Protestantism

» pink101 - A Pompous Ass

In response to General Comment posted by Brother_Jones:
.
You are a pompous ass.
.
I don't enjoy your little barbs.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - General Comment

In response to General Comment posted by Brother_Jones:

.
Would you like to address the TOPIC of this thread, Jones? It's about God and Children, not Pinky or you.

-- posted by Migisi

» HeadZenCards - Confrontation?

.
Hi Brian! In your first post, you seemed very anxious, almost frothing at the mouth, to CONFRONT those who dared think that the LORD GOD had no right to inspire his followers to kill infants and sucklings.
.
You admit that you would be "dishonest if I didn't find many of these passages troubling".
.
You admit being "troubled for many years". Then you want to know "how you'd like me to address these" troubles!
.
Some confrontation!
.
You play the pity card by misstating the time between the first response to your anxious invitation to confrontation and your eventual weak reply. Poor form.
.
You try to confuse the issue by demanding "NT references that are consistent with your position". This is irrelevant, unless you believe that Jesus came to FIGHT the LORD GOD. It then becomes YOUR BURDEN to prove that, not Migisi's burden to "see a distinction between the OT and NT".
.
You ignore, as is your right and your duty if you are to have any chance of successfully CONFRONTING me, my point that the number one complaint in this fictional story that has become an example for the way Christians are to be is the lesson in parenthood the supposed all-powerful LORD GOD gave by allowing the murder of his only son because he, as the creator of everything, couldn't figure out a way to save his creation from HIMSELF!
.
Your preferred tact: "By what objective moral standard do we determine that the killing of children and infants is wrong? Obviously, I support laws against the killing of infants and children (including the unborn), so I'm not calling the morality itself into question. But I would like an answer to my inquiry.
Upon what objective, compelling, authoritative basis do we as a society agree that murder is wrong - particularly the killing of innocent children?"
.
The objective moral standard we use to determine that the killing of children and infants is wrong is irrelevant.
.
We do not need the smoke screen of morality to know as HUMAN BEINGS, living a HUMAN LIFE, having HUMAN CHILDREN of our own and/or having been a HUMAN CHILD ourselves that killing infants and sucklings disqualifies you from serving as an example to humankind FOREVER.
.
Christians who try to defend what the LORD GOD is supposed to have done are no better than defenders of mass murders everywhere.
.
Charlie Manson, who, in his followers' eyes is God, is defended in this manner to this very day.
.
When a human being with influence over a few people one day demands that his followers murder infants and sucklings, would you argue that, well, that fellow does not call on his followers to murder children EVERY DAY, so, deep down, he's OK?
.
No, you would not. Why not confront the EXAMPLE your so-called "God" gave in the fiction that is the Bible?
.
Not only can't you confront my arguments here but you cannot confront your fictional LORD GOD without imaging yourself in ETERNAL TORMENT!
.
Unless, of course, Jesus came to fight the LORD GOD. If so, let us know what the score is, Brian.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Migisi - General comment

In response to General comment posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Hello Bri.
.
Do you have any NT references that are consistent with your position?
.
Does the God-willed death of his only child, Jesus, count? Jesus said he gave his life willingly. But if that was true, why did he beg his Father to save him from death (in Gesthemene)? Seems clear in John 14:31 - Jesus says ..."but the world must learn that I love the Father and that ~~I do EXACTLY what my Father has commanded me~~."
.
If, however, you'd like to truly see if there could be ANY justification or at least suitable explanation for these horrifyingly tragic passages, then I will proceed.
.
If you'd like to attempt to justify infanticide in the Bible for others who might be reading here, then do proceed. I've heard the standard Catholic/Protestant 'they deserved it' and 'do unto them as they've done unto us' excuses before.
.
by what objective moral standard do we determine that the killing of children and infants is wrong?
.
It's clear to me from the examples I've given that the standard did not come from the Bible. God consistently violates his own 'Do not murder' commandment. His 11th commandment might read 'Do as I say, not as I do".
.
Deuteronomy 32
4 He [the LORD] is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he... [???]
20 "I will hide my face from them," he [the LORD] said,
"and see what their end will be;
for they are a perverse generation,
children who are unfaithful.
21 They made me jealous by what is no god
and angered me with their worthless idols...
25 In the street the sword will make them childless;
in their homes terror will reign.
Young men and young women will perish,
infants and gray-haired men.
.
Upon what objective, compelling, authoritative basis do we as a society agree that murder is wrong - particularly the killing of innocent children?
.
Based upon on the natural law to insure Mankind's survival.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - A Pompous Ass

In response to A Pompous Ass posted by pink101:

Easy, Pink. You've fired some barbs at Jones and you know it. I've witnessed you taking quite a few jabs at him, in fact.

