James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Steve Petersen]

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?

Would you apply this same inanity to you and your children's relationship?

 

[Hammster]

Would you apply this same inanity to you and your children's relationship?

That’s not answering the question. Focus.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That’s not answering the question. Focus.

If you wouldn't apply this thinking to you and your children, why would God apply it to him and his children? Is it possible for the creature to be more compassionate than the creator?

 

[Par5]

Three points here:
1. It was funny even though it is a heart wrenching account.
2. What would you do if your children were killed generation after generation by the same people?
3. Why are you ignoring the fact that without parents who would take care of these infants when they if taken in by the Jews would infect their own children with horrible diseases. Remember the time this was written, there were no medical saves. It truly was survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed in this case.

Why are you dodging my questions about the lack of outrage on your part when women in our day and age are literally having their OWN children ripped and torn from their OWN bodies by their OWN free will?

I am not dodging anything, and please don't assume what I feel about abortion. You don't know what I feel regarding abortion, but I have noticed that you not knowing something doesn't stop you from making a judgement.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the bible makes any comment about the general health of the Canaanites and according to Mr Context, the Israelites were socially and tactically inferior and less strong than the Canaanites which would hardly suggest that the Canaanites were a people of walking corpses.
As for not adopting the children into their tribe because of a fear of disease, why not? Those against abortion criticise those who have a foetus aborted because they were told there was a possibility it could be born with a deformity or serious illness, so what's the difference in killing a child outside the womb that has a serious illness or deformity?
Perhaps the Israelites were just taking a lead from their own god's aversion to those who are not physically perfect, as you can read in Leviticus 21:18.

 

[Hammster]

If you wouldn't apply this thinking to you and your children, why would God apply it to him and his children? Is it possible for the creature to be more compassionate than the creator?

Once again, you aren’t answering the question.

 

[Sam91]

Jesus, who's supposedly god himself, prayed?
To whom? Himself?

The Father. John 14 and His prayer is in John 17

 

[cvanwey]

Because the Bible doesn't include a comprehensive book on proper applications of Hermeneutics, or comprehensive lessons on Hebrew and Greek culture and language; and there's also the fact that parallel Traditions like the Oral Torah and later, Christian Doctrine, existed among both the Jews and later in the Christian Church. The Bible is essentially the repository of Fundamental Basics, not the comprehensive spiritual lesson in and of itself (despite all of the Protestant protestations involved in their various assertions of Sola Scriptura). The point being that God has in way intended to give us a comprehensive picture to enable us to simply build our truths upon a set of boxes, one upon another in staircase fashion, in order to reach and touch His face by way of our human knowledge alone.

I again go back to where we were prior, (unresolved between you and I)... Hermeneutics is not the established 'standard' by which we can judge such claims from the Bible. I see how this method may help in particular instances - (very situational). However, as stated much prior, or even in another thread, you see and hear opposite extremes for 'interpretation, to the 'literal' claims to something as seemingly straight forward as a flood event, an Exodus, Adam and Eve, etc... So if events, which again appear to present as truth claims; claims which appear to present as the most possible black-and-white, or in-your-face actual events, are rendered to not have happened (by extensive review); and apologists like yourself, somehow cannot reconcile that without the 'flood', 'Exodus', or 'Adam and Eve' stories being true, then the Bible, as a whole, now becomes entirely suspect as a whole, I'm not quite sure where we may go from here???

Furthermore, it would appear that you seem to rationalize the notion, or are directly supporting a conclusion that I made much prior, possibly in another thread; that God then appears to be the direct 'author of conclusion'. Why?

Languages change, die out, etc... If there appears no actual standard, to determine truth (hermeneutics included), then we are exactly where we started --- 100's/1,000's of denominations and sects, all claiming ethnocentrism. Evangelicals stating Catholics are not 'saved', etc etc etc....

I'll just beat you to the punch and say that, in human terms, none of the verses in the Bible are flawless. But, that would be to say this in "human terms." But then I have to ask, how could any communication given in 'human terms' ever be flawless?

