the actions of prophets

[Pacioli]

Yeah, sure, a cursory glance lets you know it has dubious logic and flights of fancy.

Where did I say I took a cursory glance? Feel free to start a separate thread on how sensible is your linked essay, and invite analysis. See how it fares.

I will assume this is what you're trying to get at. First off, why would God have to say this explicitly about the specific situation in Number 31, especially in a high context document? The word Trinity isn't in the Bible, but it is Christian doctrine. Secondly, something akin to my lying example is in the Bible. Rahab is commended for her faith in Hebrews 11, and if we look up her story in Joshua, the noble thing she die was lie to the Canaanites to give Israel an advantage. And of course, not lying is one of the 10 commandments.

Studies of people from different cultures show that they come to highly consistent ethical decisions. Whether they have exposure to the biblical commandments or not makes no difference. They are sensibly evolved human decisions. God says nothing explicit about the obvious problems in the "god-breathed" work because god is not there to say anything. They are a bunch of old tribal stories mined for significance by people with an imaginary friend.

You might gather that I plan soon to bring this discussion to a conclusion from my point of view. I have other things to do next week.

 

[Pacioli]

[Rest assured that I read your response in detail - P]

You will have noted within your own post that I did not say god was evil. I asked questions about consistency of information in the bible and where one might determine that any one precept be followed rather than another. My understanding of your answer, including the slavery example, is that god does nothing faster than people do. Occam's Razor disposes of god in that example, because god adds a stone cold zero to the explanation or to serve toward resolving the next issue that arises, whatever it may be.

If you think god is love, it is not supported by the testaments, by the ten commandments (except holy vanity) nor by historical christianity. To be loved by an imaginary friend certainly resolves issues in some respects but it adds nothing to the total lack of evidence for any of the tens of thousands of gods posited by people.

 

[Pacioli]

Jeremiah 31:29-30 Doesn't Supersede anything.
Look at Jeremiah 31 this time starting at verse:

26 At this I awoke and looked around. My sleep had been pleasant to me.
27 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. 29 "In those days people will no longer say,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [d] them, [e] "
declares the LORD.

For your reference in Exodus we only have to look one verse prior to what you have ear marked to find out what the generational curse applies to..

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Did you see the difference between the two circumstances that has God cursing generations of a House hold, and having only the one eat and taste his sour grapes alone?

Exodus Speaks to those who worship false gods. God even goes on to explain the reason for a generational curse. While The passage on Jeremiah point to the Coming of Jesus, where we are responsible for our own sins, and not to heinous sin of our fathers worshiping another God, under that covenant.

So, where previously the innocents were punished for sins not committed by them later they are not. This is consistent? People were good to go under the old law?

The key to unlocking Mt 5: 17-19 is in-fact all of the verses you left out, Starting at verse 20:
20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Shortly there after Christ (Starting In verse 21) set the standard of obtaining righteousness through the Law well beyond what any of us can obtain on our own.

Are you agreeing the old law was not rescinded, or are you interpreting that it was?

 

[Pacioli]

The predominant arguments I have read have god advancing at about the rate of humanity, and interpretation of the bible relying on first having faith in god so you can get the proper guidance.

No doubt you will have seen previous reference to the study by Epley et al, "Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs". If not, look it up. The most interesting thing in it to me is that when people change their mind, they perceive god as having changed along with them, in whichever direction they happen to go.

Believers will read this as some deficiency of the people involved. The more realistic conclusion is that you can remove god from the story and wind up in the same place, equally good or bad. You might be taking Pascal's wager and not want to abandon hope of somehow not being dead but I hope you gather in sufficient doubt never to follow blindly what anyone tells you from the bible, or in the name of any fantasy friend. From OT times to very recent times in Eastern Europe and today in the Middle East, Voltaire has been right:

Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.

 

[razeontherock]

Good ol' Frank, read up on what his death was like.

 

[drich0150]

So, where previously the innocents were punished for sins not committed by them later they are not. This is consistent? People were good to go under the old law?

What is being said in Exodus is that God is a Jealous God and will curse a family for several generations if one decides to worship another god. What is said in Jeremiah has nothing to do with that. Jeremiah speaks to the coming of Christ and is blood atonement for all sin. So that when/if one were to worship another God, Christ (For a believer)would absolve any outstanding sin debt that may have carried over from the Father under the old covenant..

Are you agreeing the old law was not rescinded, or are you interpreting that it was?

As Christ later points out, we are no longer Bound to the Law as a way to obtain righteousness. and (Mt 16:19)As Paul says: The Law Still exists but only as away to identify sin, and again we are not bound to the law as a way to obtain righteousness. (Rom 7:8)

 

[drich0150]

The most interesting thing in it to me is that when people change their mind, they perceive god as having changed along with them, in whichever direction they happen to go.

When do you estimate the last mind change has occurred? I would say that being in the same frame of mind for nearly 2000 years is a stable state of mind to be in. What other community or society lives by rules and standards set nearly 2000 years ago?

Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.

