The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

God put Adam and Eve here and gave them the best protection that he could give them, which was his word:

Glad to see you don't prescribe to any of that omni-silly stuff.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. - Matthew 24:35

[Whateverist]

So if you don't think God is literally all power, do you think he actually made everything out of nothing? Or was he more like an advanced alien race, working with the materials he found all around him?

[Huggy Bear]

So if you don't think God is literally all power, do you think he actually made everything out of nothing?  Or was he more like an advanced alien race, working with the materials he found all around him?

What do mean by "So if you don't think God is literally all power"? God IS his Word and the Word IS God...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

That makes the Word all powerful.

Everything that was made was created by the Word...

---

*edit*

While we're on that subject, I should address Robvalue's nonsense..

But sadly he doesn't know what that is, or what abiogenesis is. Or what anyone believes about it.

A = none, bio = life, Genesis = beginning.

Abiogenesis posits that life began from non life, that is all you need to know. Either you accept it or you don't...

Funny how quickly y'all are back peddling off your positions of abiogenisis (don't have me go back and pull up quotes). Y'all want me to provide DNA samples from the 'serpent' in order to prove what i'm saying, yet according to science, the way our cells work would make abiogenesis impossible, so science theorize that cells must have been different...

Why don't you guys require any samples of those?

hypocrites...

in the broadest possible sense, "creation" is a form of abiogenesis. It's the transition of non-life into life. "Poof, magic!" is one method. It's just not particularly well supported by evidence or reality.

-while simultaneously convincing themselves that they don't, in fact, "believe in abiogenesis"......for whatever reason.    

It's almost like a compulsion to disagree with anything the other guy™ says, no thought required...even if you happen to -actually- agree.....

Yet another mystery of faith, I suppose.

we do NOT believe that life arose from non-life. God IS the source of all life,

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: - John 14:6


So if God is life, and life came from God, how is it abiogenesis?

[Pat Mustard]

It's not a red herring if you consider nation states like ISIS. It is true individuals when given the chance would set the world ablaze and watch it burn... but the same is true with nations. take a step back if you can acknoweledge this and apply it to nations like Nazi germany, Or the Islamic STATE.

And I wonder why it is that nation states like ISIS are happy to set the world ablaze, Drich?  Might it have something to do with religious extremism?  Might it have something to do with blindly following the instructions of a thousand-year-old book that oppresses those who don't fall into the "IN" crowd, and insists people die and kill for their God like mindless drones?  'Do as I say and don't think too much about it.'  Boy, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?  But the hypocrisy in your implication is that killing and subjugation in the name of Allah makes people "murderous monsters," but killing and subjugation in the name of Yahweh is righteous, because that's just the way it is.  Cuz God says so.  Of course people like you -I mean- "them" must be stopped.  

Not all 'men are crated equal.' Do you really think you can take an entire race of people living in a 'modern' bronze age and fast forward them to the line of thought and thinkng, a philosphy that took literally thousands of years to develop from the time these people are currently living in?

Okay, so you admit that some degree of idealistic moral evolution is necessary for humans to minimize violence against each other, and co-exist at least semi-peacefully with one another.  Good.  I'm going to remember that for later in your response when you contradict yourself in order to justify yahweh's violent and murderous temperament.

So if the answer is no, (and it is) and these people are hell bent on killing everyone like you, or enslaving you, I want you to honestly take the time and give me 5 no 3 realistic alternatives that is consistent with your every life is precious and everyone deserves to be free mentality, and list out how to deal with these murderous monsters.

