The GOD Thread~

[Avocado]

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 the spelt with and married the Women

I'm tired tonight, but [MENTION=20955]johnnyyukon[/MENTION] might have a good time cracking this. I will sleep on it.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

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?

yes I do but like you i think, It is also essential to my pathos.

 

[Coriolis]

yes I do but like you i think, It is also essential to my pathos.

Interesting. Intelligent design is a religious perspective, not a scientific one, and not part of my personal spiritual outlook as commonly presented.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Interesting. Intelligent design is a religious perspective, not a scientific one, and not part of my personal spiritual outlook as commonly presented.

I think what I'm thinking of is more of my own self derived view of intelligent design. I've heard of Thomas Aquinas arguing on behalf of his own views, but mine come from the experience of noticing patterns which seem to be constructions. I would ask what your spiritual, personal, outlook is but that might be somewhat rude so forgive me if it is. Thank you.

 

[johnnyyukon]

I'm tired tonight, but [MENTION=20955]johnnyyukon[/MENTION] might have a good time cracking this. I will sleep on it.

I was going to, then I realized I don't give a shit.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

No one is denying anything, nor is that part under debate. It would be perfectly acceptable to say that God has requisites for particular roles within his system. However, the reality is that all those roles are still roles within God's system -- they are fulfilling functions that God needs accomplishing. David happened to be assigned a role involving bloodshed, while Solomon (who ironically was the product of an act of adultery accompanied by the murder of the man who would have been his adoptive father for all intent) happened to be granted a different role because he was not involved in the bloodshed of his biological father.

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?

Because it's role-based, as I noted above.

David didn't just shed blood once. He shed blood so many times that God could not ascribe him the role of priest, even if he was a king and a warrior. And David was assigned that role of warrior by God -- his very first action, his first calling, was as a BOY attacking a "giant warrior" (Goliath, 8-9' probably). No other person in the Bible is called the "man after God's own heart." It's essential to his calling as God's champion, this ability to wage war, even if it meant he could never be priest. The one thing David did that we DEFINITELY can all label as "wrong" morally was his adultery with Bathsheba, yet ironically that is not the reason he wasn't allowed to be priest; it was because he had shed extensive amounts of blood, as God had assigned him to do.

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.

Wow. As I noted above, his main duties under God for the first part of his life was to "kill God's enemies." His very first act of obedience in fact as a BOY was to kill another warrior and cut off his head, routing the army that resulted in the entire army being hunted down and killed. He's no different than any other warrior in today's world claiming that he is being obedient to God by routing and killing his enemies.

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.

I know. Saul even refused to march out and meet Goliath, the enemy's champion warrior. So God asked a young boy to shed Goliath's blood instead and helped him do so.

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.

David was honored for obeying God, but the major part of David's obedience to God *WAS* in shedding blood. Lots of it. He was obeying God when he did that. See, you're still trying to dodge this bullet.

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.’

Thanks for pointing out the New Testament reference on that and stating that David was beloved for doing everything that GOd wanted him to do. David was acting under God's orders and he was an extension of God's will, which in this case was to destroy God's enemies even if being a tool of war meant that David could not later effectively lead within the temple as a priest-warrior-king. So David's behavior was endorsed, and in fact he was selected because he would obey God in ways that Saul was not, which included destroying the enemies of God. This was all still under the dominion and approval of God.

(It's not like God didn't do this kind of thing himself. When David took a census once and seemed to depend too much on his military might, God punished the nation by sending a plague that killed many many people.... 30,000 or similar? So God isn't afraid to get his hands dirty himself.)

Anyway, calling David a man after God's own heart, and having David be a man assigned the role of bloodshedder by God himself for so many years of his life sets a precedent. It's why conservative religious folks tend to be more hawkish here in the US, there's precedent to destroy your enemies, and David is often revered as a warrior hero because of that. The Church reveres David, and it causes a lot of internal arguing. David's adultery is rightfully criticized, but not so often his role of bloodshedder even if it prevented him from becoming a priest, because it was also a role assigned to him by God.

 

[Mole]

I think what I'm thinking of is more of my own self derived view of intelligent design. I've heard of Thomas Aquinas arguing on behalf of his own views, but mine come from the experience of noticing patterns which seem to be constructions. I would ask what your spiritual, personal, outlook is but that might be somewhat rude so forgive me if it is. Thank you.

How can we square Intelligent Design with Natural Selection?

