Believers: What Would You Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

On another occasion men from the tribe of Benjamin raped a prophet’s wife to death with relative impunity. When the prophet solicited the help of the other tribes of Israel to exact justice, (By chopping up his dead wife’s corpse and sending the pieces abroad to the chieftains of the other tribes no less) G-d eventually intervenes on behalf of the Benjaminites, out of compassion for the fact that the birth rate of females within their tribe had been statistically VERY low, and they in trying to observe G-d’s express commandment to marry within their tribe, had been largely ‘doing without’.
[/quote]

By the way my friend, you hopelessly mutilated this story. I don’t know what monastery you studied in but if I were your dad I’d ask, even sue, to get my tuition back. You should be ashamed of yourself as well for not working hard enough and reading your Playboy (for the articles) instead of studying your Bible.

The man was not a prophet.

The cut up woman was not his wife.

God actually intervened on behalf of the Israelites not the Benjamites, exacting justice.

You screwed up the account about the wives that were LATER given to the Benjamites too.

Face it, bud, you aint qualified enough to come in here and shoot from the hip. You’re making yourself look bad. Clean up your act.[/quote]

OK arguably I had to cut shit down considerably, and yes since going the way i’ve chosen, it’s been a long old time since I’ve reviewed this tale. But the gist is true, and you avoid the obvious issue, as my dad a church elder and a hell of a man does as well. You can’t explain G-d’s apparent inconsistencies, so you try to make excuses for him drawn from the immediate or wider context of scripture. [/quote]

Wow, that was an absolute massacre of the story! If you knew anything about the story what is significant about it, is the foreshadowing of the apostles in particular Judas and how he turned toward evil and how he was replaced.[/quote]

Where is that explained? In the adjacent scriptures? Or did bible scholars, after the fact, make the determination that it was a ‘foreshadow’ of future events?[/quote]

First read the actual story…Judges chapeters 19, 20 and 21. And it wasn’t a predictiion per se, just a parallel. The tribe of Benjamen betrayed God, they were decimated so that then there were 11 tribes left essentially. After, the other tribes of Israel were compelled to restore the tribe of Benjamen and privide them wives so that the 12th tribe would be restored.

12 apostles, on betrayed God. Post resurrection and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas so that there would be 12. I could go on, but this should be sufficient to illustrate the point… [/quote]

So what you’re saying is, G-d let this all play out in order to serve as a parallel of a future event? There were a phenomenal amount of lives lost. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the Northern ten tribe kingdom completely wiped out by the Assyrians? (By wiped out I thought it was clarified that some might have been taken captive or bred to Assyrians etc)

If so, what parallel account is there for that?

In the end this is just an account I chose out of distant memory to emphasize a point that the horrible things that happen to people and those who choose to perpetrate in the ‘scriptural’ record do not provide a cohesive track record for God’s unchangeable moral perspective.

Let me try this again, this time stone sober:

Manasseh - rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had torn down, and also made his sons pass through the fire, and apparently influenced other Iraelites to do the same. HE WAS EVENTUALLY FORGIVEN.

Ananias and Sapphira - Sold a plot of land, and donated ‘most’ of the proceeds to the early Christian congregation, but held some back for themselves, then told a lie and said they had given ‘all’. They were killed, presumably by Holy spirit.

Please tell me you can see how someone reading the bible ‘might’ be confused by these two extremes. King who burns kids alive - Forgiven. Couple who donate money to the early church but in doing so tell a mostly harmless lie in the process - Killed.

Surely you know that there isn’t a court in the land that would uphold either of those verdicts. And my point isn’t to paint G-d cruel, so much as to point out that MANY who know of these individual accounts are bound to scratch their heads at the idea that G-d’s morality is non-contextual.

322

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

No, a first cause is entirely metaphysical. It isn’t physical, because it, by definition, violates physics.

But even if god was a falsifiable concept as you claim, it hasn’t been disproved. And even further, you haven’t presented a case that your distinction even if true warrants faith in them being different issues.

323

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule. [/quote]

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?[/quote]

Yes, long, long, long before:

  1. It was forbidden by God.

  2. Sex of that type started causing harmful genetic mutations.

[/quote]

So incest was ok in a certain situation (one may say context), but then it was forbidden. It sounds like you are making the case for moral relativism as it pertains to incest. But rape is clearly still absolutely evil right?

I have a question for you. If it is possible that God has changed his stance on incest before, is it possible that in the future (say perhaps if we find a way to stop the harmful genetic mutations you mentioned) that God might change his stance on incest once again? What if it’s crucial for the existence of the human species?
[/quote]

St Paul answers your question. In the beginning they did not have the law and were therefore not bound by it. As they received the law they were bound by it. [/quote]

But that begs the question, why didn’t god give them the law in the first place? Why tell them one thing, then change it to something else later?