Absurdities and atrocities can only accurately be identified as such when compared to an absolute standard. Otherwise one will find Himself subject the morals standards of popular culture to define absurdities and atrocities for him.

-Drich0150

 

[razzelflabben]

Excuse a little levity but have you ever stopped to wonder at the competence, power or ethics of a god behaving in this manner? For all its vicissitudes, I think the greek pantheon did a better job than this. While these tribes were bumbling about the desert preparing places for the slaughter of innocents, most other civilisations prior to and concurrent with the Jewish tribes were doing an equal or better job of managing their laws and continued to advance unaided by the Jewish god.

like those civilizations that rolled live babies down a shoot into a fire pit to please their gods? You mean like them? Wow, much more humane...and just for the record, don't forget that God gave up on the Jews so to speak and "gave them over to their own evil desires" IOW's not all of the history of the JEws is the direct result of God, much of it is their own doing. I think a lot of people forget this when they try to apply their own judgments on God.

So why not slavery today, so long as you act nicely to the slaves? What changed and why?

Well, again, we still have slavery today, so I'm not sure what your question is, but societies change, they are living things, thus cultureal changes, economic changes, governmental changes, etc. all effect the socially acceptables of the time. So what changed? Economics, government, populous, etc etc etc.

 

[razzelflabben]

You will have noted within your own post that I did not say god was evil. I asked questions about consistency of information in the bible and where one might determine that any one precept be followed rather than another.

note my response is that precept upon precept is how we all learn...there was more to the discussion, but we'll cut to the chase since most of what I say is overlooked anyway..

My understanding of your answer, including the slavery example, is that god does nothing faster than people do.

an idea I specified in my response was not accurate, so why assume it is when I specifically said it was not. Precept upon precept, line upon line doesn't necessarily mean God changes, it means we change, we change our thinking, our purpose, our plans, our understanding, our knowledge. As we grow in life, so do our ideas, we understand things differently when we are children than we do when we are adults. Even I Cor 13 talks (I think that is the verse) about seeing things dimly for now. Percept upon precept isn't about what God provides, but rather about how we learn.

Occam's Razor disposes of god in that example, because god adds a stone cold zero to the explanation or to serve toward resolving the next issue that arises, whatever it may be.

not sure why you want to confuse what I said with Occam's Razor, but okay...

If you think god is love, it is not supported by the testaments,

absolutely it is, there are two places that most people fail to understand when it comes to the idea of God is love...1. what real love, biblical love is..and I assure you that if you dig into the topic you will be both amazed and enlightened by what you find. and 2. God's purpose for the decisions He made/makes take slavery for example, as I told you before, God's commands were about protecting the slave, giving the slave value, as opposed to the people of the day and their ideas, concepts, laws about slaves. God is temporing the law for the purpose of providing for and protecting the slave. In fact, let's take it one step further, the slave was considered the least among all human beings, and yet in the NT we see Christ say, the last shall be first and the first shall be last...it's the idea of recipricals. God doesn't see status as the evil, but rather the love value, or lack thereof that is the evil. This concept is seem from the OT law right through to the NT. God is love is a standard by which the entire bible revolves and it is an intact idea. In fact, I am still waiting for one person who can present something that questions God's love. But of course, I have and am studying what Love means and so that in and of itself makes it harder for you to do. The law, the commands, all of them were about love, and that is obvious when you find out what love is and why God said what HE did.

by the ten commandments (except holy vanity) nor by historical christianity. To be loved by an imaginary friend certainly resolves issues in some respects but it adds nothing to the total lack of evidence for any of the tens of thousands of gods posited by people.

I'm not even sure what that is suppose to mean....so I best not guess, trying to apply meaning to what I don't understand gets me into trouble, of course asking for clarification gets me into trouble too, so...

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Where did I say I took a cursory glance? Feel free to start a separate thread on how sensible is your linked essay, and invite analysis. See how it fares.

The way you talked about it made it sound like you hadn't read it.

Studies of people from different cultures show that they come to highly consistent ethical decisions. Whether they have exposure to the biblical commandments or not makes no difference. They are sensibly evolved human decisions.

I didn't claim people can only act morally with biblical commandments.

God says nothing explicit about the obvious problems in the "god-breathed" work because god is not there to say anything. They are a bunch of old tribal stories mined for significance by people with an imaginary friend.

Failing to answer my question and just asserting your view, I see.

I asked questions about consistency of information in the bible and where one might determine that any one precept be followed rather than another. My understanding of your answer, including the slavery example, is that god does nothing faster than people do.

OT and NT Slavery is different from New World Slavery. The former was moral during its time. The latter wasn't.

To be loved by an imaginary friend certainly resolves issues in some respects but it adds nothing to the total lack of evidence for any of the tens of thousands of gods posited by people.

Sorry, but the Bible teaches that you should be a Christian because of evidence.

Those who believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.

Good thing the Bible, properly interpreted, doesn't teach absurdities. Those who commit atrocities are led astray by their absurd interpretations.