 

[Avocado]

No one is denying anything, nor is that part under debate. It would be perfectly acceptable to say that God has requisites for particular roles within his system. However, the reality is that all those roles are still roles within God's system -- they are fulfilling functions that God needs accomplishing. David happened to be assigned a role involving bloodshed, while Solomon (who ironically was the product of an act of adultery accompanied by the murder of the man who would have been his adoptive father for all intent) happened to be granted a different role because he was not involved in the bloodshed of his biological father.



Because it's role-based, as I noted above.

David didn't just shed blood once. He shed blood so many times that God could not ascribe him the role of priest, even if he was a king and a warrior. And David was assigned that role of warrior by God -- his very first action, his first calling, was as a BOY attacking a "giant warrior" (Goliath, 8-9' probably). No other person in the Bible is called the "man after God's own heart." It's essential to his calling as God's champion, this ability to wage war, even if it meant he could never be priest. The one thing David did that we DEFINITELY can all label as "wrong" morally was his adultery with Bathsheba, yet ironically that is not the reason he wasn't allowed to be priest; it was because he had shed extensive amounts of blood, as God had assigned him to do.



Wow. As I noted above, his main duties under God for the first part of his life was to "kill God's enemies." His very first act of obedience in fact as a BOY was to kill another warrior and cut off his head, routing the army that resulted in the entire army being hunted down and killed. He's no different than any other warrior in today's world claiming that he is being obedient to God by routing and killing his enemies.



I know. Saul even refused to march out and meet Goliath, the enemy's champion warrior. So God asked a young boy to shed Goliath's blood instead and helped him do so.



David was honored for obeying God, but the major part of David's obedience to God *WAS* in shedding blood. Lots of it. He was obeying God when he did that. See, you're still trying to dodge this bullet.



Thanks for pointing out the New Testament reference on that and stating that David was beloved for doing everything that GOd wanted him to do. David was acting under God's orders and he was an extension of God's will, which in this case was to destroy God's enemies even if being a tool of war meant that David could not later effectively lead within the temple as a priest-warrior-king. So David's behavior was endorsed, and in fact he was selected because he would obey God in ways that Saul was not, which included destroying the enemies of God. This was all still under the dominion and approval of God.

(It's not like God didn't do this kind of thing himself. When David took a census once and seemed to depend too much on his military might, God punished the nation by sending a plague that killed many many people.... 30,000 or similar? So God isn't afraid to get his hands dirty himself.)

Anyway, calling David a man after God's own heart, and having David be a man assigned the role of bloodshedder by God himself for so many years of his life sets a precedent. It's why conservative religious folks tend to be more hawkish here in the US, there's precedent to destroy your enemies, and David is often revered as a warrior hero because of that. The Church reveres David, and it causes a lot of internal arguing. David's adultery is rightfully criticized, but not so often his role of bloodshedder even if it prevented him from becoming a priest, because it was also a role assigned to him by God.

Killing 30,000 people over a census seems harsh.

 

[Avocado]

I think what I'm thinking of is more of my own self derived view of intelligent design. I've heard of Thomas Aquinas arguing on behalf of his own views, but mine come from the experience of noticing patterns which seem to be constructions. I would ask what your spiritual, personal, outlook is but that might be somewhat rude so forgive me if it is. Thank you.

There are many instances in which ID breaks down, including flaws and redundancies. What has been observed in nature is mutation which rither grants a survival penalty, a survival advantage, or does not give an advantage. Those mutations which provide an advantage will permeate the population and slowly build on each other. Some genes will make some creatures unable to breed with some other creatures, but eligible to breed with some other creatures. The species will begin to split. If one species is wildly successful, it may push another species to extinction.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

There are many instances in which ID breaks down, including flaws and redundancies. What has been observed in nature is mutation which rither grants a survival penalty, a survival advantage, or does not give an advantage. Those mutations which provide an advantage will permeate the population and slowly build on each other. Some genes will make some creatures unable to breed with some other creatures, but eligible to breed with some other creatures. The species will begin to split. If one species is wildly successful, it may push another species to extinction.

I don't disagree with evolution. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that things begin and end. I've noticed in nature things are transformed and sometimes can not in any remote amount of time be re-established into their current/former state but I see all things to occur as inevitable; since time is relative it must be relative to something else, and so on, and so on, until we un-stack all the dimensions like a Russian doll and discover the dolls we thought were inside were actually the outside if we perceive them from another angle.

