Atheism (3)

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok.... read the question, then read your response.

Now explain to me how in any way your response addresses the question. It is completely irrelevant to the topic!

The question was why wouldn't God make all sin as easy to avoid as committing murder, or child rape, or whatever.

saying "sin is sin!" is a meaningless response... answer the question!

Q. How many Surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. FISH!

 

[Dave Ellis]

here is a book that may make some sense:

HEBREWS 7:19—Was the Law of Moses perfect or imperfect?

PROBLEM: The psalmist declared that the “law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. 19:7). It reflects the very character of God (cf. Lev. 11:45). Yet the writer of Hebrews insists that “the law made nothing perfect” (7:19), and thus God brought in a “better covenant” (v. 22). This, he contends, would not have been necessary “if that first covenant had been faultless” (Heb. 8:7). So, who is right? Is the law perfect or imperfect?

SOLUTION: The law was perfect in its nature, but imperfect in its results. It was a perfect expression of God’s righteousness, but an imperfect means of making man righteous. Of course, that is not the fault of the law itself or the purpose for which God gave it. For the law was never given to redeem sinners (Titus 3:5–6; Rom. 4:5), but to reveal sin. As a standard and means of revealing sin, the law was an impeccable norm and teacher. But it was only “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Like a mirror, the law was intended to reveal our imperfections as we look into it; but it, no more than the mirror, was intended to correct our imperfections. So the law is perfect in itself, as a rule and revealer of sin, but it is imperfect as a means of empowering us to overcome sin.


from


Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 516

That's a complete load of bunk!

If the God and his law was perfect, it would have been perfect in spirit and results.

If the results were not perfect, that means God made a mistake and is no longer perfect.

And why wouldn't he have created beings who were perfectly capable of following the law?

 

[dlamberth]

love is the only law we have now....

Now...learn to actually live that Law!!! That's where the magic will begin to happen. Looking around me, there is not much going on there though.

I have not doubt that IF the Law of Love were actually lived that there would be no war, no famine, everyone would have medical access, all human beings would have a roof over their heads, we would all be sensitive to the environmental damage we are doing to God's wonderful Creation, money would no longer run politics, we would be totally involved in helping the poor and those in need and so much more. But that's not happening...which speaks volumes to just how little the Law of Love is being lived.

.

 

[Gadarene]

Oh my.....

PLEASE read what we're typing.

I asked if God's law was perfect, moral and just..... then WHY did Jesus need to modify it?

Presumably it's the same kind of perfection as the 'perfect' world created with a universe-ruining plot-device - I mean tree of knowledge - built into it.

 

[Gadarene]

same thing, all sin is sin. If it's a sin of hate, it's murder. If it's a murder, it's still the same level of sin as hate. Sin is sin. Regardless.

Irrelevant. I am not disputing the definition of sin here, I am asking why sin could not have been made easier to resist. We have examples of sins that are rarely committed because most people find them repugnant. Why not extend that innate disgust towards sin in general?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Q. How many Surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. FISH!

I'm gonna have to use that!

 

[Belk]

now owning a slave is not moral, no human is another humans property. So yes if you own something you can do what ever you want to it. Toss it in the trash, eat it, or put it on the shelf for later.

so if I own an animal I can torture it and that would be moral in your eyes?

 

[Belk]

Owning a slave isn't immoral. Treating a slave inhumanly one owns is.

Tell that to the slave.

 

[dlamberth]

Owning a slave isn't immoral.

I'm just not understanding how a human being owning another isn't immoral. My brain isn't able to wrap itself around that one.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm just not understanding how a human being owning another isn't immoral. My brain isn't able to wrap itself around that one.

.

Easy! It's because God said so! lol

 

[Eudaimonist]

Owning a slave isn't immoral. Treating a slave inhumanly one owns is.

Owning someone is precisely treating that someone inhumanly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

so if I own an animal I can torture it and that would be moral in your eyes?