Well, simple. All claims and writings are up for review. If they are proven wrong, then one must, or has no choice, but to no longer believe it. In this direct case, how do you accept a book, which makes so many apparent claims, proven false in review, and still believe it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not dodging anything, and please don't assume what I feel about abortion. You don't know what I feel regarding abortion, but I have noticed that you not knowing something doesn't stop you from making a judgement.

I've asked you several times now with no response. If you don't want me making assumptions about your beliefs then let me know what they are.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the bible makes any comment about the general health of the Canaanites and according to Mr Context, the Israelites were socially and tactically inferior and less strong than the Canaanites which would hardly suggest that the Canaanites were a people of walking corpses.

Putting words into my mouth now? I didn't claim they were walking corpses, however, considering their sexual conduct it could be surmised that sexual disease was widespread, which I had not claimed to be truth but a context within the time period which could be valid.

As for not adopting the children into their tribe because of a fear of disease, why not? Those against abortion criticise those who have a foetus aborted because they were told there was a possibility it could be born with a deformity or serious illness, so what's the difference in killing a child outside the womb that has a serious illness or deformity?

So tell me what we are discussing here, are you claiming that the people of Israel were immoral for their actions or are you claiming that God is immoral? There is a difference here so perhaps we best get that pinned down first.

Perhaps the Israelites were just taking a lead from their own god's aversion to those who are not physically perfect, as you can read in Leviticus 21:18.

This verse is in regard to the priests, they represented Christ and so they were to be without blemish as was Christ. It isn't an aversion but a qualifier for the great honor.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I again go back to where we were prior, (unresolved between you and I)... Hermeneutics is not the established 'standard' by which we can judge such claims from the Bible. I see how this method may help in particular instances - (very situational).

Of course hermeneutics isn't a standard. Analogically speaking it's no more of a standard than breathing is to living, but like breathing is in the state of organismic living, it is an inescapable part of the process of understanding. I do get what you're saying though, it does seem like human minds are just all over the place when attempting to grasp and interpret the meanings embedded in religions and their respective texts, with Christianity being a prime case of this. But again, in reflecting on what I've just said initially above, I'm doing to defer to Dr. Jens Zimmerman where he speaks about the essential nature of "philosophical hermeneutics" (in contrast to something more specific like 'biblical hermeneutics'):

Is interpretation--hermeneutics that is--necessary only when misunderstanding requires a special effort on our part to clarify meaning? This assumption seems plausible. After all, 'Hermeneutics' has often stood for a set of interpretative rules designed to clear up difficult textual passages. [However] hermeneutics is more than the interpretive principles or methods we resort to when immediate comprehension fails us. Rather, hermeneutics is already unconsciously at work even when we grasp the obvious meaning of a red light. ...hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood. One is engaged in hermeneutics whenever one tries to grasp the meaning of something--be it a conversation, a newspaper article, a Shakeperean play, or an account of past events

...the goal of hermeneutics is understanding, and that although understanding may be guided by analytical principles, it cannot be reduced to them. Understanding requires art rather than [mere!] rule-governed principles. (pp. 1-2).​

Zimmerman goes on to say later that science, too, is subject to philosophical hermeneutical considerations, despite its "methods" ......... and I agree with him.

So, enough of this, "Hermeneutics is optional" stuff! No, it's no only mandatory, it's part and parcel of human thinking; it's inescapable just as much as your act of breathing can only be temporarily refrained from while still attempting to live.

Reference
Zimmerman, Jens. (2015). Hermeneutics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

However, as stated much prior, or even in another thread, you see and hear opposite extremes for 'interpretation, to the 'literal' claims to something as seemingly straight forward as a flood event, an Exodus, Adam and Eve, etc... So if events, which again appear to present as truth claims; claims which appear to present as the most possible black-and-white, or in-your-face actual events, are rendered to not have happened (by extensive review); and apologists like yourself, somehow cannot reconcile that without the 'flood', 'Exodus', or 'Adam and Eve' stories being true, then the Bible, as a whole, now becomes entirely suspect as a whole, I'm not quite sure where we may go from here???

