The GOD Thread~

[Nicodemus]

Carl Jung said if we stare into the abyss for too long the abyss will stare back and then other people will see its reflection upon our visage.

Then Jung quoted Nietzsche.

 

[iNtrovert]

If you are right for the wrong reasons, you usually think you are right for the right reasons and so not guessing. I think one's 'real right to question what other people believe in', if existent at all, is irrevocable.


That a person named Jesus may have lived is generally considered likely, yes. But his miracles and resurrection are neither 'historically verifiable' nor 'widely accepted by historians', and, of course, there are no extrabiblical sources for their occurrence. Naturally, the gospels are worthless as historical sources, even if they were written by eye-witnesses.


Have you heard of the Yeti or seen a UFO? People lie, people imagine, people misremember, people tell stories.


Troy has been found, you know. Its existence is a lot less shaky than Christ's. Now, do you believe all the things claimed in the Iliad? I wonder how Zeus feels about Yahweh.


Pretensions to a superior moral code are not a necessary element of atheism.


What I said is that displaying hypocritical intolerance and hate make one look more wrongheaded than intolerance and hate untainted by hypocrisy.

Ok I tried to address everything lol This was a long discussion so I’m rying to keep track of the original questions and responses

If you are right for the wrong reasons, you usually think you are right for the right reasons and so not guessing. I think one's 'real right to question what other people believe in', if existent at all, is irrevocable.

I would actually have to agree with this. I was talking about making found less claims not simply being incorrect but that’s true

That a person named Jesus may have lived is generally considered likely, yes. But his miracles and resurrection are neither 'historically verifiable' nor 'widely accepted by historians', and, of course, there are no extra biblical sources for their occurrence. Naturally, the gospels are worthless as historical sources, even if theywere written by eye-witnesses.

In my haste I misspoke and you were right to point it out. What I meant to illustrate was that the Gospels are historically proven eye-witness accounts and that it is accepted by scholars. Given that they were accepted as eye-witness accounts the Gospels give details of the life of Jesus, his teachings death burial and resurrection.

So with this I was answering your question about why we as Christians still claim divine authority of the text when it needs to be viewed in context. There are extra biblical accounts that recognize Jesus in light of the Christian faith and I have given you a few in my other response but you are right in saying that the actual occurrence meaning “matter of fact statements” are not extra biblical. That however is not surprising as the momentum for the adoption of Christianity only occurs after the claims of the resurrection were made.

This is exactly what we would expect as there was still a lot of dispute and dissention before the resurrection as to whether or not Jesus was the messiah even among his followers. People wanted proof and the gospels cite the event of the resurrection as being that proof. The extra biblical sources speak to the rapid spread of the faith and the acceptance of the message of the messiah after the masses received substantial proof to spur that change. The best explanation for this is that at the very least believed beyond a reasonable doupt that the resurrection did occur.

ave you heard of the Yeti or seen a UFO? People lie, people imagine, people misremember, people tell stories.

Is probably one of the weakest arguments skeptics have and most don’t use against the accounts of those who say they seen Jesus. The eyewitness accounts that were recorded in the bible include to many people for this to make sense. These people had no prior disposition to hallucinate it and nothing to gain. The Christians ended up being excommunicated and murdered for their profession of faith. They didn’t gain anything monetarily. Also the fact that the “heroes” of the bible possesses so many charter flaws further supports that they weren’t just making it up for their own benefit. Peter denied Jesus all the Apostles ran away when Jesus was killed. Paul mercilessly persecuted believers and the women were the only ones who stayed by his side. The sub class of women such that no Man would willingly admit that in this
time period. None of the early teachers of Christianity used the claim to exalt themselves or gain power. This is why most skeptics assert that people at the very least truly thought these events had taken place even if the skeptic his/herself does not feel moved to accept it which is an honorable stance to have and one I do respect.

Troy has been found, you know. Its existence is a lot less shaky than Christ's. Now, do you believe all the things claimed in the Iliad? I wonder how Zeus feels about Yahweh.

