DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 22, 2014, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I ask also if this was the action of a good being?
Exodus 11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight
will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the
first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto
the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and
all the firstborn of beasts.
I say yes.
#Post#: 569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 23, 2014, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your definition of the word "good" and mine clearly differ.
Killing babies is not good - and the end does not justify the
means.
Regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 23, 2014, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> Your definition of the word "good" and mine clearly differ.
>
> Killing babies is not good - and the end does not justify the
means.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike HM
>
--- End Quote ---
Should I go on with other things in the Bible that you may find
offensive, like Joshua killing everyone except Rahab and her
relatives? How about the babies in Sodom?
I would say Ms. Sims' research doesn't do much since it leaves
so many other similar things standing. Why bother then, trying
to explain that one passage by grammar?
I'd also say sometimes killing babies was the precisely right
thing to do. Jesus never said that himself; but he stood by
the Torah, even saying all the Torah had something to do with
love -- charity, not lovingkindness.
Now by love, I do not mean that oozing feel-good sort of thing.
That's usually a "good" thing, but sometimes it's not.
Sometimes it's even wicked.
Incest is said to be "lovingkindness" in the Bible. Surely it
is. Brothers and sisters "love" each other, right? Of course
incest is a form of lovingkindness. That concept is so foreign
to most Westerners, most Bibles refuse to translate it right.
Leviticus 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his
father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her
nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing
<lovingkindness> and they shall be cut off in the sight of their
people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear
his iniquity.
Your problem is that Jesus said all the Torah and the Prophets
had something to do with Love. It can't be explained by
semantics. Sometimes true Love is tough. If you give it some
thought, perhaps you may find out why killing babies could be
the right thing to do -- you do know that the first-born in
Egypt would have been priests to their families? Maybe, just
maybe, the Bible is right about this and God is right.
Rejecting an idea out of emotional reaction may mean you miss
something. Sometimes we can err by trying to be "too kind."
Sometimes one has to take a knife and cut away living flesh to
save a life. Removing a gangrenous limb looks barbaric, and
it's unfortunate; but the alternative is worse. Mankind as a
whole is rather like that too.
#Post#: 571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 23, 2014, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Danger Mouse link ---
>
> I would say Ms. Sims' research doesn't do much since it leaves
so many other similar things standing. Why bother then, trying
to explain that one passage by grammar?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
It was never intended to answer all difficult questions. But is
does help with that one difficult passage and some others. As
she mentioned in the abstract.
You are trying to make more of it that it actually is. It does
not, and does not try to answer the passages that you are
suggesting it does.
[/quote]
The John 9 passage, in the traditional understanding did not in
my view paint a picture of a good God, unless you redefine the
word good or come up use some mental games like God foreknew the
man and the blind man agreed.
With the simple re-write put forward in her thesis, Ms Sim, has
shown that there is no need to redine the word good, nor is
there need to take part in mental gymnastics to come up with a
justification.
Sure it doesn't answer everything. But it does a good job on
John 9.
I am convinced by it.
I now wonder how many of the difficult passages (difficult
according to the traditional view and translation) can be made
less difficult with modern knowledge and techniques of
translation.
I know I've found a few, or been shown a few. And, for me at
least, it isn't just academic, my relationship with Him is
enhanced. Which is the important bit in all this.
Regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 579--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 23, 2014, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> It was never intended to answer all difficult questions. But
is does help with that one difficult passage and some others. As
she mentioned in the abstract.
>
> You are trying to make more of it that it actually is. It
does not, and does not try to answer the passages that you are
suggesting it does.
--- End Quote ---
My method of trying to understand a particular passage is to
gather similar passages to try to find a common thread. I
don't find trying this piecemeal method of much use.
--- Quote ---
> The John 9 passage, in the traditional understanding did not
in my view paint a picture of a good God, unless you redefine
the word good or come up use some mental games like God foreknew
the man and the blind man agreed.
--- End Quote ---
I take exception to your phrase "mental games" as irrelevant. I
could say you and Ms. Sims are playing mental games and playing
with words. I also find it interesting that you dismiss my
ideas so quickly without even considering them.
--- Quote ---
> With the simple re-write put forward in her thesis, Ms Sim,
has shown that there is no need to redine the word good, nor is
there need to take part in mental gymnastics to come up with a
justification.
>
> Sure it doesn't answer everything. But it does a good job on
John 9.
--- End Quote ---
I await an explanation then of the Deuteronomy passage. You
appear to be trying to buy time.
--- Quote ---
> I am convinced by it.
>
> I now wonder how many of the difficult passages (difficult
according to the traditional view and translation) can be made
less difficult with modern knowledge and techniques of
translation.
--- End Quote ---
One has to wonder why the Bible would be written in such a way.
Do you think it was written so people would not, could not,
understand it, before these new linguistic discoveries? While
I am all in favor of scholarship, I do not think this is a
feasible explanation. It looks more like grasping at straws.
--- Quote ---
> I know I've found a few, or been shown a few. And, for me at
least, it isn't just academic, my relationship with Him is
enhanced. Which is the important bit in all this.