Being that we haven't discussed anything about the actual praxis that various individuals subscribe to and use by which they apply their modes of interpretation, simply saying that one person arrives at a different interpretation doesn't tell us much of anything about how their respective modes compare or contrast. It also doesn't tell us if both you and I might spot something in the way that other persons do actually interpret the Bible that could be improved upon. What if not only I'm wrong and you're wrong, but scholar #19 of the dozens you've spoken to just happens to have the best interpretive mode, if thought at the moment you and I don't realize that this is the case? Shouldn't we be analyzing the vast array of concepts and conceptual networks involved in order to try to come to some kine of assessment that we both can even moderately agree on? What if we both come to the that, "Hey, scholar #19 does seem to have it 'going on'!"?

Where to go from here? I'd suggest that I pray for you, point you in the direction of realizing that you can't help but take successive breaths into your body if you want to continue to live ... ...since as they say, "Breathing is fundamental!"

Furthermore, it would appear that you seem to rationalize the notion, or are directly supporting a conclusion that I made much prior, possibly in another thread; that God then appears to be the direct 'author of conclusion'. Why?

Since the Bible isn't comprehensive, all I can do is glean what is there on an epistemological level and tell you that ... it seems that God is Sovereign and He tends to work with us based on our attitudes towards Him and others.

Languages change, die out, etc... If there appears no actual standard, to determine truth (hermeneutics included), then we are exactly where we started --- 100's/1,000's of denominations and sects, all claiming ethnocentrism. Evangelicals stating Catholics are not 'saved', etc etc etc....

Right, some Evangelicals do state that Catholics are unsaved, but the fact that some Evangelicals do so isn't to say that they are correct when doing so ...

Well, simple. All claims and writings are up for review. If they are proven wrong, then one must, or has no choice, but to no longer believe it.

Yes, all claims are up for review, but the extend to which one has "no choice to believe" isn't so clear as to the necessities that must come about in thinking, particularly if we can't be sure to what degree we actually are wrong or right ...

In this direct case, how do you accept a book, which makes so many apparent claims, proven false in review, and still believe it?

Has it been "proven" false in review? Nay, I think that conclusion is, and will always, remain up for hermeneutical review on multiple levels of thought. Remember, even science doesn't have the last word on everything.

 

[bling]

I love how you seem forced to completely and utterly render life valueless, just so you can defend your side of the fence.

In fact, it's almost a glorification of death. As if: death can't come soon enough.

I do not suggest that at all! Life is hugely valuable, eternal life is priceless, but life here on earth is challenging and only somewhat rewarding.

 

[Par5]

I've asked you several times now with no response. If you don't want me making assumptions about your beliefs then let me know what they are.

Putting words into my mouth now? I didn't claim they were walking corpses, however, considering their sexual conduct it could be surmised that sexual disease was widespread, which I had not claimed to be truth but a context within the time period which could be valid.

So tell me what we are discussing here, are you claiming that the people of Israel were immoral for their actions or are you claiming that God is immoral? There is a difference here so perhaps we best get that pinned down first.

This verse is in regard to the priests, they represented Christ and so they were to be without blemish as was Christ. It isn't an aversion but a qualifier for the great honor.

Because you ask me a question does not mean I am under an obligation to supply an answer so, for the time being, I will let you stew over that question and allow you to make all the assumptions you wish, for the time being.
I put no words in your mouth. I never said you claimed the Canaanites were walking corpses. The comment I made about the health of the Canaanites was my observation, nothing to do with you. I also included a comment made by 2PhiloVoid, so If I may suggest that in future if you wish to criticize me, make sure your brain is in gear before you open your mouth.
As for who I blame for the atrocities recorded in the bible, I have stated numerous times, mostly in my correspondence with 2PhiloVoid, that as I don't believe in the biblical god it would be irrational to blame something I don't believe exists and that any atrocities committed were committed by man and man alone. Nothing to do with any god. I hope that is clear enough for you. So to make it doubly clear, yes, I am claiming that the actions of the Israelites and the Israelites alone, were immoral.
As regards the appointing of priests, no matter how you try to dress it up it is still a discrimination against the ill and infirm. So these priests were to be without blemish? I thought Christians believed that we are all equal in the sight of their god, that we are all sinners? That would mean the priests were already blemished!

