow (presumably women with children), sickly, and the elderly. In other words, they did it to us, first. That may not be justification enough for you, but God had just rescued the Israelite people from not just slavery, but murder (remember the baby boys were thrown into the Nile?), and these people, Amalek, decided to attack and demoralize them. Amalek was the ONLY people God commanded the Jews to unilaterally annihilate.
You know, Saul, the first king of Israel, thought that total annihilation was too harsh, too. In the first Samuel, chapter 15, Samuel passed on the word that Saul was to lead a battle to destroy the last remnant of Amalek. Saul did, except for one. He spared the life of Agog, the king of Amalek. Apparently, during the night that he was spared, he had relations with a woman, because even though Samuel killed Agog the following day, Agog’s descendendants existed long enough to produce Haman, son of Hamdata, the fellow who bought the right to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in the 127 kingdoms of Achashverosh (story in the Book of Esther). Thankfully, Haman’s plans were thwarted, or I wouldn’t be here to type this today.
As it happens, after Sancheirev (the fellow responsible for exiling the Ten Tribes) moved and transplanted all of the people of the Middle East. Nations that were specifically identified by location were no longer the people dwelling in the place they were known to live. No one knows who Amalek is anymore. By virtue of the fact that it is impossible to follow this command kind of annuls it. Absolute proof of lineage of a said person from Amalek would be required for a Jew to act out the killing of him, unless it was in self-defense (or defense of someone else, or an act of war, which has its own set of laws and bylaws).
Neither were men commanded to rape women. The command I think you are thinking of is a particular set of limitations. At a time when enemy troops came, raping, pillaging and plundering, God actually set up a set of laws that would make it particularly unpleasant for a Jewish soldier to rape while in foreign lands. If a Jewish man was to rape a woman, he would have to bring her home with him, where he had to be constantly reminded of what he did for at least 30 days, while she mourned for her parents (presumably, if they were killed). If after the 30 days she decided to marry him (as rape victims, according to Jewish law, have the choice to force Jewish assailants into marriage that could not be dissolved by him unless she specifically chooses - it is a thing that has to do with rape victims who want to be married, but are afraid that because of the rape she might be looked upon as “damaged goods.” It is to protect the ego of the rape victim.), she would convert to Judaism, and she would have all the rights and privilages due to a wife, like any other Jewish woman. (There is a significant amount of financial obligation here. Further, imagine trying to explain this woman to your wife at home!) After the 30 days, if she wanted to go home, it was his responsibility to get her there safely. With all of this responsibility attatched to one rash moment, it would make a guy think twice.
Taking slaves from the conquered enemy was standard procedure in the ancient world. It is not a commandment to own slaves, but if a Jew was to own a slave, there are extensive rules and regulations to be followed for the owner. The Talmud describes the relationship: “If a person acquires a slave, he also acquires a master.” Slaves belonging to Jews would have to be housed, fed, and clothed at least as well as the people in the master’s household. I’m not sure of all of the laws, but they are extensive, and they are to protect the slave from humiliation beyond the fact that he or she is a slave. However, during the past three centuries, with the abhorrance of slavery by the people of the Western World, Jews are included. When it was common practice for people of the world to have slaves, Jews had limitations on how to treat slaves if they were going to have them. Now that slavery is considered evil, it would be just as evil for Jews to have slaves.
It is not allowed for Jews to rape anyone. The law expressed in Deuteronomy was supposed to be under very specific conditions, in very specifically defined wars. It was more of a “Human nature says that guys are going to do it anyway, but if you’re going to do it, you will do it by MY rules” thing, not a “hey, let’s all go out and rape people” thing.
You know, if I woke up one day after the membranes were peeling off my organs, and found that I was getting better, I might very well take a deep breath and say “Thank God”. I’d like to be able to say this without an atheist running in to screechingly berate me for my ungratefulness to the doctors.
Jesus. When someone goes through an awful experience and pulls through against all odds, there’s a certain amount of reflection by all parties involved on the fact that that someone has survived. For some people the conclusion is reached that some third party was involved, along with all the other things. It does not mean that they don’t recognize the efforts of their human saviors. I don’t think anyone on this board, no matter how fundie they are, would try to argue that the hospital staff had nothing to do with this woman’s survival.