Through the study of ancient literature scholar’s find the gospels best adhere to the formula of ancient biographies which is why they are considered to be written with the purpose to portray actual historical events opposed to mythologies poems or epics. However, in the bible there are poems and parables that were meant to teach lessons and not to be taken literally such as that is the context in which they were written. Much of the Old Testament has a strong historical framework as well with extra biblical references. A few examples
Ahab, king of Israel: Mentioned extensively in Kings and Chronicles. Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III[1] which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite defeated by Shalmaneser.[2]
in Ezra 4:10.[11][12] He is named in numerous contemporary inscriptions,[13] including those that tell of his conquest of Elam and Babylon which accords with Ezra 4:9-10 where people that he exiled from these regions are mentioned.[14] Diodorus Siculus (book II, 21) preserved a fanciful account of him by Ctesias. (SeeSardanapalus in.[15])
Baruch ben Neriah, a scribe in the time of Jeremiah. Two identical imprints of his seal were discovered in 1975 and 1996. They read 'to Berachyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe'.[16][17]
Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon, son of king Nabonidus,[18] see Nabonidus Cylinder.
Ben-hadad son of Hazael, king of Aram Damascus. He is mentioned in the Zakkur Stele.[19]

 

[iNtrovert]

Can you explain a little better about what you mean when you say, "it also never happened?" since you also admit you are sure this did happen? (I think it was pretty common practice to kill the males and perhaps the children, while taking the women as your own to produce indigenous women, etc.) It was a pretty violent, stark world in that sense. I'm having trouble understanding your meaning.

As a prime example of violence, David said many wonderful things about his enemies and actually carried them out; he was an interesting figure, pretty ruthless in battle and fighting enemies but unable to appropriate father his own family. He was also referred to as a "man after God's own heart" (which is repeated endlessly in church sermons today), so understandably people tend to view his words and behavior as having God's approval aside from his obvious blunders like his affair with Bathsheba and accompanying murder of her husband. Violence seems inherent to the accounts in the Old Testament, and some of that violence was supposedly ordered by God.

Sure when I say it never happened I mean the verse that was quoted is not documentation or approval for the killing of babies but a Psalm


Regarding David you are right he shed a lot of blood for God. It was necessary at the time to establish the nation, but as a consequence there are things David is not allowed to do for God because he was a man of war.

1 Chronicles 28:2-3 2Then King David rose to his feet and said, "Listen to me, my brethren and my people; I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the LORD and for the footstool of our God. So I had made preparations to build it. 3"But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood.'

Heres a little information about just how scarade the Ark of the Covenant was.

The real significance of the Ark of the Covenant was what took place involving the lid of the box, known as the "Mercy Seat." The term ‘mercy seat’ comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cover, placate, appease, cleanse, cancel or make atonement for.” It was here that the high priest, only once a year (Leviticus 16), entered the Holy of Holies where the Ark was kept and atoned for his sins and the sins of the Israelites. The priest sprinkled blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the wrath and anger of God for past sins committed. This was the only place in the world where this atonement could take place.

Read more: What is the Ark of the Covenant?

In the passage I quoted we see God telling David because of the blood shed he's not even fit to build a room for the Ark on his behalf.

 

[Mole]

there was still a lot of dispute and dissention before the resurrection as to whether or not Jesus was the messiah even among his followers.

Jesus was a member of the Judaic religion, and the Judaic religion rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah because he failed to drive out the Romans.

The Christians, in order to curry favour with the Romans, blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and cursed the Jews in the New Testament, saying, Let his (Jesus') blood be upon us (the Jews) and upon our children, leading to 2,000 years of pogroms against the Jews, culminating in the holocaust.

 

[Avocado]

Sure when I say it never happened I mean the verse that was quoted is not documentation or approval for the killing of babies but a Psalm


Regarding David you are right he shed a lot of blood for God. It was necessary at the time to establish the nation, but as a consequence there are things David is not allowed to do for God because he was a man of war.

1 Chronicles 28:2-3 2Then King David rose to his feet and said, "Listen to me, my brethren and my people; I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the LORD and for the footstool of our God. So I had made preparations to build it. 3"But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood.'

Heres a little information about just how scarade the Ark of the Covenant was.

The real significance of the Ark of the Covenant was what took place involving the lid of the box, known as the "Mercy Seat." The term ‘mercy seat’ comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cover, placate, appease, cleanse, cancel or make atonement for.” It was here that the high priest, only once a year (Leviticus 16), entered the Holy of Holies where the Ark was kept and atoned for his sins and the sins of the Israelites. The priest sprinkled blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the wrath and anger of God for past sins committed. This was the only place in the world where this atonement could take place.