More importantly, for me at least, why did god behave according to different moral standards himself? I can’t imagine the god of the new testament commanding people to bash the heads of infants against the wall.
[/quote]

Well, I cannot report as to what God had in mind or why he chose to reveal things over time the way he did…He hasn’t let me into that thought process. I mean why not make us all live as cohesive people in peace where everybody gets to drive a Bentley and the sky is always blue…I have no idea why he did what he did, only that he did it…

325

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

On another occasion men from the tribe of Benjamin raped a prophet’s wife to death with relative impunity. When the prophet solicited the help of the other tribes of Israel to exact justice, (By chopping up his dead wife’s corpse and sending the pieces abroad to the chieftains of the other tribes no less) G-d eventually intervenes on behalf of the Benjaminites, out of compassion for the fact that the birth rate of females within their tribe had been statistically VERY low, and they in trying to observe G-d’s express commandment to marry within their tribe, had been largely ‘doing without’.
[/quote]

By the way my friend, you hopelessly mutilated this story. I don’t know what monastery you studied in but if I were your dad I’d ask, even sue, to get my tuition back. You should be ashamed of yourself as well for not working hard enough and reading your Playboy (for the articles) instead of studying your Bible.

The man was not a prophet.

The cut up woman was not his wife.

God actually intervened on behalf of the Israelites not the Benjamites, exacting justice.

You screwed up the account about the wives that were LATER given to the Benjamites too.

Face it, bud, you aint qualified enough to come in here and shoot from the hip. You’re making yourself look bad. Clean up your act.[/quote]

OK arguably I had to cut shit down considerably, and yes since going the way i’ve chosen, it’s been a long old time since I’ve reviewed this tale. But the gist is true, and you avoid the obvious issue, as my dad a church elder and a hell of a man does as well. You can’t explain G-d’s apparent inconsistencies, so you try to make excuses for him drawn from the immediate or wider context of scripture. [/quote]

Wow, that was an absolute massacre of the story! If you knew anything about the story what is significant about it, is the foreshadowing of the apostles in particular Judas and how he turned toward evil and how he was replaced.[/quote]

Where is that explained? In the adjacent scriptures? Or did bible scholars, after the fact, make the determination that it was a ‘foreshadow’ of future events?[/quote]

First read the actual story…Judges chapeters 19, 20 and 21. And it wasn’t a predictiion per se, just a parallel. The tribe of Benjamen betrayed God, they were decimated so that then there were 11 tribes left essentially. After, the other tribes of Israel were compelled to restore the tribe of Benjamen and privide them wives so that the 12th tribe would be restored.

12 apostles, on betrayed God. Post resurrection and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas so that there would be 12. I could go on, but this should be sufficient to illustrate the point… [/quote]

So what you’re saying is, G-d let this all play out in order to serve as a parallel of a future event? There were a phenomenal amount of lives lost. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the Northern ten tribe kingdom completely wiped out by the Assyrians? (By wiped out I thought it was clarified that some might have been taken captive or bred to Assyrians etc)

If so, what parallel account is there for that?

In the end this is just an account I chose out of distant memory to emphasize a point that the horrible things that happen to people and those who choose to perpetrate in the ‘scriptural’ record do not provide a cohesive track record for God’s unchangeable moral perspective.

Let me try this again, this time stone sober:

Manasseh - rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had torn down, and also made his sons pass through the fire, and apparently influenced other Iraelites to do the same. HE WAS EVENTUALLY FORGIVEN.

Ananias and Sapphira - Sold a plot of land, and donated ‘most’ of the proceeds to the early Christian congregation, but held some back for themselves, then told a lie and said they had given ‘all’. They were killed, presumably by Holy spirit.

Please tell me you can see how someone reading the bible ‘might’ be confused by these two extremes. King who burns kids alive - Forgiven. Couple who donate money to the early church but in doing so tell a mostly harmless lie in the process - Killed.