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it."*
Exodus 7:13-14
*Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh’s heart is unyielding; he refuses to let the people go.*
It seems pretty obvious that “hardening” the Pharaoh’s heart meant that God was renedering him unyielding and recalcitrant, not giving him courage. God seemed to want the Pharaoh to say know so that he would have an excuse to wave his dick around an prove that “I am the LORD!” (a little childish, IMO)
He also robbed Pharaoh of his own free will in the process.
What about the serpent? Didn’t God know what the serpent would do?
If God is omniscient and he creates a being that he *knows will do evil, then God is creating evil.
There is also the issue of omnipotence. If God does not want evil to exist then he has only but to will it away. Evil cannot logically exist but by the will of God.
“Mysterious Ways” is a shrug, not an argument.
This is just a semantic game. God ordered the Isrealites to attack innocent cities in order to steal land and take slaves. The Israelites were the aggressors, not the victims.
This:
1 samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [1] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ "
is mass murder, no matter how you slice it.
The only group of people the Jews were ordered to kill “man, woman, and child” is the group of people who, as the Jews left Egypt, decided to “pick off” the slow (presumably women with children), sickly, and the elderly. In other words, they did it to us, first.
[/quote]
Cite? The Bible doesn’t say any of that, only that the Amakelites “opposed” Israel coming out of Egypt…not that it would justify murdering babies anyway.
It’s not enough justification for anybody.
How does the prior suffering of the Israelites justify the slaughter of children and infants? What did the infants do?
Is killing a baby always evil? Yes or no.
Numbers 31:17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
In other words, “rape the little girls” (only adolescent girls would have been virgins). This is an especially gallant act by the Israelites considering they had just murdered their rape victims’ parents.
“Rules” for how to kidnap and rape little girls? How evolved :rolleyes:
There is nothing in Hebrew scripture which condemns slavery and there are passages which in which God specifically orders the Israelites to take slaves.
Was slavery evil? Yes or no.
I’ve heard a lot of my southern relatives tell all about how well the antebellum South treated it’s slaves. Does it matter?
So what’s your explanation for the whole thing? It seems your heart is hardened toward God,also. And, of course it has to be all His fault since you bear no responsibility whatsoever evidently.
Sir, you are probably unfamiliar with the concept of exegesis, or commentary located outside of the source itself. Jewish Biblical commentary of this nature is all over the Talmud and elsewhere. At present, I cannot give you a source on this because I heard it once in a class. I will get back to you on Pharoah and his heart hardening either 1) I speak to the person from whom I heard the idea, or 2) I find a source of my own concurring with the concept. It will not be in the text of Exodus, so if you are looking for it, you will not find it.
That is a whole debate about free will. I don’t know how to debate it. I am telling you now - throw it at me all you like, but I cannot do it. Therefore, I will not do it.
Yup, you are right. It’s one of those “I don’t understand it, so it would be useless for me to argue about it.” Sorry. If you want to point me out as ignorant, I’m helping you. I’ve told you that I am. Besides jumping up and pointing and saying “I told you so!” I don’t see the use in belaboring the point.
True, but it is part of an earlier commandment. You quoted me explaining it. I’ll get there.
How about Deuteronomy 25:17-19?
If you paid attention to what I said, it was this one group.
While one individual baby did not do something, neither did “the weaklings at the rear” who, Biblical exegesis points out, were women and children. It’s a “measure for measure” thing. This was ongoing.
Right. Completely out of context, that is exactly what a person would assume. However, this quote comes immediately after describing the battle… The text of Numbers becomes contextually fuzzy, because the narrative is so heavily interspersed with commandments. The last story that had taken place was King Balak of Midian hired Bil’am, the non-Jewish prophet to curse the Jewish people. That didn’t work, but Balak sent women from his camp to seduce the men of Israel. That sin of being lascivious with the Midianite women caused people to be killed with a plague. Pinchas killed Kosby, a Midianite woman, and Zimri, a Jewish man from the tribe of Shimon, as they were having forbidden relations out in public. The plague ended with their deaths, but sending the women to have relations was a major part of the Midianite battle plan. Back to your quote. The battle plan God commanded was to kill all the major partipants in the war. It doesn’t say that the adolescent girls were raped, or even alluded to rape. But if everyone else has just been killed, somebody has to take care of them.
