Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Cardinal Carminative]

Precisely. Politics is what was manipulating that entire list.

But religion was CRITICAL.

Politicians have always known they can manipulate the population by claiming, "God said" or "Do it for Mom!" At some point Grandma was brought into the mix.

1Samuel 15:3

A few of my ancestors were caught up in the Salem Witch Hunt. While people of faith were among those who whipped things up, it was also people of faith who fought against and ended what was happening.

Exodus 22:18

 

[Meriweather]

But religion was CRITICAL.

Yes. Religion was the ready-made compliant population, trained in obedience to a higher power.

 

[Meriweather]

1Samuel 15:3

Precisely. I was studying journalism, my university major. I liked the political beat. At the time I was also studying the Book of Samuel. What I saw in that book were two political groups. One group was in favor of wiping out everyone. The other (Saul and his supporters) were more in favor of leniency and then working with their enemies. The first group got rid of Saul, replacing him with David who would do what Samuel commanded (using the name of God), saying it was God's command.

I get Samuel's purpose. God's people truly did need to be a people set apart. If they began mingling with other populations, they would take the easier ways of those populations, forgetting the discipline required to be a people of God. Also, the Amaleks had been tormenting the Hebrews when they were travel weary and sick--attacking these in the back of the group along with women in children instead of facing the warriors leading the others.

Still, a political decision on the part of Samuel, who did succeed in replacing Saul with David. David was/is hailed a great king. I never cared for him.

 

[Meriweather]

Exodus 22:18

Yes. However, studying the laws and the purpose of the laws at the time a wider perspective is seen. First, the death penalty was not as widely used as we might imagine. First, two different witnesses, neither related to the accused had to testify. Second, when the guilty verdict was unanimous, the accused was free to go, because clearly the court was neither compassionate or merciful. (A court who put two people to death in 70-years became known as a bloody court.) Life was precious to these people because they could not afford to lose many to death. This goes back to the law about lying with an animal. A sexually transmitted disease could be transmitted to the person who could then spread it throughout the community, again demolishing the population.

Lying with an animal was a death threat to the entire community. It is not as if someone from a community of wanderers could stop by the infirmary for a shot of penicillin. We who live in a world of billions have little empathy for what it might have been like living in a community of mere thousands, always fighting for existence. One person's thoughtless behavior could cause incredible harm, not just to adults, but also babies born with deformities.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes. Religion was the ready-made compliant population, trained in obedience to a higher power.

Ergo my point still stands.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Precisely. I was studying journalism, my university major. I liked the political beat. At the time I was also studying the Book of Samuel. What I saw in that book were two political groups. One group was in favor of wiping out everyone. The other (Saul and his supporters) were more in favor of leniency and then working with their enemies. The first group got rid of Saul, replacing him with David who would do what Samuel commanded (using the name of God), saying it was God's command.

And do you recall from 1 Samuel what God did to Saul AFTER he refused to "genocide" the Amalekites? Yeah, God kindled his anger toward Saul for disobedience.

I get Samuel's purpose.

Yes, among many other things, he passed along God's wish for genocide and murder.

God's people truly did need to be a people set apart.

By murdering everyone else?

If they began mingling with other populations, they would take the easier ways of those populations, forgetting the discipline required to be a people of God.

So they needed a genocide to maintain their purity? Got it.

Also, the Amaleks had been tormenting the Hebrews

Even the old women and infants? Because they were on the list as well.

who did succeed in replacing Saul with David. David was/is hailed a great king. I never cared for him.

Saul was replaced by God because Saul refused to murder every living thing of Amalek.

Remember that.

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,

It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes. However, studying the laws and the purpose of the laws at the time a wider perspective is seen.

PLease show me in the Bible where it said "Witches are OK now, leave them alone."

Thanks.

 

[Meriweather]

Saul was replaced by God because Saul refused to murder

That is according to Samuel....

It was Samuel and Saul who were at odds with each other. And Samuel won. He got to write the history as winners always get to do. Saul could not be manipulated, but David could. I like Saul, meaning I would have been on the losing side. I understand Samuel's purpose--I do.

The first thing we are taught is God's nature is love. We don't expect a Being of pure love to order the massacre of any population. Thus, it can be argued, it was Samuel's order and he claimed this authority came from God. I have doubts that it did. But let's listen to the counter-argument.

Goodness and love can only patiently stand by and do nothing when evil presses in. The Amaleks had been tormenting a weakened population for decades, refusing food, water, and care to the wandering Hebrews. They were continually harassing the Jews, picking of the weak one-by-one. A point is reached where goodness and love and justice push back against the evil because that is the very nature of goodness, love, and justice. Jews assert God (Goodness, Love, Justice) did give the command to demolish the Amaleks and the Jews obeyed to end the evil that had been encroaching upon them.

Jews saw the spirit of the Amaleks continue on and erupt again via Hitler and the Nazis and that Holocaust. Should the people responsible for that been left unpunished, or did justice demand goodness take a stand?