Read more: What is the Ark of the Covenant?

In the passage I quoted we see God telling David because of the blood shed he's not even fit to build a room for the Ark on his behalf.

What of my numbers 31 quote?

 

[Totenkindly]

Sure when I say it never happened I mean the verse that was quoted is not documentation or approval for the killing of babies but a Psalm

Thanks, I understand your point better there. (Although Psalms are really worship / songs to God, and they're treated as infallible scripture and models for behavior in every church I've gone to, so... still kind of unsettling. Churches do not make a distinction. I mean, look at the abortion issue and how consistently the church pulls stuff from Psalms -- "I am wonderfully and fearfully made, you knew me in my mother's womb," etc. -- to validate it's anti-abortion stance.)

Regarding David you are right he shed a lot of blood for God. It was necessary at the time to establish the nation, but as a consequence there are things David is not allowed to do for God because he was a man of war.

1 Chronicles 28:2-3 2Then King David rose to his feet and said, "Listen to me, my brethren and my people; I had intended to build a permanent home for the ark of the covenant of the LORD and for the footstool of our God. So I had made preparations to build it. 3"But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name because you are a man of war and have shed blood.'

Heres a little information about just how scarade the Ark of the Covenant was.

The real significance of the Ark of the Covenant was what took place involving the lid of the box, known as the "Mercy Seat." The term ‘mercy seat’ comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to cover, placate, appease, cleanse, cancel or make atonement for.” It was here that the high priest, only once a year (Leviticus 16), entered the Holy of Holies where the Ark was kept and atoned for his sins and the sins of the Israelites. The priest sprinkled blood of a sacrificed animal onto the Mercy Seat to appease the wrath and anger of God for past sins committed. This was the only place in the world where this atonement could take place.

Read more: What is the Ark of the Covenant?

In the passage I quoted we see God telling David because of the blood shed he's not even fit to build a room for the Ark on his behalf.

Yeah, I'm aware of all that.

Still, David killed all those people because they were enemies of God, and he is called a man after God's own heart, and God seemed to endorse his victories and in fact the church routinely preaches such. I've done more than enough Bible studies and attended various denominations, and it's all taken as tacitly approved and even beloved by God.

So David wasn't allowed to build the temple because of the blood he shed. It doesn't mean his behavior in those wars shouldn't be held as approved of and reflective of God, he was just a sword to shed blood, whereas Solomon was a hammer or saw (to build the temple). Both were still designated by God for certain tasks and were considered walking in his will. So we're back to the original problem with David and the things he did under God's leading that people now see as at best understandable in a time of war but not really anything especially moral... unless of course you are saying that none of the killing David did on God's behalf was approved by God and left him unworthy, yet he was still labeled as the "man after God's own heart." Big conundrum here, and I don't think this bullet can be dodged.

 

[Coriolis]

Sadly, it's not enough to just be real anymore.

Can't you see that there's going to be a difference in the approach to reality between a society that believes significance is inherent in reality and a society that shifts significance to a matter of perception?

Sadly, things are becoming more and more that way: the reality is that perception is being overvalued.

Nope, It's all perspective. I could say non-believers look worse because they profess to have a moral code superior to that or the religious derived from their own sense of right and wrong. Yet, when they wish death on people in public forums its proof that their moral compass is corrupt which is a tenant of the Christn religion and they look quite foolish.

You could say that, but not all non-believers (or otherwise-believers) claim their moral code is superior to that of others. If anything, Christianity is the belief system whose followers most often seem to assert the superiority of their own moral code, and indeed their whole faith; though certain Muslim groups are giving them a run for their money. When someone makes death wishes on a public forum, it says more about their individual state of mind than anything else. Any faith can be used to jusify this, and to decry it.

I wasn't taking about all religions just the one we were discussing. For there to be a false dichotomy there needs to be a third option related to the acceptance or denile of the Bible since that is what I was dealing with specifically. The Quran doesn't apply to a discussion about the Christian Bible nor does the punishment related to other religions.

Any discussion that claims the superiority or uniqueness of Christianity or the Bible invites counterexamples. But then perhaps you are claiming neither here.

