Is this Old Testament passage "hate speech"?

[2PhiloVoid]

(staff edit)

I think that what has "changed" is, theologically speaking, that an Age of Grace via the Advent of Christ has been presented in the overall dispensations that God is running humanity through. I mean, all of the chit-chat in the New Testament, especially as seen in the book of Revelation, shows that God is the "same ol bug-bear" that today's atheists (ex-christians, really) despise so vehemently.

Interestingly enough, my atheist peers at the university, ex-christians themselves, seemed to be in general agreement with my perspective.

So, the morality in the New Testament isn't different than the Old other than that a Parenthical Priority of Mercy and Grace has been inserted into the middle of God's judgement upon Humanity and Israel has been expanded and clarified. I know............................................ that doesn't sound all that wonderful to a lot folks.

At the same time, the limits and criticisms that can be applied to the naturalistic and pragmatic ontology behind today's notions about Human Rights also won't sound all that wonderful if fully presented to atheists, skeptics and ex-christians, or other vested poltical parties.

The thing is: No one has to accept Wholesale and in Socialistic fashion the Human Rights campaign ideology promoted today as it may be arbitrated and summarily handed out Universally as alledgedly axiomatic and immune to any criticism. But such is the outcome of living in a world that is always open to the invasive environs of Philosophy, whether Applied or Theoretical. This is one reason that, just as was reflective of the deaths of Socrates and Jesus, both the Nazis and the Leninist Communists got rid of and banished many of their local "critical thinkers" at the beginning of their administrations.

 

[ralliann]

Me saying I think something is immoral does not equal enforcing it; that would be a might makes right situation.

Depends. Someone harms another person. That person comes to you to rectify the situation. You have the power to do so. Your decision here puts you yourself in the category of moral or immoral.
Or How about if Another person comes to you looking for justice with this same individual, and another? Would your lack in stopping this individual resulted in the others having been harmed?

Whether you believe scripture, or that God is real doesn't matter at all. It is the message.
Cain cried out to God......

Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 ¶ And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

There were not even 10 left in the city. How many righteous were killed that were crying to God....

Ge 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Ge 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Ge 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

 

[Lukaris]

Clearly showing how God changed his mind.

And to be clear do you concede that "Me saying I think something is immoral does not equal enforcing it; that would be a might makes right situation"?

As Christians we live by faith within the secular systems that exist. The Law of Moses was particular to the Jews; the Gentiles lived by natural law ( consciously or instinctively ) back to the covenant with Noah ( Genesis 9:1-17, Acts of the Apostles 14:15-17, Romans 2:11-16 etc.).

If stonings were still part of moral law enforcement, I highly doubt I would believe the Gospel accounts. I also do not understand the particular social realities the ancient Jews faced in their survival. Judaism itself has abandoned stonings probably since Christ as opposed to some present day faiths. Are you more concerned about the mores of nomadic people thousands of years ago as opposed to present day nations?

As previously said Christians are to live as law abiding within the existing secular systems keeping the commandments of the Lord. St. Paul writes of this in Romans 13:1-14. Our faith involves keeping the same moral principles of the Jews in mind and spirit but the flesh aspects ( from circumcision etc. are void). See Acts of the Apostles 15:25-30).

 

[JohnClay]

If you “have read the Bible cover to cover” then you might recall that within chapters 18 & 20 of Leviticus that there were penalties of being stoned to death. The Sermon on the Mount should be clear that such practices were rendered void. John 8:2-11 showed stoning is void and Luke 9:51-56 that mercy is God’s will.

Apparently John 7:53-8:11 was added later. Here is the NIV note that appears above the passage. Note in my Bible the words of Jesus in the passage are in black italics rather than red.

Bible Gateway passage: John 7:53 - New International Version

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.] Then they all went home,

www.biblegateway.com

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

 

[Lukaris]

Apparently John 7:53-8:11 was added later. Here is the NIV note that appears above the passage. Note in my Bible the words of Jesus in the passage are in black italics rather than red.

Bible Gateway passage: John 7:53 - New International Version

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.] Then they all went home,

www.biblegateway.com

There are arguments for it also.


early Christian writers mention this story as authentic. Let’s consider each:

Papias (AD 110). Eusebius claims that Papias mentioned this story. Papias referred to a very early story “about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins.”[9] Of course, no other account like this occurs in the rest of the NT. Though Morris rejects the inspiration of this text, he writes, “Many authorities agree that it is referred to by Papias.”[10]

The Didascalia (3rd century).Chris Keith writes, “The author of the Didascalia recalls PA [pericope adulterae] while instructing bishops regarding the forgiveness of sinners.”[11]

Ambrose (4th century). Ambrose writes, “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation… Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds.”[12]

Augustine (4th century). Augustine believed that some scribes purged this section, because it might encourage infidelity in marriage. He writes, “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.”[13]

Jerome (AD 400). Jerome claimed to have many thousands of documents at his disposal, and he “unquestioningly included it in the Latin Vulgate.”[14] Jerome writes, “In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[15]

(Jn. 7:53-8:11) Does this belong in the Bible? | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

I always thought it was scripture and now I still believe it is.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But as we see in this thread that claim is not borne out by the facts.

Our world view comes from what has been written in Scripture.

 

[Larniavc]

Our world view comes from what has been written in Scripture.

But you ignore some bits. As can be seen in this thread.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But as we see in this thread that claim is not borne out by the facts.

Not so - our interpretation of the 'facts' is wanting.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But you ignore some bits. As can be seen in this thread.

Me personally - or Christians in general...

I don't ignore revealed Truth.

What we think are facts is a different issue.

 

[linux.poet]

The reason for that violence was not because of their ethnicity, so no, that is not hate speech according to that definition.

I agree with this. You will need to make it clear in the game that the extermination order was because of these people's actions, not because of who they are or were.

If Steam still bans your game after such care has been taken, it's on them.

 

[JohnClay]

I agree with this. You will need to make it clear in the game that the extermination order was because of these people's actions, not because of who they are or were.

If Steam still bans your game after such care has been taken, it's on them.

The passage that will be quoted includes verse 18:

If you don’t destroy them, they’ll teach you to do all the things the Lord hates. He hates the way they worship their gods. If you do those things, you will sin against the Lord your God.

 

[linux.poet]

The passage that will be quoted includes verse 18:

That should cover the situation well. I wish you well on developing this game.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT




This thread had a clean up. Please read the Statement of Purpose for this forum. The ONLY non-Christian allowed in this thread is the OP. Please do not respond to members who are not the OP and are not Christian. ​