Any "free" person can forfeit their right to live freely; that is why most civilized societies have laws and legal punishments in place to protect people.  That's why most civilized societies have some sense of cultural, moral goals which serve to protect the innocent, and minimize violence.  That doesn't mean we aren't all born as beings with an inherent right to the opportunity for autonomous life.  Some people toss that right away themselves.  Others are born into cultures where they, sadly, were never afforded that right to begin with, but doesn't mean they never deserved it in the first place.  Thanks for pitching straw at me, though.  I mean, are you seriously implying that I think terrorists should roam the earth free?  Are you seriously asking me to put forth my ultimate strategy for solving world-wide terrorism?  You grossly oversimplify a deeply complex issue so that you can turn around and tell people they're naive for caring about human rights.  In other words, you're being willfully manipulative in order to detract from my point.  But you know that already.  [emoji6]

But you are only talking about how the US views or see people. God never said all people were equal. He said we all have roles to play and each one is different. The self absorbed are the ones who put value on said roles thus mandating a need for the sense of equality. or the elimination of said roles.

Here it is again.  It's okay to use violence and subjugation to keep people in their place, so long as it's in the name of Yahweh and not any other God.  Any non-Christian behaving in the exact same way is a murderous monster living in a "modern Bronze Age" that hasn't caught up yet.  There's that contradiction I have been waiting for.  Oh, the cognitive dissonance is palpable!  [emoji57]

Don't own people.  That's crap, and if you were honest you could admit to that... Or would you allow you child to go with someone who promised them a trip to disney world? Your authority to deny your child's decision to go with a stranger to 'disney' COMES from a place of ownership even if you do not like that word.  It is ok to own our children even if it is not ok to phrase it that way. So then what other forms of 'ownership' are accepting of minus the phrasing?

Wow.  I mean, wow.  Conflating parenthood with being a slave owner?  Did you honestly think that was sneaky, Drich?  So, either your arguing dishonestly, or you actually view your children as your slaves, which is wholly terrifying.   Yes...parents have full authority over their children because, ya know, their CHILDREN, and not physically or developmentally capable of keeping themselves...ya know...alive.  [emoji849]  

If you want to speak on a national level I'd say the government 'owns' those on government assistance. Is that not ok? Vote for this party and we will give you more/we will include you in our giveaways.. Or vote for the other party and they will take away your health care, and send you back to your own country... Do what we say or we will cut your livelihood.. That is ownership, if you roll in government housing, now there is nothing the individual cant be made to do, less he is willing to be clad in chains and raped in prison.

More poorly disguised conflation and oversimplification of complex sociopolitical issues entirely separate from points being made in the OP about the nature your all-powerful God.  (Just to play along though: I'm pregnant and my husband works for himself.  Because of this, I qualify for Medicaid, and he qualifies for a pretty significant tax break on his health insurance.  Without it, our premiums would be almost undoable.  You're right!  That is EXACTLY like being an African American slave in the south!  Wow.  I never knew the slaves and I had so much in common!  Thanks for pointing that out to me, Drich!  I shall find this new shared experience quite useful going forward.  [emoji57])

You seem awfully desperate to water down human beings so that they will fit into your binary world view.  I suppose that's easier than considering you might be wrong about something, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o70G8oZBkHU

What people like you fail to understand is there is the philosophy in which you live, then there is the rest of the world. THE VAST Majority of the rest of the world does not hold to your hippy system of values. Because of this they have to be met on equal terms. If you hide your war efforts behind women and children they become targets. simple as that.

This scene depicted an actual event according to chris kyle in his book. That happened just a few years ago. Meaning women and children are currently being used to fight us. Now imagine an unrefined (no allah to put the brakes on the few times he does) That is what the Jews faced 4000 years ago, but not across an ocean, but just miles down the road. (A more savage version of the people we are currently facing, and a whole heck of a lot closer) So then why would they be commanded to hold to your current standard of douche bag hippy morality when the country you live in today does not?

Yes, I saw the movie.  And I'll give you this one by saying that in situations like the scene depicted above, I do believe Kyle's actions were necessary in that moment.  But, you've taken it out of the context of the rest of the movie which focused heavily on how deeply disturbed Kyle became after having to repeatedly commit such horrific acts of violence.  Just because it had to happen doesn't make it not fucked up.  Things get truly scary when people (like you) stop feeling disturbed by it, or accept it as the status quo.  