Surely you know that there isn’t a court in the land that would uphold either of those verdicts. And my point isn’t to paint G-d cruel, so much as to point out that MANY who know of these individual accounts are bound to scratch their heads at the idea that G-d’s morality is non-contextual.[/quote]

I understand the contradictions and the problematic nature of some passages. But there is more to the story than just surface appearance. That’s what I look for. I don’t know the historical validity of all the stories in the bible. I know that most if not all are based on actual event, how loosely I am not sure. It also helps to understand we’re dealing with people that are 3000 years old, it was a very different world. Such ancient texts don’t always make sense to us having a 21rst century mentality. Further, the ancient hebrews were not the nicest, smartest or morally adapt people. I mean, you have God repeatedly telling these people they are not allowed to fuck animals. So how is it you deal with people who have no issue fucking a sheep? Chances are, you don’t mince words, and you don’t give a lot of chances. God is not bound by the same rules we are, so he does what he’s got to do, whether we think he should or not. It’s not unlike how parents are not bound by the same rules they give their children…It’s a dictatorship. There is a lot of issues, but looking at the context of these stories and understanding the history of the region and people, it makes a lot more sense.
Hell we think things are very different now, but are they really? You have genocides in Africa, natural disasters in Japan, Alabama, Missouri, etc., wars all over the place, bad parents, rapes, murders, etc. etc…Are we really much better in these times than in yore? Doesn’t really look at it in the ‘forest’ view.
Now why God chose to do things the way he did, I really have no idea. I figure it would be easier to whammy everything the way it’s supposed to be and that’s that. I seriously doubt I will ever know why he chose to do things the way he did.

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

So what you’re saying is, G-d let this all play out in order to serve as a parallel of a future event?

[/quote]

God lets all kind of things “play out.” It’s His universe.

Now one can take the route of shaking one’s tiny, little created fist at his Maker and with his sin tainted and very limited intellect choose to condemn Him or he can recognize that since he aint got God all figured out and never will he might just say, “Creator God, I don’t understand all the things you do and why but I am willing to trust You. You are my Lord and Master.”

Two completely separate events separated by hundreds of years. Irrelevant.

This distant memory of yours keeps biting you in the ass.

In the interest of accuracy you might note that Manasseh asked for God’s forgiveness and mended his evil ways.

So when you type, “HE WAS EVENTUALLY FORGIVEN,” there JUST might be a reason, my friend. And when you omit that reason in your post you again express at the very least ignorance and possibly even disingenuousness.

If you’re going to continue to cite Bible stories in support of your positions PLEASE begin rendering accurate descriptions of them. When you fail to do so you subtract credibility from the gist of your posts.

[b]2 Chronicles 33

In his distress he (Manasseh) sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his ancestors. 13 And when he prayed to him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.

14 Afterward he rebuilt the outer wall of the City of David, west of the Gihon spring in the valley, as far as the entrance of the Fish Gate and encircling the hill of Ophel; he also made it much higher. He stationed military commanders in all the fortified cities in Judah.

15 He got rid of the foreign gods and removed the image from the temple of the LORD, as well as all the altars he had built on the temple hill and in Jerusalem; and he threw them out of the city. 16 Then he restored the altar of the LORD and sacrificed fellowship offerings and thank offerings on it, and told Judah to serve the LORD, the God of Israel. 17 The people, however, continued to sacrifice at the high places, but only to the LORD their God.

18 The other events of Manassehâ??s reign, including his prayer to his God and the words the seers spoke to him in the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, are written in the annals of the kings of Israel. 19 His prayer and how God was moved by his entreaty, as well as all his sins and unfaithfulness, and the sites where he built high places and set up Asherah poles and idols before he humbled himself - all these are written in the records of the seers.[/b][/quote]

OK, if a man in our times was convicted of the mass murder of children, he would never be absolved of this because he sincerely apologized to G-d, even if he made large strides to make things right after the fact.

In point of fact he was not immediately repentant but was taken captive by the Assyrians, and only once in this desperate situation did he finally ‘turn to G-d’. Yes I read the account again so as not to rely on my colander bowl of a memory before posting, and no I didn’t include the description of him repenting to G-d initially, because to most people, by the time you’re burning children alive, telling G-d you’re sorry would not constitute a reason for absolution.

And as far as me shaking my sinful little fist at G-d, I’m not afraid of him. Not because I have a death wish or think that I am ‘better’ or more ‘righteous’ than him. Quite the contrary, I know I’m a spec of dirt. The universe could replace me a million million times over and better versions each and every one. I have nothing to lose.

G-d can do whatever he likes to me. I have in my short existence known despair so profound I actually prayed repeatedly for death, and I know I’m not the only one by any stretch. I am in a far better place now, but have no illusions that I am entitled to happiness, salvation, etc.