 

[cvanwey]

Of course hermeneutics isn't a standard. Analogically speaking it's no more of a standard than breathing is to living, but like breathing is in the state of organismic living, it is an inescapable part of the process of understanding. I do get what you're saying though, it does seem like human minds are just all over the place when attempting to grasp and interpret the meanings embedded in religions and their respective texts, with Christianity being a prime case of this. But again, in reflecting on what I've just said initially above, I'm doing to defer to Dr. Jens Zimmerman where he speaks about the essential nature of "philosophical hermeneutics" (in contrast to something more specific like 'biblical hermeneutics'):

I'm gonna have to stop you right here...

Since you would like to bring in analogies, let's address the relevant one I brought about a while back...

History text books speak about nukes hitting Japan, killing thousands, which ultimately ended WW2.

The Bible speaks about a flood event, killing human kind, which ultimately whipped out wickedness.

Regardless of any 'philosophical' or 'Biblical' genre or flavor, both the above events are based upon apparent historical accounts in history. Both said events were to have happened in history, in some form or another. Yet, we have overwhelming proof to support the former, and nothing substantial to support the later.

In which now I see nothing but 'Apologetics 101', in any attempt to support a flood claim. But for me, it really becomes quite simple... When one reads a historical piece from 'antiquity', and many such events are found to NOT be substantiated with evidence, we have a problem, a big problem. And again, for me, this is where I almost have no choice but to part ways from it...

Right, some Evangelicals do state that Catholics are unsaved, but the fact that some Evangelicals do so isn't to say that they are correct when doing so ...

But it directly demonstrates my point. If two distinctive sects wholeheartedly disagree, where might one go from there? Confusion runs rampant even internally, rendering God the direct author of it...

Has it been "proven" false in review? Nay, I think that conclusion is, and will always, remain up for hermeneutical review on multiple levels of thought. Remember, even science doesn't have the last word on everything.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up science. But let me give you an example....

500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. Through science, we have later discovered it is indeed not flat, but is instead spherical. So I ask you, will any NEW scientific discovery ever come about, in the near or even distant future, to AGAIN substantiate the prior claim and conclusion of a flat earth?

And in regards to OT events (floods, the 'Exodus', creation), it would appear it kind of does, from my estimation...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because you ask me a question does not mean I am under an obligation to supply an answer so, for the time being, I will let you stew over that question and allow you to make all the assumptions you wish, for the time being.

Correct, you are not obligated to answer my questions but it does seem a necessary component to a back and forth discussion.

I put no words in your mouth. I never said you claimed the Canaanites were walking corpses. The comment I made about the health of the Canaanites was my observation, nothing to do with you. I also included a comment made by 2PhiloVoid, so If I may suggest that in future if you wish to criticize me, make sure your brain is in gear before you open your mouth.

Notice the question mark behind my question? I asked if that was what you were doing. I wasn't criticizing per se, only calling attention to your remarks seeming out of wack with what I said. How does bringing in something 2PV connect with what you said? I don't see any references in what you posted to me. I don't really understand your rudeness either, I don't think I've been anything but cordial in our discussion.

As for who I blame for the atrocities recorded in the bible, I have stated numerous times, mostly in my correspondence with 2PhiloVoid, that as I don't believe in the biblical god it would be irrational to blame something I don't believe exists and that any atrocities committed were committed by man and man alone. Nothing to do with any god. I hope that is clear enough for you. So to make it doubly clear, yes, I am claiming that the actions of the Israelites and the Israelites alone, were immoral.

Well then, there is nothing more to say. We have no need to defend a culture or a people who do things immorally.

As regards the appointing of priests, no matter how you try to dress it up it is still a discrimination against the ill and infirm. So these priests were to be without blemish? I thought Christians believed that we are all equal in the sight of their god, that we are all sinners? That would mean the priests were already blemished!