Again women, like men played a role

Lol. Yeah, women were dealt the Role of the Used and Abused, and we should just accept these various role cards God dealt us, right?  I bet you feel pretty comfortable proselytizing on that, being a MAN and all.  [emoji849]

What you failed again to understand in that culture a wife had far more control over the man and the house hold than you seem to give credit to. Telling a man who wanted 'free sex/rape' that he was going to have to marry/buy/pay or be enslaved or sold into slavery to pay for a woman he wanted a few mins of fun with was the ultimate deterrent. nothing like paying with 7 years of your life for something you only got to use once maybe for a few mins.. You kinda missed the whole point of that law.

Um, no.  YOU miss the point that the law fails to acknowledge the woman as a victim, because she is not considered a full person in the eyes of your god's moral law.  The law punishes the rapist for victimizing the woman's father by corrupting his merchandise.  In what twisted way do you see a woman as being "in control" when she is forced to live with the man who raped her, and most likely will continue to be raped for the rest of her life?  I mean...what?!  It's okay though, God dealt you the good role, and if He says it's totally morally cool, why should you care?  

"Never kill children as punishment for anything."  That's just stupid. What if you Really don't want them right now? what if you are planning to be a doctor and only have one more year and then.. but instead you got pregnant.. which would ruin your life plan?!?!? I guess it's ok then huh?? Just not when they threaten a society's way of life.

Oh, I think you forgot one:  Testing the faithfulness of your wife, right?  That one came from YOUR book, remember?  [emoji45]  Because, better for an unborn baby to die than for a precious man's pride to suffer wondering if he's been cuckolded by his shrew of a wife.  Also, you have no idea where I personally stand on abortion, but thanks for broad brushing me into your "hippy douchebag" stereotype.  Appreciate it.  

Maybe go back a little further in your reading.. The land belonged to Abraham and his son Isaac and g-son Jacob and his families first.

Well, no, it didn't belong to them at all in that they did not possess or even earn it.  God, like the bullying tyrant he is, just said, 'I like you guys best so I'm giving it you no matter what it takes or how many people who already live there have to die.'  It was completely ARBITRARY.  I mean, God in all his omniscience must have foreseen that other people would be inhabiting these lands, but rather than teach his people how to fucking share, or blink into existence a new piece of special land they could have, he just went ahead and told them to slaughter everyone and take it for themselves.  But that's okay with you because...it's Yahweh, and Yahweh is the REAL God, and what he says goes!  

IF you are not currently standing against society now, that means you have been conditioned/indoctrinated to accept society warts and all, which potentially means you being a lemming can be programmed to accept anything if the training starts when your did.

So...if I'm not a tireless activist against everything that bothers me about my modern society, than I'm a mindless, programmable robot?  Um, holy false dichotomy, lol.

then if you were born in 1920's Germany you would be marching jews into ovens if directed to do so. It does not take an evil person to do that, it just takes someone willing to believe they are the 'good guy' while they are doing it. That is the core message of my last big morality thread. Without God being a foundation point of out 'morality' we are subject to society's whims or wishes of society, and again if you do not buck the current system (because their is indeed much evil in it) you would not buck Hitler's Germany if you were brought up under that system of propaganda and indoctrination.

Maybe I would have marched Jews into the oven; society is a powerful force.  But maybe not.  You need to make up your mind about which choice in your false dichotomy you think is correct.  Are ALL people brainwashed by society and hence incapable of bucking the system, or can some people think for themselves and fight back?  It can't be both, according to you, so which is it?  

But more to my original point: if we are to be taking lessons from your bible, why didn't we just leave nazi Germany alone?  The major theme throughout the entire OT is, "we are the elite, best people of ALL the people, and all the lessers are getting taken down one way or the other."  Not a whole lot different from Hitler's world view, is it?  And while we're at it, considering god's laxidasical feelings toward slavery, why did the US even bother with that pesky civil war?  I mean, if you want to talk about your "pop morality," I guess we moved in a wrong and unrighteous direction by abolishing slavery in the U.S., yeah?  

All of these atrocities fall perfectly well within your God's moral compass, so why the hell do people fight back, Drich?  

