(June 19, 2015 at 2:18 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I don't think I have. Reread my post, quoted above. The one where you conveniently edited out the word that makes all the difference. The "idea" that it would be okay for Onan to be put to death by your god has real meaning in that society, regardless of what you are willing to admit. If your god thought this would be a good way to communicate to that society, you need to come up with what has changed from then until now that has nothing to do with society's mores.
ETA: The bolded is a pretty damning statement to your arguments... you should really consider the impact of that statement in light of your idea that morality hasn't changed.
I honestly have no clue what you mean about editing out the word "idea" lol.
I don't remember editing, but if I did it was to better explain what I meant. It would not be ok to kill Onan. Even if they thought it would be.
What I was saying was to consider the different way in which people wrote and talked back then. They wrote "God killed Onan." Does this mean God actually killed Onan? Does this mean that Onan even existed? In my opinion, no. This means that allegory was very popular back then and they were telling a parable to convey a particular message. That message being, it is immoral to behave in the way this character did. You have to put yourself back in their time to understand why they wrote things the way they did, and that's what I was telling Rhythm.
It's also important to keep in mind that God did not write the OT. If He did, we would claim the bible and the OT as perfect, but we don't. We do not claim the bible as infallible. The bible is about God, but it is written through the filter of man.
It is not perfect. So to address your point, God did not necessarily think this was a good way to communicate with that society. He did not write it. That society thought this was a good way to communicate with that society. They were the ones who wrote it in accordance to their imperfect perception of God.
I don't understand why my bolded quote is so damaging. Can you clarify?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