The way I see it is that every religion/spirituality/creed has parts which are divinely inspired just as any work and parts which are corrupt. This to me is empirical evidence of a higher one above us or a loving creator which is really a leap of faith.

Yet still considering the fact our ontology is contingent on spiritualism and you may see it otherwise, or not - after all if it were not for religious convictions of certain said people we would not have or be here today the way that we are - Isaac, Galileo, Einstein, Tesla, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra - all of them spiritualists at heart, as shamanistic as a bushman yet men/women of science too.

It is as if 10,000 fingers point to a throne upon which the maker dwells, even science, and we argue about the fingers, we see the fingers for the moon, as Bruce Lee would say.

It is as if there is a divine source which is the purest light and we see only different wavelengths as that light moves through a prism and argue about them instead of seeing it all in its glorious totality.

It's the story of the blind men and the elephant. No one can see the totality of God. That doesn't make what we do see without value, but then the same can be said for other believers as well. The commonality of certain basic themes and archetypes across the world's religions does indeed point to something fundamental, though whether about God or about humanity cannot be determined with certainty. (Joseph Campbell wrote extensively on this topic.)

It is interesting that you include science as one of the disciplines that points to God. When my own faith was much in doubt, it was my appreciation of the work of great scientists of old like Newton and Galileo that kept me from losing faith altogether, and eventually set me on the spiritual path I still follow today.

 

[1487610420]

17 pages in 5 days...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Good Morning, Everyone~

I wanted to share this scripture with you.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. ~Matthew 7:7-8

 

[johnnyyukon]

Suicide killer, the OG: Samson (Judges 16:28-30)

What a gangster. See what women drive men to? : D Damn Delilahs

 

[Totenkindly]

What a gangster. See what women drive men to? : D Damn Delilahs

Hey, the guy looked like a stewbum, she just wanted him to trim up a little!


... I'm kind of shocked my one son never pulled the, "Why do I have to cut my hair, look what happened to Samson!" argument. Then again... I never really made him chop his hair much.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Hey, the guy looked like a stewbum, she just wanted him to trim up a little!


... I'm kind of shocked my one son never pulled the, "Why do I have to cut my hair, look what happened to Samson!" argument. Then again... I never really made him chop his hair much.

stewbum, lol, I had to look that up.

Well ya, Samson was a bit of a hippie, but that dang Delilah was using her feminine wiles to figure out his weakness, and the p**** whipped samson, even AFTER Delilah attempted to restrain him, gave up the goods. His flowing locks were the secret to his power.

Does your son know the Samson story? Man, he could really be working you. If only..... ; )

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I don't know if this is off topic but my cousin won't cut his hair because he says that he'll lose his mojo like Samson did. This man does not live a biblical life style yet when it comes to growing his hair out his excuse for not conforming to civilized standards is biblical.

 

[iNtrovert]

Thanks, I understand your point better there. (Although Psalms are really worship / songs to God, and they're treated as infallible scripture and models for behavior in every church I've gone to, so... still kind of unsettling. Churches do not make a distinction. I mean, look at the abortion issue and how consistently the church pulls stuff from Psalms -- "I am wonderfully and fearfully made, you knew me in my mother's womb," etc. -- to validate it's anti-abortion stance.)




Yeah, I'm aware of all that.

Still, David killed all those people because they were enemies of God, and he is called a man after God's own heart, and God seemed to endorse his victories and in fact the church routinely preaches such. I've done more than enough Bible studies and attended various denominations, and it's all taken as tacitly approved and even beloved by God.

So David wasn't allowed to build the temple because of the blood he shed. It doesn't mean his behavior in those wars shouldn't be held as approved of and reflective of God, he was just a sword to shed blood, whereas Solomon was a hammer or saw (to build the temple). Both were still designated by God for certain tasks and were considered walking in his will. So we're back to the original problem with David and the things he did under God's leading that people now see as at best understandable in a time of war but not really anything especially moral... unless of course you are saying that none of the killing David did on God's behalf was approved by God and left him unworthy, yet he was still labeled as the "man after God's own heart." Big conundrum here, and I don't think this bullet can be dodged.