You are correct, all are equal in the sight of God. However, Priests of the time were strict representations of the coming Jesus Christ. It was important to understand that Jesus was without blemish, sin and completely innocent of any moral wrongs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm gonna have to stop you right here...

Since you would like to bring in analogies, let's address the relevant one I brought about a while back...

History text books speak about nukes hitting Japan, killing thousands, which ultimately ended WW2.

The Bible speaks about a flood event, killing human kind, which ultimately whipped out wickedness.

Regardless of any 'philosophical' or 'Biblical' genre or flavor, both the above events are based upon apparent historical accounts in history. Both said events were to have happened in history, in some form or another. Yet, we have overwhelming proof to support the former, and nothing substantial to support the later.

In which now I see nothing but 'Apologetics 101', in any attempt to support a flood claim. But for me, it really becomes quite simple... When one reads a historical piece from 'antiquity', and many such events are found to NOT be substantiated with evidence, we have a problem, a big problem. And again, for me, this is where I almost have no choice but to part ways from it...

Ok. You can part ways with it if you feel that is what you must do. But just know that I don't part ways with it, and I don't for other reasons that won't apparently be relevant or coherent to you. From a human perspective, that's to be expected.

But it directly demonstrates my point. If two distinctive sects wholeheartedly disagree, where might one go from there?

...the way I figure it, you run to where I've have: Inter-denominational Trinitarian Christianity. I for one have never seen any reason to exclude any other Christian who holds a biblical, Trinitarian view of Christianty and who feels they do their best to fight sin/evil in themselves and in the world. And that's case closed for me, even if I'm sure a good number of my fellow Christians will disagree with me. If they do, so be it! I'll just give them a hug anyway.

Confusion runs rampant even internally, rendering God the direct author of it...

I'm not sure I see how this is the case if the New Testament writers address more than once why some "differences of view" should be expected, even if endured, among various Christians and Christian groups.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up science. But let me give you an example....

500 years ago, the world was thought to be flat. Through science, we have later discovered it is indeed not flat, but is instead spherical. So I ask you, will any NEW scientific discovery ever come about, in the near or even distant future, to AGAIN substantiate the prior claim and conclusion of a flat earth?

No, because as Thomas Kuhn has already pointed out, there have been paradigm shifts.....................and those shifts have been bigger than just the science which has been done within each successive historic era, so of course we shouldn't expect to regress now on many things we know today about the world or to revert to the methods and ways by which people previously perceptually grasped the world around them.

However, because we recognize today not only advances in our scientific understanding of the world, but also because we recognize that paradigm shifts have occurred in the past, then none of what we know now by way of our current operative paradigm completely cuts God out of the picture. It just doesn't.

And in regards to OT events (floods, the 'Exodus', creation), it would appear it kind of does, from my estimation...

Again, we're just going to have to part ways on this here, because I personally don't this it does, in my own estimation.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The OP references Jews prayers during the Holocaust going unanswered

But the Israelis, in their own words, before all 7 billion humans of earth, contradict the OP.

Ergo, the OP has been refuted, on its own terms.



Israel's 70th Birthday: A Miracle amid Thanks and Threats
​

Israel's 70th Birthday: A Miracle amid Thanks and Threats

Israel's national celebration wove a theme of technological progress and survival through seven decades of its modern history. They told the story of the Jewish people from Moses to the early pioneers, through the Holocaust to the planting of the land growth of technology. They said the rebirth of their nation was where prophecy became their reality and the answer to their prayers.​

​

 

[Steve Petersen]

The OP references Jews prayers during the Holocaust going unanswered

But the Israelis, in their own words, before all 7 billion humans of earth, contradict the OP.

Ergo, the OP has been refuted, on its own terms.



Israel's 70th Birthday: A Miracle amid Thanks and Threats
​

Israel's 70th Birthday: A Miracle amid Thanks and Threats

Israel's national celebration wove a theme of technological progress and survival through seven decades of its modern history. They told the story of the Jewish people from Moses to the early pioneers, through the Holocaust to the planting of the land growth of technology. They said the rebirth of their nation was where prophecy became their reality and the answer to their prayers.​

​

I am guessing that the Jewish people in the camps weren't praying for NATIONAL salvation. Poor attempt at diversion on your part.