The issue of slavery, man stealing i.e. slave trading, servitude, voluntary or involuntary, in both the ancient world and modern, by it's very nature excludes it from being able to be fully appreciated in one or two posts.

Whole volumes and literally thousands of articles, essays, books and other types of literature have been written by theologians and secular authors and researchers about this eclectic and multi-faceted issue.

The little known fact that North Carolina (the state in which I reside) is number 10 in America on the list of states where sex-traffiking (which is a form of slavery) is a booming mulit-million dollar underground industry is evidence that this issue is far more wide spread and complex than what is generally believed.

One simply cannot make accurate statements about slavery in the Bible without taking into account every aspect related to this issue. The following is a list off of the top of my head of these aspects:

1. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies specifically regarding their economic infrastructure.

2. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they related to one another i.e in matters of war, in matters of forming alliances to build city-states etc. etc.

3. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and their view on what it meant to be a human being.

4. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies on how they defended themselves from foreign invaders and how they positively sought to strengthen their territioral claims by invading other lands.

5. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and the laws they proscribed to be adhered to and the penalties and reprocussions of violating said laws with regards to the institution of indentured servitude.

6. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they viewed the most basic group within their society i.e. the family.

All of these and many more aspects must be thouroughly understood within their context of time, location, and to whom these aspects would be applicable to if we desire to be qualified in making assertions about slavery and it's morality or immorality as it relates to it's existence in Biblical times.

 

[Gadarene]

Oh, Elioenai, you big relativist.

 

[Belk]

The issue of slavery, man stealing i.e. slave trading, servitude, voluntary or involuntary, in both the ancient world and modern, by it's very nature excludes it from being able to be fully appreciated in one or two posts.

Whole volumes and literally thousands of articles, essays, books and other types of literature have been written by theologians and secular authors and researchers about this eclectic and multi-faceted issue.

The little known fact that North Carolina (the state in which I reside) is number 10 in America on the list of states where sex-traffiking (which is a form of slavery) is a booming mulit-million dollar underground industry is evidence that this issue is far more wide spread and complex than what is generally believed.

One simply cannot make accurate statements about slavery in the Bible without taking into account every aspect related to this issue. The following is a list off of the top of my head of these aspects:

1. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies specifically regarding their economic infrastructure.

2. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they related to one another i.e in matters of war, in matters of forming alliances to build city-states etc. etc.

3. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and their view on what it meant to be a human being.

4. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies on how they defended themselves from foreign invaders and how they positively sought to strengthen their territioral claims by invading other lands.

5. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and the laws they proscribed to be adhered to and the penalties and reprocussions of violating said laws with regards to the institution of indentured servitude.

6. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they viewed the most basic group within their society i.e. the family.

All of these and many more aspects must be thouroughly understood within their context of time, location, and to whom these aspects would be applicable to if we desire to be qualified in making assertions about slavery and it's morality or immorality as it relates to it's existence in Biblical times.

You will get no disagreement from me on this. I fully understand that slavery in the ancient world was a product of the times and attitudes. I understand that it was not seen as immoral. Further, the change in morality was not even the largest disconnect from then to now. I don't think many people understand just how different the thinking was back then. I can't even imagine what it was like not understanding the link between cause and effect that was prevalent then. The issue is more on the side of those who believe that morality is objective and has always been the same throughout history.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The issue of slavery, man stealing i.e. slave trading, servitude, voluntary or involuntary, in both the ancient world and modern, by it's very nature excludes it from being able to be fully appreciated in one or two posts.

Whole volumes and literally thousands of articles, essays, books and other types of literature have been written by theologians and secular authors and researchers about this eclectic and multi-faceted issue.

The little known fact that North Carolina (the state in which I reside) is number 10 in America on the list of states where sex-traffiking (which is a form of slavery) is a booming mulit-million dollar underground industry is evidence that this issue is far more wide spread and complex than what is generally believed.

