Anyone but Huckabee in 08

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
As you can tell from my posts, I can be REALLY dense. Having said that, I'm not (at least on purpose) trying to avoid the gist of the question.

To help you understand the question in the hope that you might actually attempt to answer it, here is my understanding of what he was asking:
1. God, in the OT frequently either asked the Jews to commit atrocities, or carried them out himself.
2. Many groups of people throughout history including the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims have claimed that the atrocities that they commit were commanded by God.
3. Why would you accuse the Christians and Muslims of misrepresenting God but not the Jews?
4. To help clarify, if the Jews committed further atrocities after 1 AD and wrote it down in their scriptures as being commanded by God, would you believe them?

Originally posted by darthmix
My point was that the plagues of Egypt, which involve the purposeful killing of innocent children, must themselves be considered atrocities, and true Christians must condemn those also.

You mean like when the Egyptians first killed the Israelite first born?

It seems to me that when reading the Bible that there are "penalties" for certain crimes. For example,, an eye for an eye comes to mind. Is it justice to render to the Egyptians what was rendered to the Israelites? It also brings to mind what Jewish tradition says about the Canaanites. Apparently the Canaanites raped, pilaged, and killed off the Shemites in the Holy Land who were the ancestors of the Israelites. Of course I suppose you could either argue that this never happened 0r you could argue that this is not justice because "innocent" lives were in the mix. Of course, then it would not be an eye for an eye would it? It would be more like an eye for an ear.

Originally posted by whodey
It seems to me that when reading the Bible that there are "penalties" for certain crimes. For example,, an eye for an eye comes to mind. Is it justice to render to the Egyptians what was rendered to the Israelites?

So if the Iraqi's killed of as many first borns in the US as Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion, would you accept that as justice?

It also brings to mind what Jewish tradition says about the Canaanites. Apparently the Canaanites raped, pilaged, and killed off the Shemites in the Holy Land who were the ancestors of the Israelites. Of course I suppose you could either argue that this never happened 0r you could argue that this is not justice because "innocent" lives were in the mix. Of course, then it would not be an eye for an eye would it? It would be more like an eye for an ear.
I personally am strongly against the concept of a child being responsible for the sins of his ancestors. The above is not justice.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]So if the Iraqi's killed of as many first borns in the US as Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion, would you accept that as justice?

Actually, if I were a Jew or Muslim I might say yes. However, Christ introduced a new covenant to deal with sin that far surpasses the eye for and eye commandment. Christ made the radical statement that we should learn to love those who hate us. As Christ once said, put away the sword because those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Such violence is self perpetuating as we see it being perpetuated today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[responsible for the sins of his ancestors. The above is not justice.[/b]

Well on the surface the eye for an eye commandment seems equitable, because it has its merits? You might even say it is just in most if not all cases. In fact, you might even embrace it in its totality without taking into account such scenerios.

As for myself, I live by a better law introduced by Christ which is the law of love.

Originally posted by whodey
Well on the surface the eye for an eye commandment seems equitable, because it has its merits? You might even say it is just in most if not all cases. In fact, you might even embrace it in its totality without taking into account such scenerios.

As for myself, I live by a better law introduced by Christ which is the law of love.

So if you were tried and condemned to death for the sins of your great grandfather, you would accept it without complaint as just?
In fact you should accept it even more willingly under Christs laws.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, if I were a Jew or Muslim I might say yes.

The question is whether it is Just, not whether it is 'Christs law' or 'Gods law' or 'OT law'. As a Christian, do you accept that it would be just for the Muslims to kill a large number of US first borns.

However, Christ introduced a new covenant to deal with sin that far surpasses the eye for and eye commandment. Christ made the radical statement that we should learn to love those who hate us.
But he did not command that your enemies abide by that law. He did not make it unjust to follow the OT laws.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if you were tried and condemned to death for the sins of your great grandfather, you would accept it without complaint as just?
In fact you should accept it even more willingly under Christs laws.

