right and wrong in the bible

[billyjack]

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly

are you saying unconscious activity is chaotic--because the heart is unconscious and it does just fine, in an orderly fashion. i played baseball and i am talking from experience, not theory. when i make the choice to swing (choice, istinctual habit, whatever) i dont think about how i am swinging, faze by faze. i just hit the ball. the faze by faze is what practice is for. there isnt a thought saying step, now load, now lead with the left hand (i am a righty) and punch with the right, keep your eye on the ball, flick the wrist, follow through. i dont think that way, i just do it, without thought. if i did think step by step i would never get the bat off my shoulder. this doesnt mean i dont control my swing, it just means i dont have to think about it.

[billyjack]

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.




What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.



We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

.

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

[Redzeppelin]

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

I do not agree. Let me finish this off so I can save you valuable time trying to convince me: God is the author of all that is good - He is the very definition of good; as such, God does not need Satan to exist in order that He (God) exists. So, my point stands: good can exist without evil. It cannot and will not here on this earth; so, you are correct in the sense that the two will always be linked on this earth before God makes the earth new. But I'm making a philosophical point about ultimate reality: evil is known by its relationship to good, but although it can work in the opposite direction, that does not mean it must.

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

And that's relevant how?

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

Already covered this above.

[Robert Jordan]

I'll repost this:
One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.
Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

[Robert Jordan]

I am not trying to offend anyone by the way, I just believe you have to find yourself and follow your own course and what is internal will lead you through the external.

[Redzeppelin]

I'll repost this:
One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.

Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

[weepingforloman]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but Jesus does talk occasionally about how in certain situations it is ok to ignore the commandments:

Ha! Jesus sure showed those uppity pharisees a thing or two! (Translation: God would rather have you work on the Sabbath than starve.)

I don't think very many reasons are given. When they are, they usually just go back to 'God said so':Yeah, we get it God, you're the Lord.

Edit: I am by no means an authority on this, so you would be wise to wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about comes along before you take this as absolute fact.

Jesus never told people to violate the actual commandments, but he at times said it was okay to ignore tradition--the rules created by Israelite society and rabbinical teaching. By connection to today, that would be like Catholics eating meat on Friday (I know they changed that, but it's the most comparable thing), or like refusing to cross yourself (again, in the Catholic Church--that's the usual thing for Catholics). Oh, and, I forget who originally started the thread, but, how much Friedrich Nietzsche do you read? Seriously, don't take that guy too seriously--he claimed that Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) was "the greatest gift given to mankind," and also that he was the antichrist.

[weepingforloman]

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.



"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

Good points, Red. Another thing to consider is the goal of God during the respective periods of the OT/NT. In the Old Testament, under the old covenant (testament=covenant anyway), God was establishing the nation of Israel as His chosen people--one of the reasons for the ritual cleansing ceremonies for lepers and other physically oriented commandments was to keep His people different from other people in a mundane way. In the New Testament, under the covenant through Christ, He was establishing a spiritual people-hence Paul's words that "there is no Jew nor Gentile, nor male nor female, nor slave nor free" because all believers are united under Christ Jesus. God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

[hyperborean]

God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

[Redzeppelin]

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

He who created all has the prerogative to destroy what He creates. You level a judgment without knowing all of the facts behind the decision; there may very well be mitigating factors that God takes into consideration in making His decisions that He has not felt fit to share with us.

[hyperborean]

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

[Redzeppelin]

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

Ah, hype, just like old times, eh? You and I haven't bantered for seemingly weeks.

God needs no defense from me.

[hyperborean]

I haven't argued in a while...I had to get it out of my system. I'm glad you guys got a new recruit (weepingfornoman). That should make things even more fun.

[Morrisonhotel]

God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect.

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

[weepingforloman]

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!