327

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]I understand the contradictions and the problematic nature of some passages. But there is more to the story than just surface appearance. That’s what I look for. I don’t know the historical validity of all the stories in the bible. I know that most if not all are based on actual event, how loosely I am not sure. It also helps to understand we’re dealing with people that are 3000 years old, it was a very different world. Such ancient texts don’t always make sense to us having a 21rst century mentality. Further, the ancient hebrews were not the nicest, smartest or morally adapt people. I mean, you have God repeatedly telling these people they are not allowed to fuck animals. So how is it you deal with people who have no issue fucking a sheep? Chances are, you don’t mince words, and you don’t give a lot of chances. God is not bound by the same rules we are, so he does what he’s got to do, whether we think he should or not. It’s not unlike how parents are not bound by the same rules they give their children…It’s a dictatorship. There is a lot of issues, but looking at the context of these stories and understanding the history of the region and people, it makes a lot more sense.
Hell we think things are very different now, but are they really? You have genocides in Africa, natural disasters in Japan, Alabama, Missouri, etc., wars all over the place, bad parents, rapes, murders, etc. etc…Are we really much better in these times than in yore? Doesn’t really look at it in the ‘forest’ view.
Now why God chose to do things the way he did, I really have no idea. I figure it would be easier to whammy everything the way it’s supposed to be and that’s that. I seriously doubt I will ever know why he chose to do things the way he did. [/quote]

Thank you for this sincere reply. I know people behaved badly then and now, and that in the brief span of a few thousand years, not much has changed in human nature, but I also know that man strives for greater levels of justice, fairness, and reciprocity of wrong.

I too think there are things that for me will always be a mystery, and oddly enough I to have said if G-d wants me to know the answer he’ll tell me. The difference in you and I, I believe, is what we decide to do until that happens. I was content to evangelize while I waited for those answers, but eventually those I talked to kept asking the same frustrating questions until even I could no longer ignore their significance.

329

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule. [/quote]

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?[/quote]

Yes, long, long, long before:

  1. It was forbidden by God.

  2. Sex of that type started causing harmful genetic mutations.

[/quote]

So incest was ok in a certain situation (one may say context), but then it was forbidden. It sounds like you are making the case for moral relativism as it pertains to incest. But rape is clearly still absolutely evil right?

I have a question for you. If it is possible that God has changed his stance on incest before, is it possible that in the future (say perhaps if we find a way to stop the harmful genetic mutations you mentioned) that God might change his stance on incest once again? What if it’s crucial for the existence of the human species?
[/quote]

St Paul answers your question. In the beginning they did not have the law and were therefore not bound by it. As they received the law they were bound by it. [/quote]

But that begs the question, why didn’t god give them the law in the first place? Why tell them one thing, then change it to something else later?

More importantly, for me at least, why did god behave according to different moral standards himself? I can’t imagine the god of the new testament commanding people to bash the heads of infants against the wall.
[/quote]

Well, I cannot report as to what God had in mind or why he chose to reveal things over time the way he did…He hasn’t let me into that thought process. I mean why not make us all live as cohesive people in peace where everybody gets to drive a Bentley and the sky is always blue…I have no idea why he did what he did, only that he did it… [/quote]

Would the god that you worship ever command people to bash the heads of infants against the wall?

330

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule. [/quote]

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?[/quote]

Yes, long, long, long before:

  1. It was forbidden by God.

  2. Sex of that type started causing harmful genetic mutations.

[/quote]

So incest was ok in a certain situation (one may say context), but then it was forbidden. It sounds like you are making the case for moral relativism as it pertains to incest. But rape is clearly still absolutely evil right?

I have a question for you. If it is possible that God has changed his stance on incest before, is it possible that in the future (say perhaps if we find a way to stop the harmful genetic mutations you mentioned) that God might change his stance on incest once again? What if it’s crucial for the existence of the human species?
[/quote]

St Paul answers your question. In the beginning they did not have the law and were therefore not bound by it. As they received the law they were bound by it. [/quote]

But that begs the question, why didn’t god give them the law in the first place? Why tell them one thing, then change it to something else later?

More importantly, for me at least, why did god behave according to different moral standards himself? I can’t imagine the god of the new testament commanding people to bash the heads of infants against the wall.
[/quote]

Well, I cannot report as to what God had in mind or why he chose to reveal things over time the way he did…He hasn’t let me into that thought process. I mean why not make us all live as cohesive people in peace where everybody gets to drive a Bentley and the sky is always blue…I have no idea why he did what he did, only that he did it… [/quote]

Would the god that you worship ever command people to bash the heads of infants against the wall? [/quote]

On;y ugly ones.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I first started doing it in Deference to Brother Chris, and I think the trend just moved on.

332

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I tried replying only to to get an error… we’ll try this again. I started doing it in deference to Brother Chris, and I think it sort of ‘Caught on’.

333

I would like to be referred to as M-k from now on.

