Forget the 23rd Psalm, what about Deut 25?

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't this proviso strong evidence that the verses were written by men about what those men's opinions and superstitions just so happened to be at the time they wrote them, and that the verses were not divinely inspired by your God figure at all?

Why couldn't your God figure impose a less demented, depraved kind of "justice" upon humans?

Why are the noti ...[text shortened]... anyone seeking to promote the authenticity of the supposed supernatural being that they worship.

Spin it, baby!

"God figure"
"demented"
"depraved"
"notions"
"mythology"
"notion of justice"
"contorted to fit"
"an embarrassment"
"promote the authenticity"
"supposed supernatural being"

Didn't you mother ever tell you that if you made "that face" too much that "it might get stuck that way"?

You keep insisting that you're not atheist, but you have never, ever told us of the god you worship. Is it supernatural? Or is it just "some guy named Bob" down the street, selling hash out of his van?

Originally posted by FMF
This sounds more like an argument making the case against there being any validity in the belief that the texts are "the world of God" than an argument make the case that they were divinely inspired.

Frankly, I wasn't talking to you and I'm not especially concerned with "how it sounds" to you.

You'll just spin it beyond recognition anyways. It's what you do.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Spin it, baby!

"demented"
"depraved"
"notions"
"mythology"
"notion of justice"
"contorted to fit"
"an embarrassment"
"promote the authenticity"
"supposed supernatural being"

Didn't you mother ever tell you that if you made "that face" too much that "it might get stuck that way"?

My point is, KellyJay's assertion that "You need to take verses in the context of text and times they were written" is very weak. Did "God's justice" shape and drive the law or did men's imaginations - rooted in [and limited by] their times - shape and drive what they imagined "God's justice" to be? It's baffling that the rationale for believing that it was anything other than man made religionist doctrine should be so shakey and unconvincing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You keep insisting that you're not atheist, but you have never, ever told us of the god you worship. Is it supernatural? Or is it just "some guy named Bob" down the street, selling hash out of his van?

I've answered this question from you point blank several times, and not once have you responded or engaged it properly.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Frankly, I wasn't talking to you and I'm not especially concerned with "how it sounds" to you.

You'll just spin it beyond recognition anyways. It's what you do.

The question you are dodging, in essence, is 'Was stuff like Deuteronomy 25 the best your God figure could do when it came to shaping what was "morality" under His law and for the humans he supposedly created and sought to govern'?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I can see that, but you have to remember, the Torah was written some 3500 years ago. I'm sure that most of our early 21st century literature might be just as astonishing to someone from the year 5500, eh?

Agreed. The problem however is the 'divinely inspired' nature of these biblical verses and the fact that the Christian God is an unchanging God. “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

Old books can indeed seem dated by today's standards, but i'm assuming you do not believe God's word is dated or that He has 'changed' since the times of Deut 25. (Which would seem unbiblical). The Bible is unique in this respect. If 'the author' is unchanging then the message too is unchanging, irrespective of when that message was delivered.

The 'seeing things in context' argument that a number of Christians here have put forward is something i encountered frequently in my student days and use to annoy the heck out of me. Firstly, i was not then (or now) oblivious to the notion of seeing things in context. But a Christian can not have it both ways. If the bible in its entirety is divinely inspired and the God they worship is an unchanging God then they can't simply distance themselves from verses that seem barbaric and quite frankly horrendous to modern understanding, saying simply that these things must be viewed in context. - If God believed a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts 3500 years ago (and is indeed unchanging) then he still believes a woman's hand should be cut off for pulling her husbands private parts. - Yes, Sonship put forward a very articulate explanation about the overriding importance of procreation at the time of Deut 25, but in an unchanging God, this still reflects very badly (for this atheist at least) on the nature of this God who would advocate such harsh measures.

If God does exist, i personally believe He would be horrified that people were linking him in any way to passages like Deu 25 which are clearly written, not just by man, but by primitive man with primitive attitudes towards both justice and woman.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Agreed. The problem however is the 'divinely inspired' nature of these biblical verses and the fact that the Christian God is an unchanging God. “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

Old books can indeed seem dated by today's standards, but i'm assuming you do not believe God's word is ...[text shortened]... , not just by man, but by primitive man with primitive attitudes towards both justice and woman.

Well, I think a case can be made for what you say. It's just not a typical case a Christian would take, is all. Yes, God is an "unchanging God". It's man who changes. The 3500-year-old text was written for ancient man, to be understood by ancient man. Ancient man could hardly be expected to understand the "Love God and love your neighbor" message of Christ, especially in an age when warfare was a daily occurrence. And for others who continually hold up the idea that slavery is abhorrent in all its forms, and should have been so for God in eternum and he should have done away with it eons ago, well, obviously, yeah, but for all the fsct that man is the king of the animal kingdom, he's still remarkably slow to learn from his own mistakes. And if there's one thing God understands about man, it's that man has to learn all these lessons for himself, through trial and error.