But again without God how do we know what is good? AND if you mind is not blown yet, ask yourself if God IS good and you see Him as evil, then is it God who is really evil? Why? because pop morality/hippy douche bag moral logic says so? God is/was also evil to the real woman and boy Chris Kyle had to shoot to save those marines. Meaning are you currently living a 'moral code' that makes you a 'good guy' like the nazi jew/death chamber gaurds were 'good guys?'

This is so twisted I don't even know where to begin.  Why do you assume that I'd ever categorize having to kill people in warfare as a "good" thing?  What is it with you objectifying and caricaturing human beings (I wonder where you got that from?  Oh yeah, the Israelites were a pretty good example of a one-dimensional hive mind) so that you can shove us all to one or the other side of your binary worldview?Because, it's the only way you can make your oversimplified argument work.  

Unfortunately, it's not an accurate depiction of humans, or the world.  Despite your twisted perspective, people are capable of thinking for themselves.  People are capable of reeling against violent, oppressive, tyrannical cultures including your precious yahweh's.  But the long and short of it is that your good god could have prevented it ALL, being omnipotent/omniscient.  But...nah.  Where's the fun in that, right?  [emoji6]

A 1. Geese how does a guy expect to be married if not for raping the woman you've been stalking, and then as I'm sure you would imagine, if she had to be raped the first time.. (It's not like I get better looking with age.)

I'm going to assume by the sarcasm your answer is no.  Why not?  Don't give me more cultural conditioning BS, because up until the 70's 'martial privilege' was considered a legitimate legal defense against rape accusations.  And since your God obviously wouldn't give a crap about it...why should you?  Dare I suggest evolutionarily driven feelings of empathy toward another human being that were neither arbitrarily commanded to you by Yahweh nor the result of societal brainwashing?  Something smack-dab in the middle of your false dichotomy, perhaps?

A 2. again it would depend on soceity I like you (because there would be no hang up here with God) would follow societal rules.

Not everyone blindly follows societal rules; some people fight against them as you said yourself.  Can you pick a position and stick with it?

Oh, and it depends on the car. I know not every girl will bring a porche or BMW M7, but dude better not show up with a broken down dump truck.

Did you even bother to consider the scenario, or are you going to avoid answering honestly by tossing snark back at me?  No biological, paternal instinct to protect your young and vulnerable female offspring, and no God who gives a crap either, huh?  Boy, your kids are lucky they live in the 21st century.

Again it depends on soceity. if no then no. if yes, I'd probably beat them if grounding/time out did not work first.

Again, your false dichotomy fails.  Not everyone blindly owned and beat slaves, otherwise nothing would have ever changed in this country.  People fought back, and it was certainly NOT in the name of yaweh's morals considering his casual sanctioning of human ownership.  So, where do those people fit into your binary world view?

Well here there's the whole "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house wife or 'back yard.' however I am now and shall ever be willing to vote in someone willing to fight/take land for cheap oil.  oh, and democracy or whatever it is we are selling. (unless the majority are IS Muslims.)

Except that God didn't throw that little gem of a commandment in until AFTER the Jews took everything that lay in front of them.  How convenient, eh?  We'll call coveting and stealing "wrong" once we get everything we want.  Just another example of your God making shit up as he goes along with zero justification for any of it.

If i were you/no god then I would be a soulless hippy douche bag in this society hypocritically spreading my 'morality' all over the place, then going back on it when ever it suited me.
If I were born in Nazi Germany with no God I'd march jews into ovens. If I were born under the ISIS god I fly planes into buildings. Again, I don't pretend to be able to rise above, nor can I pull myself up by my moral boot straps, because I understand that without God ALL MORALITY COMES FROM SOCIETY AND POP CULTURE!!!

But this is the sum and total of my point, Drich.  You're saying people need god's morals because society's morals are malleable, but the problem is that god's morals are ARBITRARY.  Malleable morals are a luxury we are afforded as humans because we can always improve using reason and empathy (thanks evolutionary biology!)