335

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I tried replying only to to get an error… we’ll try this again. I started doing it in deference to Brother Chris, and I think it sort of ‘Caught on’.[/quote]

OK, Vi-es, how do you defer to som-one by omitting a vowel in a proper noun? And spe-king of proper noun sp-lling why don’t you spell God w-th the lower case l-ke all the r-st of the co-l ath-ists and agn-stics, like…M-k?

P-sh[/quote]
If I remember correctly Brother Chris started doing this due to a Jewish friend?? Anyways this is the reason why they write/type G-d instead of God.

336

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I tried replying only to to get an error… we’ll try this again. I started doing it in deference to Brother Chris, and I think it sort of ‘Caught on’.[/quote]

OK, Vi-es, how do you defer to som-one by omitting a vowel in a proper noun? And spe-king of proper noun sp-lling why don’t you spell God w-th the lower case l-ke all the r-st of the co-l ath-ists and agn-stics, like…M-k?

P-sh[/quote]

Hey in my defense, I write “god” as opposed to “God” when I’m feeling lazy.

338

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I tried replying only to to get an error… we’ll try this again. I started doing it in deference to Brother Chris, and I think it sort of ‘Caught on’.[/quote]

OK, Vi-es, how do you defer to som-one by omitting a vowel in a proper noun? And spe-king of proper noun sp-lling why don’t you spell God w-th the lower case l-ke all the r-st of the co-l ath-ists and agn-stics, like…M-k?

P-sh[/quote]

Hey in my defense, I write “god” as opposed to “God” when I’m feeling lazy.[/quote]

An idle (lazy) mind is the devil’s workshop.[/quote]

Yes, because there exists a being of unfathomable strength and benevolence, upon whose existence all life and matter are contingent, and he better not catch you writing his name in lower case letters on the internet.

339

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What is with the “G-d” stuff around here anyway? What does the “o” in God do that messes with you peeeplezzz minds? I don’t get it.[/quote]

I tried replying only to to get an error… we’ll try this again. I started doing it in deference to Brother Chris, and I think it sort of ‘Caught on’.[/quote]

OK, Vi-es, how do you defer to som-one by omitting a vowel in a proper noun? And spe-king of proper noun sp-lling why don’t you spell God w-th the lower case l-ke all the r-st of the co-l ath-ists and agn-stics, like…M-k?

P-sh[/quote]

Hah!

Respect, it’s all about respect. :slight_smile: If I we’re writing Jesus, Muhammad, Yahweh, Jehovah, Buddha, Vishnu, etc, I would and will capitalize.

340

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]I understand the contradictions and the problematic nature of some passages. But there is more to the story than just surface appearance. That’s what I look for. I don’t know the historical validity of all the stories in the bible. I know that most if not all are based on actual event, how loosely I am not sure. It also helps to understand we’re dealing with people that are 3000 years old, it was a very different world. Such ancient texts don’t always make sense to us having a 21rst century mentality. Further, the ancient hebrews were not the nicest, smartest or morally adapt people. I mean, you have God repeatedly telling these people they are not allowed to fuck animals. So how is it you deal with people who have no issue fucking a sheep? Chances are, you don’t mince words, and you don’t give a lot of chances. God is not bound by the same rules we are, so he does what he’s got to do, whether we think he should or not. It’s not unlike how parents are not bound by the same rules they give their children…It’s a dictatorship. There is a lot of issues, but looking at the context of these stories and understanding the history of the region and people, it makes a lot more sense.
Hell we think things are very different now, but are they really? You have genocides in Africa, natural disasters in Japan, Alabama, Missouri, etc., wars all over the place, bad parents, rapes, murders, etc. etc…Are we really much better in these times than in yore? Doesn’t really look at it in the ‘forest’ view.
Now why God chose to do things the way he did, I really have no idea. I figure it would be easier to whammy everything the way it’s supposed to be and that’s that. I seriously doubt I will ever know why he chose to do things the way he did. [/quote]

Thank you for this sincere reply. I know people behaved badly then and now, and that in the brief span of a few thousand years, not much has changed in human nature, but I also know that man strives for greater levels of justice, fairness, and reciprocity of wrong.

I too think there are things that for me will always be a mystery, and oddly enough I to have said if G-d wants me to know the answer he’ll tell me. The difference in you and I, I believe, is what we decide to do until that happens. I was content to evangelize while I waited for those answers, but eventually those I talked to kept asking the same frustrating questions until even I could no longer ignore their significance.
[/quote]

The way I deal with it is I find the answers… I don’t consider them insignificant, but I doubt they’d ever come close to changing me. My beliefs are on quite solid ground secularly and religiously.