» Brian Tubbs - Confrontation?

In response to Confrontation? posted by HeadZenCards:

"Frothing at the mouth"?? What are you talking about, Oliver? And I didn't misstate any timing.

I'm not dodging or avoiding any discussions here, but I've been a little busy of late. I've got several families in my congregation dealing with some tough issues right now - a man dying of pancreatic cancer, two families about to lose their homes, other health issues, etc. Plus, our church is going through a budget process. And I'm getting ready for Sunday! Oh, and I'm heading to an out-of-town conference next week, so trying to squeeze in some time with the family. Took my daughter out on a date last night.

So, if I don't respond in what you consider a timely manner to your attacks, perhaps you can understand why. Back off!

» Brian Tubbs - No obfuscation, Pink

In response to General Comment posted by pink101:

I promise not to limit my comments on these difficult passages to simply an abstract discussion of moral standards. I'm not trying to cloud the issue or sidetrack the discussion.

However, IF we are going to put the God of the Bible on trial for killing innocent men, women, and children - then we DO (as you said earlier) need to define our terms.

We also need to establish the standards of morality by which are going to assess the biblical God.

» Brian Tubbs - Answering Migisi

In response to General comment posted by Migisi:

Read your whole post, Migisi, but wanted to seize on your last answer. In other words, you see morality as that which the human race, through evolution and cultural progression, has agreed upon as a means to perpetuate the species. Am I right?

» pink101 - A Pompous Ass

In response to A Pompous Ass posted by BrianTubbs:
.
It's all here to be read including the provocations of which there are many.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Answering Migisi

In response to Answering Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Partly right.
.
The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law
From The Freeman, February 1998, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.108-111
by Wendy McElroy
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/natlaw.htm
.
Snippets:
.
..."This more flexible version of Natural Law does not extend its theory to include animals other than human beings. It makes no comment on "the many species [that] cannot preserve their own life except by killing others."(3) It comments only on human nature, and its commentary assumes that as human beings interact some concept of right and wrong inevitably evolves.
.
"This contention is based partly on history. Even the most primitive of human cultures evolve[d] some standard of right and wrong behavior. Although "Thou shalt not kill" may not be writ in Nature, prohibitions against murder seem to be included within every society. In other words, one of the few points on which all societies agree is that the killing of another human being is presumed to be wrong unless somehow justified, e.g. as an act of self defense, as an act of patriotism in wartime, as a racist measure to preserve the purity of the blood. Equally, some concept of right and wrong seems to evolve naturally within the psychology of individuals. Even when you are a child, if someone comes up and hits you for no reason, one of your automatic reactions is to think 'he shouldn't have done that.' You feel wronged. This childlike response may be crude and perhaps merely an emotional one. But it shows that considering the right and wrong of actions is, on some level, a human response to circumstances.
.
"In its simplest statement, then, the more flexible form of Natural Law sketched above is an attempt to ground human values in the facts of reality and of human nature. In other words, given what we know about reality and what we know about human nature is it possible to reason out a code of behavior that maximizes man's well being?...
.
"Return to the issue of whether a peaceful society promotes human happiness more than a Hobbesian one. Answering this question requires you to have a theory of how society relates to human happiness, thus making a social life preferable to dwelling alone on a desert island. After all, a desert island offers absolutely unbridled individual freedom. In society, there is always the threat of violence. Why associate with people and run such a risk?
.
"The answer is clear: because association offers tremendous benefits, including friendship, expanded knowledge, a division of labor, and romantic love. Society can maximize your choices if only because many of your decisions, and some of the most important ones, require the presence of other people, e.g. the decision to have a child. Yet you can imagine a society from which you would gladly flee into solitude -- for example, a plantation community in which you were a field slave. To the extent that a society relies on force, to that extent it minimizes choices and becomes a disadvantage. Seen through this lens, rights set a peaceful context which maximizes choice and, thus, maximizes the chances of individuals attaining happiness within society.
.
"The political significance of grounding values in fact is immense. For one thing, it allows people to use Natural Law as a standard by which to judge the justice of the law of the land (positive law), or of the ruler, or of God..." (end)
.
.
I thought this interesting: "killing of another human being is presumed to be wrong unless ---- as a racist measure to preserve the purity of the blood---- ." I suggest this ~NATURAL~ reason is why the Israelites killed children. Exterminating whole cultures to preserve the purity of their own.

-- posted by Migisi