God offers NO reasons for his immutable, barbaric moral code, and every shot you took at justifying them involved logical fallacies, oversimplification, and hypocrisy to make sense.

I was one of the elect and was born in a place where the Knowledge of God was easily accessible.  I found Him right where He said he'd be and I follow his precepts first and buck society's morality where ever they cross paths.

And what the hell kind of universe-creating, all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God, who wants every being in existence to know the depth and power of his love and be saved, would  create an entire earth full of people but only make his word accessible to one elect group of people in one elite geographic location?  


Talk. about. sick.  

Just reading through the thread and I noticed something Drich said in your above reply to him. He said:

something you only got to use once maybe for a few mins

in reference to the hebraic rule that if a man rapes a virgin he must pay a small fine to her father and she must marry her rapist.

This line is very illuminating as to Drich's mentality. He doesn't see women as people but as objects to be owned, used and then tossed away.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Funny how quickly y'all are back peddling off your positions of abiogenisis (don't have me go back and pull up quotes). Y'all want me to provide DNA samples from the 'serpent' in order to prove what i'm saying, yet according to science, the way our cells work would make abiogenesis impossible, so science theorize that cells must have been different...

You should perhaps look up the concept of scaffolding, if your busy schedule allows for the time.

Me, I don't want DNA samples from your, uh, serpent -- I want a hypothesis that at least makes sense. Yours doesn't.

Color me unimpressed.

[Pat Mustard]

Regarding the OP, there's one crucial point both sides of the debate tend to neglect: while, in the Old Testament days, an alarming number of offenses were indeed considered punishable by death, death penalty cases then were on such stringent standards that anyone being executed was an extremely rare occurrence.

One crucial part involved witnesses. There needed to be witnesses to the crime in order for execution to happen. But not just any witnesses would do. They needed to fulfill these criteria:

• They both had to be male, employed, familiar with the law, and law-abiding.
  
• Before the crime was committed, they both had to inform the defendant clearly and succinctly that, if they did whatever they were on trial for, they would risk the death penalty, and had to be told something along the lines of "what I'm doing is a capital offense, I know it's a capital offense, but I'm gonna do it anyway." This had to be done within seconds of the act in question being committed.
  
• Neither of them could be related to each other or the accused.
  

Note, I'm sure if I were to write a story about such a scenario, it would threaten willing suspension of disbelief, but then there's the trial:

• A jury of at least 23 judges had to cross-examine both of the witnesses, and if any of the evidence one person gave contradicted the other, even on something as minor as someone's eye color, it was thrown out.
  
• A majority of at least 13/23 had to be in favor of conviction, but, if they have a unanimous verdict in favor of execution, well, let's just let this quote from the Talmud explain it: "If the Sanhedrin unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is acquitted. Why? — Because we have learned by tradition that sentence must be postponed till the morrow in hope of finding new points in favour of the defence"
  

In the end, if a court executed two people over a span of 70 years, people were more likely to consider something wrong with the court than anything else.

More information can be found in the Talmud, specifically the Sanhedrin Tractate. This can be extremely difficult going, but it's probably worth it.

Also, for an illustration of this in action, see the story of Susannah and the Elders in Daniel (Chapter 13, Apocrypha).

Of course, when you hear even of Christians who talk about Homosexuality should be punishable by death in accordance with Levitical law, do you really expect them to actually go through this system?

Actually, the stuff you speak of has no basis in the jewish holy books. The strictures put in place by jewish scholars were as a result of the law being so draconian and nonsensical that people were being killed for miniscule infractions or under deliberately false pretences, and likely was causing severe disruption to jewish society. The stricuters were put in place to ameliorate the worst excesses of the tou shalt nots put into the mouth of yhwh by the scholars' ancestors.

You can see the exact same process play out again with the hadiths and fatwas which make up sharia law in islam. Both sets of rulings modify earlier rules, often ascribed as the inerrant word of god, to fit better into the society and culture the religion exists in.