God can tutor man in what should be done, but man is stubborn, and just has to take the hard way through to the end of the lesson, every single time. Even the Mosaic laws, which is what you are taking issue with, here, take man at nearly his most primitive and is trying to show man the ways of justice. Even if some of the laws seem questionable, it is the path through the lesson that is important. Today, we live in an age where man is capable of creating an extraordinary document, the US Constitution, which, while it still is imperfect, it captures man, at this precise moment in history, at a time when these laws seem perfectly shaped to this era. And even so, there have been 27 amendments so far, to allow this document to keep pace with existing morals. And even so, it took an executive order by President Lincoln (in 1863!! ) to abolish slavery within the US and its territories, a mere 153 years ago. It seems that some men have finally learned this lesson, but we still have work to do to abolish this worldwide. Yes, hard to believe, but there are still evil men in the world, screwing things up for the rest of us.

I know I sound like someone who is making excuses for God. Many think he should have done something about this long before now. I disagree. When Man decided to defy God at the outset, our course was plotted. Man told God that "You aren't the boss of us!" and so God cut us loose to figure it out on our own, a process that has been severely "bumpy" to put it mildly. Slavery was not "God's fault" nor was God "a monster" to allow it to go on, it was all of man's doing, and since we told God in no uncertain terms that we wanted to do this ourselves, he's giving us that chance. And yeah, evil still exists, and so we're going to mess things up. A lot of things.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, Sonship put forward a very articulate explanation about the overriding importance of procreation at the time of Deut 25,

Catholics to this day have the same philosophy and so discourage birth control methods at the expense of the spread of deadly diseases and the undesirable effects of having an excessive number of children.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The 3500-year-old text was written for ancient man, to be understood by ancient man.

Was he not aware that the vast majority of readers of the text would in fact be Christians in the 21st century or later?

Originally posted by Suzianne
God is an "unchanging God". It's man who changes.

As Hebrews changed, their concept of God changed, and so did what they wrote ~ so much so that a group calling themselves Christians eventually broke away from the Jews. Nobody can look at the "history" of the Hebrew/Christian God laid out in the Bible and credibly or seriously claim that it depicts an "unchanging God".

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?

Take for example Deut 25:11...."
____________________________

[b]"Sundry Laws"

25 “If there is a dispute between men and they go to [a]court, and [b ]the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and ...[text shortened]... ________________

Ghost of a Duke, to be continued with comments within the next few days. ~GB[/b]

This is just a long copy/paste.

Why don't you make a comment?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?

Take for example Deut 25:11

''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'

Yes, ...[text shortened]... her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.

Are these truly in reference to the same God?!

I don't get it either. I don't get loads of stuff in the Bible. I get called all manner of unpleasant things by the "Christians" here because I won't swallow every stupid doctrine and horrid teaching that tradition and fear has cemented in their own minds.

I don't feel called or moved (for want of a better adjective) to defend the Bible when I don't understand it. It is God's responsibility to provide people with guidance through stuff like this and until I know better I say it is not the God I believe in and if that contradicts some 4000 year old manuscript, then so be it. It's just how is see it.

There is some harsh stuff in the Bible and maybe these acts of war and draconian laws were necessary at the time; it must have been hard living in a world where civilisation was what you invented as you went along. The whole "mixed fibre" thing is odd. Why have a law about that. But it's there; there must have been a reason for it, either practical or symbolic, or both.

In western society we soften our own barbarism - mistreatment and insufficient love and care of the elderly is one of the most shameful things a society can permit and yet it goes on everyday almost unchallenged. How will future societies look back on us in 4000 years, point the finger and say "WTF?"

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Agreed. The problem however is the 'divinely inspired' nature of these biblical verses and the fact that the Christian God is an unchanging God. “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

Old books can indeed seem dated by today's standards, but i'm assuming you do not believe God's word is ...[text shortened]... , not just by man, but by primitive man with primitive attitudes towards both justice and woman.

God is unchanging however our relationship with God has been altered several times.
An over view!
With God we were with Him perfectly there was innocence and no sin.
With God we were parted from Him due to sin and there was no law.
With God we were parted from Him due to sin and the law was introduced.
With God we were redeemed to Him through Jesus Christ.

So God did not change but our relationship to Him has and in each case it was different
than it was from the period before.

The next changes coming will usher in the final judgment and His Kingdom will go on
forever and those out of it will remain out of it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?

Take for example Deut 25:11

''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'

Yes, ...[text shortened]... her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.

Are these truly in reference to the same God?!

I have really good commentary on this out of The NIV application commentary: Deuteronomy by Daniel I. Block

Originally posted by KellyJay
So God did not change but our relationship to Him has and in each case it was different than it was from the period before.

This is sheer sophistry. It was either your God figure who laid down His "Law" for men [and later changed] or it was men who imagined/conjured up such "Law" and laid it down themselves [and later changed it as their perception of "God" changed].

This "Law" is supposedly the manifestation of your God figure's will superimposed onto humans; if His will and His "Law" changed then that is Him changing.

Suggesting that the notion of God has not changed but, instead, only the "relationship" with Him has changed is merely a kind of wordplay.