 

[Par5]

Correct, you are not obligated to answer my questions but it does seem a necessary component to a back and forth discussion.

Notice the question mark behind my question? I asked if that was what you were doing. I wasn't criticizing per se, only calling attention to your remarks seeming out of wack with what I said. How does bringing in something 2PV connect with what you said? I don't see any references in what you posted to me. I don't really understand your rudeness either, I don't think I've been anything but cordial in our discussion.

Well then, there is nothing more to say. We have no need to defend a culture or a people who do things immorally.

You are correct, all are equal in the sight of God. However, Priests of the time were strict representations of the coming Jesus Christ. It was important to understand that Jesus was without blemish, sin and completely innocent of any moral wrongs.

Correct, you are not obligated to answer my questions but it does seem a necessary component to a back and forth discussion.

Notice the question mark behind my question? I asked if that was what you were doing. I wasn't criticizing per se, only calling attention to your remarks seeming out of wack with what I said. How does bringing in something 2PV connect with what you said? I don't see any references in what you posted to me. I don't really understand your rudeness either, I don't think I've been anything but cordial in our discussion.

Well then, there is nothing more to say. We have no need to defend a culture or a people who do things immorally.

You are correct, all are equal in the sight of God. However, Priests of the time were strict representations of the coming Jesus Christ. It was important to understand that Jesus was without blemish, sin and completely innocent of any moral wrongs.

So, if someone was ill or infirm that prevented them from doing something considered honourable?. I have always thought that Christians believed it was the state of one's soul and the belief and trust in their god that defined a person, not their outward appearance, yet you support something that only appointed people who through no fault of their own were considered to be "blemished". That's discrimination of a rather nasty kind.
If you consider something I have said to be rude, I can't say I'm too bothered if the person who considers me as being rude says on the one hand that we have no need to defend a culture or people who do things immorally, yet on the other hand does not consider the slaughter of Canaanite children to have been an immoral act, saying it was justified, and who believes that there are instances where those with physical disabilities are not fit for purpose. No, not too bothered!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it immoral if the giver of life takes it back? Was there a promise made somewhere?

This is what I mean with moral bankrupcy.

Tell me, is there anything that this entity could do that would qualify as "immoral" as you understand it?

In my world, infanticide (you know, like the indiscriminate slaughter of toddlers) is immoral. No matter who you are.

You don't get to call this entity "benevolent", "just", "moral"... while also claiming that if this entity engages in what would otherwise be immoral behaviour, it's not immoral simply because he's the one doing it. You are literally making the concept of morality completely meaningless.

Moral bankrupcy.

By my ethical standards, someone that engages in, or orders, infanticide, is an evil monster.

 

[Hammster]

This is what I mean with moral bankrupcy.

Tell me, is there anything that this entity could do that would qualify as "immoral" as you understand it?

In my world, infanticide (you know, like the indiscriminate slaughter of toddlers) is immoral. No matter who you are.

You don't get to call this entity "benevolent", "just", "moral"... while also claiming that if this entity engages in what would otherwise be immoral behaviour, it's not immoral simply because he's the one doing it. You are literally making the concept of morality completely meaningless.

Moral bankrupcy.

By my ethical standards, someone that engages in, or orders, infanticide, is an evil monster.

You did not answer my question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You did not answer my question.

Because infanticide - always immoral.

And if you are going to ask why, then honestly, when you use the word "immoral", I don't know what you are talking about.

Then you're going to have to define what you mean by that word to me first, because obviously, we have a different understanding of it.

No, I'm not going to explain to you why it is immoral to indiscriminatly slaughter a bunch of innocent toddlers.

Now you can answer my question:

Is there any action that your god could potentially engage in, that would be labeled as being "immoral"?

Note that I'm not asking if he would engage in such. I'm asking: is there an action, that if your god would do it, it would be immoral?

Because if there isn't, then calling your god "benevolent" or "moral", seems meaningless.