[LadyForCamus]

God created everyone knowing full well the outcome (hence why the "lamb" was slain before the foundation of the world), That doesn't mean the outcome was according to his will. God already knew us, because we were part of him (just as Eve was taken from Adam's side, Jesus also has a wound in his side, representing the we are his bride and part of his body), but he desired to have fellowship with us on equal terms, hence why he made us in his own image, and gave us our OWN will.

All you did here is restate the original contradiction using different words, and some flowery biblical rhetoric. If God had a "will" or "desire" for us to be a certain way (fellows with him on equal terms) but knew inherently (as well as he knew himself) that we couldn't possibly live up to his ideal, than his power is limited because he failed to make us what he wished for us, and we bear NO burden of responsibility for his failure. If I beat my cat because he just won't learn to sing the pledge of allegiance, is it his fault? Is this "just" of me? [emoji848]

God put Adam and Eve here and gave them the best protection that he could give them, which was his word:

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

As long as they stayed with the word they were fine, Adam could not be deceived but Eve being a 'part' of Adam meant she was a byproduct, she was not part of the original creation, therefore was susceptible to being deceived. Jesus was also tempted of the devil, but he stayed behind the Word replying: "It is written..." to every tactic the devil had, proving that the word is the best protection one can have.

See my response above.

While it is true God knew we were going to mess up, he loved us so much that he provided a way back before the world was ever created (remember when I said the the "lamb" was slain before the foundation of the world?). So you have every opportunity to change and live according to the will of God, but nooo, you CHOOSE to live according to your own will.

Again...we didn't mess up. We behaved exactly according to our nature; the nature that God knew before-hand; knew as well as he knew himself, according to you. We shouldn't need any "way back". It's not humanity's fault that god's pet project went south.

Even in the days of Noah he provided a way out, which was the Ark, anyone that wanted to escape could just get in. Jesus Christ is OUR ark, just get in...

Omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent. You've got to make a choice here, because you don't (logically) get all three.

[LadyForCamus]

Just reading through the thread and I noticed something Drich said in your above reply to him. He said:

something you only got to use once maybe for a few mins

in reference to the hebraic rule that if a man rapes a virgin he must pay a small fine to her father and she must marry her rapist.

This line is very illuminating as to Drich's mentality. He doesn't see women as people but as objects to be owned, used and then tossed away.

Wow, I never even caught that. He's quite a sicko- I feel bad for his family. That comment is reminiscent of the 'Stafford rapist's' father's comment about his son suffering for "20 minutes of action." Just completely dehumanizing the actual victim. ☹️

[LadyForCamus]

Funny how quickly y'all are back peddling off your positions of abiogenisis (don't have me go back and pull up quotes). Y'all want me to provide DNA samples from the 'serpent' in order to prove what i'm saying, yet according to science, the way our cells work would make abiogenesis impossible, so science theorize that cells must have been different...

Why don't you guys require any samples of those?

hypocrites...

Funny how you continue with this straw-man nonsense about abiogenesis. No one here made any positive assertions regarding abiogenesis, Huggy.

Just as "I am not convinced that gods exist" isn't equivalent to "no gods exist", "I don't reject abiogenesis" is not equivalent to "abiogenesis happened." Do you understand?

"I don't know exactly how life on earth came to be. but I am NOT convinced your positive assertion that the Christian God of the bible did it," is a perfectly rational, reasonable and logical position to hold. It's the default position, in fact. YOU are the one deviating from the default position, therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

[LadyForCamus]

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/defining-life/

I thought this was a neat article regarding how scientists define "life". We humans (or at least laymen like me [emoji39]) tend to interpret life/abiogenesis as an "off to on" binary concept, but it seems more scientifically accurate to consider it as a gradient, or on a spectrum. For me, thinking of life within the context of this framework makes the idea of abiogenesis on planet earth far less intimidating and incomprehensible.

Note (to Huggy): I am NOT citing this article, or putting it forward as any kind of evidence for anything. I just find it thought-provoking. It probably belongs in the "science" section but all this abiogenesis talk reminded me of it.