I am not sure where you got this line of reasoning but I would just like to add that if my grandfather had wronged someone the likelyhood of me suffering negatively for his "sins" would be increased. None of us are an island unto ourselves.

I never ment to imply that the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye was perfect. If it was why did Christ come to give us a supposidly better law? Christs law is the perfect law of love.

Originally posted by twhitehead

But he did not command that your enemies abide by that law. He did not make it unjust to follow the OT laws.[/b]

I think Christs reaction would be the same as it was when he was confronted with the woman caught in adultery. He would say, he that is without sin cast the first stone. He never denied their right to punish her, he simply offered a better way to stop the sin than to kill the sinner.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure where you got this line of reasoning ..

From your post which said:
Well on the surface the eye for an eye commandment seems equitable, because it has its merits? You might even say it is just in most if not all cases.



but I would just like to add that if my grandfather had wronged someone the likelyhood of me suffering negatively for his "sins" would be increased.
But do you consider that Just?

I never ment to imply that the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye was perfect.
Maybe not perfect, but you did imply that it was just. And why may I ask, if it was not so perfect, did God use it for most of Human history to date?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never ment to imply that the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye was perfect.
Maybe not perfect, but you did imply that it was just. And why may I ask, if it was not so perfect, did God use it for most of Human history to date?[/b]

There is a just aspect to the law of an eye for an eye even though it is not "perfect". It falls in line with the commandment of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Really it is all about dealing with "sin". When Christ came he offered a new way to tackle sin. He had the radical idea of destroying the sin without destroying the sinner as where the Old Testament way of doing things was to destroy the sinner in order to destroy the sin. Both accomplish destroying the sin, however, one is better than the other.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a just aspect to the law of an eye for an eye even though it is not "perfect".

You keep repeating that it is just and then denying it. Which is it? Is it just or not? Would you accept said justice? Would you be willing to die for the sins of your great grandfather?

It falls in line with the commandment of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I suspect you have interpreted that commandment all wrong. It was not about do unto others what they did to you (an eye for an eye).

Really it is all about dealing with "sin". When Christ came he offered a new way to tackle sin. He had the radical idea of destroying the sin without destroying the sinner as where the Old Testament way of doing things was to destroy the sinner in order to destroy the sin. Both accomplish destroying the sin, however, one is better than the other.
You still don't explain a number of things including:
1. why the 'better' system was not put in place earlier.
2. why you would judge someone acting 'justly' by the OT laws to be wrong.

Originally posted by treetalk
You think it's a sin yet you still do it?

So, seeing that everyone will (presumably) be forgiven for committing a sin ... it doesn't really matter that they still go ahead and commit the sin?

Murder is a sin but if I'm (presumably) going to be forgiven ... what's the big deal about me killing someone?

Different "sins" carry varying degess of guilt and negative consequences.

Masturbating creates minimal guilt for me and the consequences of that "sin" are minimal.

Killing somebody would create enormous guilt in me, plus I would probably end up in jail.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You said earlier in the thread that "The Constitution has to fit SOMEBODY'S standard, so it may as well be God's."

Which is the problem. Nobody really knows what God's standard is. Instead, we get guys like Huckabee that are presumptuous enough to speak, and act, on God's behalf.

If one believes in God, and if further one believes that God has communicated His will for us, then I don't see a problem with a politician basing his value system on one's understanding of God. Of course, anything that the politican wants to do must go through the democratic process and must be found constitutiional by the courts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To help you understand the question in the hope that you might actually attempt to answer it, here is my understanding of what he was asking:
1. God, in the OT frequently either asked the Jews to commit atrocities, or carried them out himself.
2. Many groups of people throughout history including the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims have claimed tha ...[text shortened]... er 1 AD and wrote it down in their scriptures as being commanded by God, would you believe them?

I'm not going to defend atrocities committed by anyone, be they committed by God, the Jews, Christians, atheists, or anyone else. As I stated in an earlier post, God's atrocities and the "Problem of Evil" are problems too big for me to answer. People ten times smarter than me can be found arguing either side. I'll concede this particular point.