Which part first? Does it matter? Yes, it does. Was slavery evil? While it is certainly unpleasant, I’m not willing to say yes. Queen Esther, while definitely unhappy at the prospect does not seem to consider it evil. Esther 7:3-4
Slavery is not a happy alternative, but it is alive.
Considering what was going on in Egypt when God saved the Jews, it was not simply “serving a master.” The work was specifically demoralizing. Avodat perach does not translate well, but it is frequently translated as “backbreaking labor.” Hard work was not the issue. Again, this is an exegesical issue, but considering that Jewish male babies were killed by being drowned in the Nile, it is not a far stretch to imagine that psychological torture was being done to the Jews as slaves. After Moses spoke to Pharoah for the first time, bricks had to be made, but the same quota of bricks had to be made and the Jews had to find their own straw. This does not make sense if people actually value the work being done by slaves. It does make sense for people who are using slavery as a means of torture and destruction.
I do not say that slavery is good, and that we should go out and do it. Don’t try to make it out that I said as much, because I didn’t. There are fates worse than slavery. Wanton torture (be it physical, psychological, or emotional), death, and destruction are much worse. When these things are added to slavery, then yes, slavery is evil. If they are not, slavery is not good, but it is not evil.
I’m quite familiar with exegesis, unfortunately you seem to have confused it with *eisegesis]/i]. Exegesis means to make a critical examination of a text and extract a meaning from what is there. Eisegesis means to read something into the text which is not there. The commentaries you speak of, (the Talmud, the midrashes) are examples of the latter. It’s quite easy to invent extra text to explain the problems with the Tanakh. It’s basically cheating, though, and it proves nothing.
If it’s not in the scripture then it’s not worth discussing. I’m only interested in analysis which directly addresses the text. If you have a linguistic argument which shows that “hardening the heart” has some reference to “courage” in Hebrew idiom I will listen.
Maybe you should at least try to think about it. The notion that humans have free will is not as obviously true as it seems on first blush.
You entered a debate to try to argue that God does not cause evil. Now you’re admitting that you can’t defend your own position?
Regardless of what it’s part of, it’s evil.
Ok, it says the Amakelites struck at those who “lagged behind.” I take it all back. Of course those babies had to die. :rolleyes:
It’s not measure for measure. It’s punishing the innocent for the sins of their parents. Is it evil to kill infants? Yes or no.
Ordering the Israelites to take the unmarried girls for themselves is precisely an allusion to rape…unless you’re going to contend that all those girls were having consensual sex with the guys who had murdered their parents.
Wow.
[/quote]
I see. I didn’t know Queen Esther was the ultimate arbiter of human rights.
You also seem to be arguing that slavery is a better alternative than dying. Interesting. You could use that argument about rape too, couldn’t you?
If you can’t admit that slavery is wrong then i doubt we have a lot more to talk about.
Considering what was going on in Egypt when God saved the Jews, it was not simply “serving a master.” The work was specifically demoralizing. Avodat perach does not translate well, but it is frequently translated as “backbreaking labor.” Hard work was not the issue. Again, this is an exegesical issue, but considering that Jewish male babies were killed by being drowned in the Nile, it is not a far stretch to imagine that psychological torture was being done to the Jews as slaves. After Moses spoke to Pharoah for the first time, bricks had to be made, but the same quota of bricks had to be made and the Jews had to find their own straw. This does not make sense if people actually value the work being done by slaves. It does make sense for people who are using slavery as a means of torture and destruction.
I do not say that slavery is good, and that we should go out and do it. Don’t try to make it out that I said as much, because I didn’t. There are fates worse than slavery. Wanton torture (be it physical, psychological, or emotional), death, and destruction are much worse. When these things are added to slavery, then yes, slavery is evil. If they are not, slavery is not good, but it is not evil.
[/QUOTE]
Depriving people of basic human rights is not evil? What planet do you live on?
I realize that the nature of G-d requires some things to be taken on faith. But all critical thinking shouldn’t have to be abandoned.
Yogini