One simply cannot make accurate statements about slavery in the Bible without taking into account every aspect related to this issue. The following is a list off of the top of my head of these aspects:

1. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies specifically regarding their economic infrastructure.

2. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they related to one another i.e in matters of war, in matters of forming alliances to build city-states etc. etc.

3. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and their view on what it meant to be a human being.

4. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies on how they defended themselves from foreign invaders and how they positively sought to strengthen their territioral claims by invading other lands.

5. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and the laws they proscribed to be adhered to and the penalties and reprocussions of violating said laws with regards to the institution of indentured servitude.

6. The nature of ancient civilizations and or societies and how they viewed the most basic group within their society i.e. the family.

All of these and many more aspects must be thouroughly understood within their context of time, location, and to whom these aspects would be applicable to if we desire to be qualified in making assertions about slavery and it's morality or immorality as it relates to it's existence in Biblical times.

I thought you were a Moral Objectivist?

Your whole post is exactly the point people who believe in Subjective Morality would make.

I agree fully with what you wrote, however it is in conflict with your own morally objective views.... unless you have changed your mind on that topic of course?

 

[Elioenai26]

I thought you were a Moral Objectivist?

Your whole post is exactly the point people who believe in Subjective Morality would make.

I agree fully with what you wrote, however it is in conflict with your own morally objective views.... unless you have changed your mind on that topic of course?

My main intention, and I am humbly obligated to confess that it may not have been portrayed concisely enough, was that to accurately understand references in the Bible to slavery, we must understand that the Mosaic Law (which is the most frequently quoted portion of scripture regarding this topic) was not given until aprroximately 1500 B.C.

This is important because by this time, large civilizations and societies such as Hammurabi with his law code in Babylon and the various Egyptian Dynasties had been in existence for centuries and slavery was an institution that was common to all.

God, in giving the Law to Moses, was not primarily concerned with social reform i.e. the abolishment of slavery. The main reasons were because slavery then was not the slave trading, man stealing, and sex trafficking slavery we so commonly assoicate with the word in modern times.

Secondly, it was God's intention that His people who had been the recipients of His laws and precepts would come to love their neighbors and honor and respect them and treat them they way that they wanted to be treated. This influential, altruistic and benevolent love would over time permeate the Hebrew peoples and become the impetus in the abolishment of slavery altogether from the Israelite Nation. A lot like the influence of Christian men and women in the abolishment of slavery in and through the British parliament championed by men like William Wilberforce.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's a complete load of bunk!

If the God and his law was perfect, it would have been perfect in spirit and results.

If the results were not perfect, that means God made a mistake and is no longer perfect.

And why wouldn't he have created beings who were perfectly capable of following the law?

it's not that simple my friend.

 

[createdtoworship]

Now...learn to actually live that Law!!! That's where the magic will begin to happen. Looking around me, there is not much going on there though.

I have not doubt that IF the Law of Love were actually lived that there would be no war, no famine, everyone would have medical access, all human beings would have a roof over their heads, we would all be sensitive to the environmental damage we are doing to God's wonderful Creation, money would no longer run politics, we would be totally involved in helping the poor and those in need and so much more. But that's not happening...which speaks volumes to just how little the Law of Love is being lived.

.

true

 

[createdtoworship]

Irrelevant. I am not disputing the definition of sin here, I am asking why sin could not have been made easier to resist. We have examples of sins that are rarely committed because most people find them repugnant. Why not extend that innate disgust towards sin in general?

well give your definition of "sin" and well go from there. And I already know you don't believe in the Bibles' definition.

 

[Dave Ellis]

it's not that simple my friend.

Sure it is.... if God is ultimate perfection, it's impossible that he'd make a law that wouldn't be 100% effective.

Otherwise, he did something that is not perfect, and therefore he is not perfect.

In order for him to stay as a perfect being, his will and plan must have been for everything to turn out exactly as it has.