--- End Quote ---
I'm still waiting for explanations about the passage from
Deuteronomy and about the death of the first born in Egypt.
Then there are the children in Sodom who were killed and the
children in the Flood. What about Job's children? He prayed
and sacrificed for them; and they all died!
If you have no explanation for these things, say so.
#Post#: 584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 24, 2014, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't have full explanations for everything, you ask no. Bust
that doesn't mean the explanation I do have are without merit.
I am on a journey, I still have lots to figure out.
Traditional views which portray God as being bad, like John 9,
are hard to figure out because, most people writing about it
write the traditional view.
There are still churches where women are expected to cover their
heads even though we now know what the symbolism of
covered/uncovered heads was in Corinth when the instructions
were written.
Not all of the Bible is plain and obvious and poor translation
and poor cultural understanding has not helped.
If you'd like to discus deutronomy etc - maybe a different
thread would be most appropriate.
Kind regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 24, 2014, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> I don't have full explanations for everything, you ask no.
Bust that doesn't mean the explanation I do have are without
merit. I am on a journey, I still have lots to figure out.
Traditional views which portray God as being bad, like John 9,
are hard to figure out because, most people writing about it
write the traditional view.
--- End Quote ---
It strikes me as odd if you lack explanations that you were so
fast to tell me I was wrong.
--- Quote ---
> There are still churches where women are expected to cover
their heads even though we now know what the symbolism of
covered/uncovered heads was in Corinth when the instructions
were written.
--- End Quote ---
I don't know where you're getting your information; but this is
nonsense. Orthodox Jewish women still cover their heads. The
only men who see their hair, as a rule, are their husbands.
If you think you're seeing hair, odds are you're seeing a wig.
--- Quote ---
> Not all of the Bible is plain and obvious and poor translation
and poor cultural understanding has not helped.
>
> If you'd like to discus deutronomy etc - maybe a different
thread would be most appropriate.
--- End Quote ---
What is there to discuss? You have no explanation and you have
said you're not interested in my ideas. That leaves us nothing
to talk about; and that is fine with me.
#Post#: 620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: January 5, 2015, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Danger Mouse link ---
>
> I don't know where you're getting your information; but this
is nonsense. Orthodox Jewish women still cover their heads. The
only men who see their hair, as a rule, are their husbands.
If you think you're seeing hair, odds are you're seeing a wig.
>
--- End Quote ---
I was talking about Christian women in church and a specific
situation in Corinth which Paul addressed.
#Post#: 622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 5, 2015, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> I was talking about Christian women in church and a specific
situation in Corinth which Paul addressed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, and I am telling you Paul was talking about a practice then
that is still common among Orthodox Jews. Your original
statement about this seemed to be criticizing Christian churches
which still follow the practice; and you also seemed to take a
superior attitude as if "we now know" what ignorant people
don't. Yet you explained nothing.
--- Quote ---
> There are still churches where women are expected to cover
their heads even though we now know what the symbolism of
covered/uncovered heads was in Corinth when the instructions
were written.
--- End Quote ---
I tell you it is more than mere symbolism. It was only recently
that Catholic churches stopped requiring women to have covered
heads; and the Orthodox Church still do. I'll admit both
churches have strayed in their doctrines here and there; but in
the matter of practices, this covering of heads remained the
same for centuries the way it has with the Orthodox Jews with
Catholics only recently allowing innovation.
Paul is quite right too about the dangers of women praying with
their heads uncovered. It is a problem in some Christian
churches too where women want to teach or lead while lacking the
proper spiritual covering. They are wide open for deception by
demons. I could point out a few cases of such women I've run
into online at Christian forums; and the problems they create
are predictable. Then there are the public cases too like God
TV with its recent scandal. The "prophet wife" is delusional,
of course. From Telegraph
HTML http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11153949/God-TV-in-turmoil-as-tearful-TV-preacher-admits-split-with-husband.html:
A Christian evangelical TV network based in Jerusalem and
Plymouth is in turmoil after the wife of the founder revealed he
had run off with another woman under the influence of “the
devil”.
God TV has set a goal of reaching “one billion” souls but the
troubles of the couple that founded the channel, Rory and Wendy
Alec has sent shock waves through the ranks of their followers.
Thousands are believed to tuned in to a special broadcast from
Jerusalem in which Wendy revealed that her husband was living on
a farm in South Africa with a jazz musician.
She was never under the spiritual covering or protection of her
husband. It does her no good to say her husband was under the
influence of the devil when she is.
#Post#: 625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: January 5, 2015, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps unsurprisingly. I have a different view on these things
than you.
What I was referring to about head covering is the practice in
Corinth at that time for there to be sexual relations after
meetings. A woman would leave her head uncovered if she was
"available" later.
So Paul's instruction that women in corinth should cover their
heads was not to do with being under authority at all.
This historical context of the writing is well known and not
new, yet some churches still insist on it. Trad views are hard
to change, even when the source of them is known and can be seen
not justify the tradition.
its sad to hear of the alec and wendy split. i hope they both
find a place of grace and peace in the situation.
Mike HM
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page