I'm not dodging a bullet nor did I mean to imply that the blood David shed was not in line with what God required him to do but you cannot deny that the mercy seat that was in the holy of holies was a scared and essential part of their rituals in which you would come in close contact with the presence of God. The fact that God makes it clear that the blood David shed excluded him from building anything related to the Arc of the covenant let alone entering it lets us know that though it was necessary,blood shead was not ideal and was apart from Gods nature. This is not the only case in which we see those who shed blood excluded for extremely scared practices. It actually goes back to when the Arc of the covenant was initially built. God concreted the entire tribe of Levi and forbid them from having anything to do with war so that they could have direct contact with the Arc. Anyone who entered the holy of holies unworthily died immediately. Therefore if blood shead was what made Davad a man after Gods own heart why is there a curtally consistant sepration from the presance of God based on blood shead? That is why David being a man after God’s own heart has less to do with the ideal of killing enemies and more to do with his obedience to God. To further support this we can look at the Kingship of Saul.

If you are familiar with Saul you know that he was the king before David. Sauls major flaw was that he never did what God told him to do. God would tell him to do one thing and Saul would do another causing Israel to be outside the will of God. David obeyed God and found favor with him thus making him a man after his own heart.I think that the cultral trend of blood shead excluding individuals from being in the presence of God and the constant disobedience of Saul the king before David can’t be disregarded in establishing why God favored David. The scripture that states that David is a man after Gods own heart also supports this as only David’s obedience is mentioned directly in refrence to the removal of Saul from Kingship and Gods favor.

Acts 13:22New International Version (NIV)
22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’

 

[Avocado]

Sadly, things are becoming more and more that way: the reality is that perception is being overvalued.


You could say that, but not all non-believers (or otherwise-believers) claim their moral code is superior to that of others. If anything, Christianity is the belief system whose followers most often seem to assert the superiority of their own moral code, and indeed their whole faith; though certain Muslim groups are giving them a run for their money. When someone makes death wishes on a public forum, it says more about their individual state of mind than anything else. Any faith can be used to jusify this, and to decry it.


Any discussion that claims the superiority or uniqueness of Christianity or the Bible invites counterexamples. But then perhaps you are claiming neither here.


It's the story of the blind men and the elephant. No one can see the totality of God. That doesn't make what we do see without value, but then the same can be said for other believers as well. The commonality of certain basic themes and archetypes across the world's religions does indeed point to something fundamental, though whether about God or about humanity cannot be determined with certainty. (Joseph Campbell wrote extensively on this topic.)

It is interesting that you include science as one of the disciplines that points to God. When my own faith was much in doubt, it was my appreciation of the work of great scientists of old like Newton and Galileo that kept me from losing faith altogether, and eventually set me on the spiritual path I still follow today.

I'd say humanity, personally. It is refreshing to hear a god-believer accept science, though. It is less common in the deep south, but I hear of progressives from time to time. I quite enjoy the company of moderates. Their metaphorical tales add flavor, as a rule.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I'd say humanity, personally. It is refreshing to hear a god-believer accept science, though. It is less common in the deep south, but I hear of progressives from time to time. I quite enjoy the company of moderates. Their metaphorical tales add flavor, as a rule.

add me to that list. Believer even without denomination. I see the beams of mathematical fractals passing through each scale/echelon/level of reality as evidence of design. Science actually gives me more faith, hope, and reasons to inform my love.

 

[iNtrovert]

The context here is that Jerusalem is preparing to take revenge upon Babylon for the capture of Jerusalem. What is appalling here is the assumption that the children of the captors are somehow guilty and deserve death, when only a few people are guilty, namely the leadership of the Babylonians. It would have been far more merciful to instruct the Jews to take children under 12 under their wing and to raise them as their own. This brings up an interesting point, however. If God was protecting Jerusalem, and has the power to will anything into existence, why didn't her protect Jerusalem with a force-field radius which allowed no invaders to enter?





And in another example of child-killing:

War with Midian

1The LORD spoke to Moses, 2“Execute vengeance for the Israelites against the Midianites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”a

3So Moses spoke to the people, “Equip some of your men for war. They will go against Midian to inflict the LORD’s vengeanceb on them. 4Send 1,000 men to war from each Israelite tribe.” 5So 1,000 were recruited from each Israelite tribe out of the thousandsc in Israel — 12,000 equipped for war. 6Moses sent 1,000 from each tribe to war. They went with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, in whose care were the holy objects and signal trumpets.