I know it's a far stretch metaphor but I usually read a lot of contemporary scientific breakthroughs and there seems to be relationships which weave in and out of scales of size. It seems the biggest mystery in the universe is not time itself but that of size and a non-living brain.

This is a very weird way of me saying that I believe I will be united with love for eternity and that intelligence permeates every facet of existence.

 

[Totenkindly]

Killing 30,000 people over a census seems harsh.

Why was God so angry at David for taking the census?
Actually I was mistaken...70,000.

Also, a different mentality here. ...when the leader sins, often it's the people who pay.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Why was God so angry at David for taking the census?
Actually I was mistaken...70,000.

Also, a different mentality here. ...when the leader sins, often it's the people who pay.

Satan is truly the Dark Lord. And he will use any vile methods and means to create widespread chaos and slaughter. Including censuses.

- - - Updated - - -

Weird how all ID believers are Christian.

Must be a coincidence.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

How can we square Intelligent Design with Natural Selection?

Natural selection is a form of intelligence if one considers that order is intelligent by its very nature, meaning that order implies a pattern, and any pattern or system is clearly derived from another system, and so on, on to infinity.

But chaos is actually a euphemism for limitation, or the opposite ofa euphemism which I can't remember right now, but basically there is no such thing as chaos outside of our humanity. Chaos is the limitation of our ability to perceive order which is always there by induction since we have continuously discovered order behind every assumed chaotic event. In other words chaos is even intelligent.

As for the common argument of intelligent design - I Don't know it...this is my own idea.

 

[Avocado]

I don't disagree with evolution. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that things begin and end. I've noticed in nature things are transformed and sometimes can not in any remote amount of time be re-established into their current/former state but I see all things to occur as inevitable; since time is relative it must be relative to something else, and so on, and so on, until we un-stack all the dimensions like a Russian doll and discover the dolls we thought were inside were actually the outside if we perceive them from another angle.

I know it's a far stretch metaphor but I usually read a lot of contemporary scientific breakthroughs and there seems to be relationships which weave in and out of scales of size. It seems the biggest mystery in the universe is not time itself but that of size and a non-living brain.

This is a very weird way of me saying that I believe I will be united with love for eternity and that intelligence permeates every facet of existence.

The interconnected web of all things. That is what attracted me to UU.

 

[Avocado]

Why was God so angry at David for taking the census?
Actually I was mistaken...70,000.

Also, a different mentality here. ...when the leader sins, often it's the people who pay.

Well, that is not (morally) right!
That would be like killing german civilians for Hitler's deeds. It does not square.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

The interconnected web of all things. That is what attracted me to UU.

The strings that bind us....

One string goes to the other side of the galaxy
one string goes from me to you
and another string vibrates
and I feel the urge to drink water and eat
and between those strings there are other strings
until finally we have a theory of strings
and we discover that the ancients were right in assuming reality a tapestry
of interconnections
But who is the weaver?
does not matter
but what is clear is that what is weaved must be woven.

 

[Avocado]

The strings that bind us....

One string goes to the other side of the galaxy
one string goes from me to you
and another string vibrates
and I feel the urge to drink water and eat
and between those strings there are other strings
until finally we have a theory of strings
and we discover that the ancients were right in assuming reality a tapestry
of interconnections
But who is the weaver?
does not matter
but what is clear is that what is weaved must be woven.

That is beautiful.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, I'm big on threads. Everything is connected. And our ties help define us.

 

[Evee]

“Form does not differ from emptiness”: “is” is like “is not”.
“Emptiness does not differ from form”:
the distinction is of substance and function. “
Form itself is emptiness”: its true source is fathomed.
“Emptiness itself is form”: the false flow has dried up.
Mountains, rivers, and the great earth are only manifestations of consciousness.
“Dream, illusion, bubble, shadow” – so it is!
Be careful not to seek outside; maintain the Middle Way.
To cast down stained threads of cause is to come toward the Thus.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

“Form does not differ from emptiness”: “is” is like “is not”.
“Emptiness does not differ from form”:
the distinction is of substance and function. “
Form itself is emptiness”: its true source is fathomed.
“Emptiness itself is form”: the false flow has dried up.
Mountains, rivers, and the great earth are only manifestations of consciousness.
“Dream, illusion, bubble, shadow” – so it is!
Be careful not to seek outside; maintain the Middle Way.
To cast down stained threads of cause is to come toward the Thus.

Beautiful. We both walk in two worlds.