7They waged war against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male.d 8Along with the others slain by them, they killed the Midianite kings — Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian.e They also killed Balaam son of Beorf with the sword. 9The Israelites took the Midianite women and their children captive, and they plundered all their cattle, flocks, and property.g 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and took away all the spoils of war and the captives, both man and beast. 12They brought the prisoners, animals, and spoils of war to Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the Israelite community at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14But Moses became furious with the officers, the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, who were returning from the military campaign. 15“Haveh you let every female live? ” he asked them. 16“Yet they are the ones who, at Balaam’s advice, incited the Israelites to unfaithfulness against the LORD in the Peor incident, so that the plague came against the LORD’s community.i 17So now, kill all the male children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man,j 18but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not had sexual relations.k

19“You are to remain outside the camp for seven days. All of you and your prisoners who have killed a person or touched the dead are to purify yourselves on the third day and the seventh day.l 20Also purify everything: garments, leather goods, things made of goat hair, and every article of wood.”m

21Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone to battle, “This is the legal statute the LORD commanded Moses: 22Only the gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, and lead — 23everything that can withstand fire — you are to pass through fire, and it will be •clean. It must still be purified with the purification water.n Anything that cannot withstand fire, pass through the water. 24On the seventh day wash your clothes, and you will be clean.o After that you may enter the camp.”

25The LORD told Moses, 26“You, Eleazar the priest, and the family leaders of the community are to take a count of what was captured, man and beast. 27Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to war and the entire community.p 28Set aside a tribute for the LORD from what belongs to the fighting men who went out to war: one out of every 500 humans, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats. 29Take the tribute from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as a contribution to the LORD. 30From the Israelites’ half, take one out of every 50 from the people, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats, all the livestock, and give them to the Levites who perform the duties ofq the LORD’s tabernacle.”

31So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 32The captives remaining from the plunder the army had taken totaled:

675,000 sheep and goats,

33 72,000 cattle,

34 61,000 donkeys,

35and 32,000 people, all the females who had not had sexual relations with a man.

36The half portion for those who went out to war numbered:

337,500 sheep and goats,

37and the tribute to the LORD was 675

from the sheep and goats;

38from the 36,000 cattle,

the tribute to the LORD was 72;

39from the 30,500 donkeys,

the tribute to the LORD was 61;

40and from the 16,000 people,

the tribute to the LORD was 32 people.

41Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as a contribution for the LORD, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

42From the Israelites’ half, which Moses separated from the men who fought, 43the community’s half was:

337,500 sheep and goats,

44 36,000 cattle,

45 30,500 donkeys,

46and 16,000 people.

47Moses took one out of every 50, selected from the people and the livestock of the Israelites’ half. He gave them to the Levites who perform the duties of the LORD’s tabernacle, as the LORD had commanded him.

48The officers who were over the thousands of the army, the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, approached Moses 49and told him, “Your servants have taken a census of the fighting men under our command, and not one of us is missing. 50So we have presented to the LORD an offering of the gold articles each man found — armlets, bracelets, rings, earrings, and necklaces — to make •atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”r

51Moses and Eleazar the priest received from them all the articles made out of gold. 52All the gold of the contribution they offered to the LORD, from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, was 420 pounds.s 53Each of the soldiers had taken plunder for himself.t 54Moses and Eleazar the priest received the gold from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds and brought it into the tent of meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD.

[MENTION=17164]iNtrovert[/MENTION]

They were not preparing for war here the Psalmist is captive. God did not protect Israel from the Babylon because he was passing judgment on them for their disobedience. At a time when Israel was very prosperous God told Israel not to make a deal with a nation because they were going to betray them. Israel didn’t listen so when it happened God didn’t protect them. He also told them they would be held captive by this nation for a number of years and afterwards he would restore the nation. So God is not about to kill babies for an insolent nation he is punishing. The Psalmist is clearly bitter about what happened and is cursing Babylon promising to remember everything that was done to the nation of Israel and promising to take revenge.


As for Numbers 31 yes people were killed It was necessary to establish the nation and it was culturally customary in that time to kill the male children. I believe this was so they wouldn’t rise up a seek revenge when they came of age. Also this was a time of patriarchal societies so male children wouldn’t customarily be assimilated in to the conquering culture. The order to Kill the male children was given by Moses and did not come directly from God. God often worked within the culture of the time. No blood shed was not ideal but he allowed it. We also know that those who shead blood could not have anything to do with the Arc of the Covenant which was the most sacred ritual and artifact of the Jews. The entire tribe of Levi that was consecrated to deal with the Arc of the convent was forbidden from ever going to war so that they would not have to participate in blood shed.

After the people were killed in Numbers everyone who did the killing was not allowed back into the camp until they were cleansed by a series of rituals. Everything that they took had to be cleansed by holy fire. Anything that couldn’t be cleansed by fire needed to be cleansed by water. The virgins that they brought back also needed to be cleansed.This is all evidence that though it might have been ordered and was necessary it was in no way ideal and needed to be atoned for. This also old testament law. We can see the progression throughout the Bible where practices that call for blood are no longer prohibited. The brutal nature of the Old Testament should be viewed in the same way we view hangings and executions in the medieval era. They were cultural practices that improved overtime.

Now the women that were killed conspired with Balaam's against Israel causing the nation to sin and break the covenant with God. Balaam kept trying to curse Israel after they over through a neighboring nation. Balaam feared that Israel would do the same to him so he tried to get a holy man to curse them. After several warnings from God himself and the Holy man Balaam was cursed and told that Israel would certainly destroy his nation. To avoid the curse Balaam attempted to merge the two nations so he and the woman of his nation conspired to seduced and whore with the nation of Israel. They also incited them to attend ceremonies where sacrifices were made to their Gods. The men took the women as wives. One of the women that ended up marrying into a family of a high ranking Israelite and she herself was the daughter of a high ranking family. The man brought the woman to a scared religious ceremony which broke convent with God. God ordered that all the women who conspired with Balaam as well as the men that received them and married them to be killed. Holding both the men of Israel and the women sent by Balaam accountable. Which brings up one of the verses you bolded Moses wanted the women that were brought back by his men killed because they also conspired with Balaam who God cursed so they couldn’t be spared.

Numbers 31: 15-16 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.

The male children were customarily killed and the virgins were adopted into the nation because they didn’t conspire with Balaam to whore with the Israelite men.

So essentially Balaam brought judgment on his entire nation by disobeying God after many warnings and trying to outsmart God by conspiring to corrupt the nation of Israel causing massive amounts of people from both nations to die. I think something like over 600k Israelite men were killed because they spelt with and married the Women

 

[Mole]

God and the Fourth Floor

17 pages in 5 days...

This is some evidence we are vitally interested in context. After all, God is the context for everything.

But stepping down a little from God we find contexts themselves are very interesting. We might even say personality types are a context for persons. And of course there are good contexts and bad contexts, for instance our social environment is a potent context: and a good social context leads onto a good life, and a bad social context can ruin your life.

And we are fascinated by contexts within contexts, we might say we are entranced by contexts within contexts. And there are good and bad contexts within contexts. For instance, addiction is a bad context within a context. And some Shakespearean plays are good examples of plays within plays, that is, contexts within contexts.

But as we go deeper into contexts within contexts, within contexts, within contexts, down to the fourth context, we loose the ability to distinguish between imagination and reality, and what is imaginary becomes real. So religious experience occurs at fourth level context.

So we meet God at the fourth level.

So we might say religious ritual is a contextual elevator, and when we reach the fourth floor, we find not haberdashery, but God, the saints and angels, not to mention the demons and devils.

Who dares get out of the elevator at the fourth floor?

 

[Coriolis]

I'd say humanity, personally. It is refreshing to hear a god-believer accept science, though. It is less common in the deep south, but I hear of progressives from time to time. I quite enjoy the company of moderates. Their metaphorical tales add flavor, as a rule.

I was about to write that I can do no less in my profession, but it is more than that. I feel it is something essential about myself as a person.

add me to that list. Believer even without denomination. I see the beams of mathematical fractals passing through each scale/echelon/level of reality as evidence of design. Science actually gives me more faith, hope, and reasons to inform my love.

Do you accept the concept usually referred to as "intelligent design" then?

 

[Avocado]

I was about to write that I can do no less in my profession, but it is more than that. I feel it is something essential about myself as a person.


Do you accept the concept usually referred to as "intelligent design" then?

Are you a scientist?