So there we have it. While I tend towards the position that Samuel was playing politics, Jews have a strong and excellent case that evil pursues them to the point goodness must take drastic measures. I very much respect that position. My bias is that I don't like David and some of the things he did. Plus, I have this habit of looking for the political in social situations.

 

[Meriweather]

PLease show me in the Bible where it said "Witches are OK now, leave them alone."

Why? Did you skip past the verses about strangers and sojourners? Or...

Are you speaking about laws that were assigned only to Jews? God set the Jews apart from other people to follow His ways and His laws. They were to rely on God alone--no golden calf, no magic, no spells. They were to turn to God alone. Relying on a lucky rabbit's foot or a lucky penny would also have been forbidden, because they, too, fall under idol worship. One can be of the Jewish faith or one can be a witch. One cannot be both. It is the same today when it comes to Christianity. A Jew can be of the Jewish faith. Period. Jews do not follow both Judaism and Christianity; both Judaism and Hinduism; both Judaism and witchcraft. Any who attempt this are "dead" to the faith of Judaism.

Witches who were strangers and foreigners fell under the passages dealing with strangers and foreigners.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why? Did you skip past the verses about strangers and sojourners? Or...

The reason I ask is to figure out what kind of Christian you are. Are you a "dispensationalist" who infers concepts like a new dispensation in which the OT rules are no longer as clear? Or are you the kind of takes the obvious words and then creates new "definitions" so that the Bible no longer says what it clearly says.

Are you speaking about laws that were assigned only to Jews?

Dispensationalist then, eh? Got it.

God set the Jews apart from other people to follow His ways and His laws.

Does that apply to homosexuality as well?

Witches who were strangers and foreigners fell under the passages dealing with strangers and foreigners.

Ahhh, so only FOREIGN witches were supposed to be murdered? Got it.

(I hope you don't actually think witches are real or ever have been....)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That is according to Samuel....

Which parts of the Bible do you get to ignore?

It was Samuel and Saul who were at odds with each other.

Did you not read the quote I provided: those were the words of GOD.

This part was the key:

"Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,"


So which of God's words do YOU normally ignore?

And Samuel won. He got to write the history as winners always get to do. Saul could not be manipulated, but David could. I like Saul, meaning I would have been on the losing side. I understand Samuel's purpose--I do.

yes, it seems to be a full-throated support for genocide and murder.

The first thing we are taught is God's nature is love.

"And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you."

"And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand."

"This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee."

We don't expect a Being of pure love to order the massacre of any population.

But he most certainly did so throughout the first part of the OT.

"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

Thus, it can be argued, it was Samuel's order and he claimed this authority came from God.

Fair enough. Samuel lied then? Samuel, a PROPHET OF GOD, lied about this?

I have doubts that it did. But let's listen to the counter-argument.

I actually generally agree that this story is NOT related to any concept of a rational "God", but it stands that it is part of the Bible and if you wish to EXCISE that part you must then explain why you don't excise the NUMEROUS calls for genocide and death in Joshua or other books.

No, it feels like the God of the OT was a standard issue "olde time god of vengeance and fierce partisanship", just like every other made up god of the time. This God got to "evolve" into the God of Love we know today.

If someone came into a courtroom and claimed God told him to murder thousands of people, no one would accept it. But the Bible says it all the time in the early bits.

Are you, perchance, a Marcionite?

Goodness and love can only patiently stand by and do nothing when evil presses in. The Amaleks had been tormenting a weakened population for decades, refusing food, water, and care to the wandering Hebrews.

So their infants had to be murdered? Got it.

They were continually harassing the Jews, picking of the weak one-by-one.

Were the infants of the Amalekites doing that too?

A point is reached where goodness and love and justice push back against the evil because that is the very nature of goodness, love, and justice.

God can only be expected to let his Chosen People suffer for so long before a good cleansing GENOCIDE and buckets of blood cleanse the world of those whom God wishes dead.

Should the people responsible for that been left unpunished, or did justice demand goodness take a stand?

Sorry, but genocide is seldom a good answer.

So there we have it. While I tend towards the position that Samuel was playing politics,

You mean "LYING". He must have been lying on behalf of God. If God didn't want the genocide HE later punished Saul for, then Samuel was lying.

Say it for what it is.

Jews have a strong and excellent case that evil pursues them to the point goodness must take drastic measures.

So genocide is the answer? I don't agree with that.

I very much respect that position.

I don't respect genocide. No matter WHO does it.

My bias is that I don't like David and some of the things he did.

My favorite parts of the David story are when he's on the run moving from town to town and even visiting some towns that didn't exist at the time but rather existed in later eras. Almost as if someone just made big parts up.

Plus, I have this habit of looking for the political in social situations.

I generally agree: If we strip the Bible of any "supernatural" stuff we are left with a nice clear human story written by humans full of every human foible and every "sin" elevated as a virtue at some point.

The Bible is the work of humans. 100%. Which is why it has both GOOD and BAD. It has our horrific flaws and our better nature in its pages. But that's because we humans wrote the thing. Every jot and tittle.

 

[Meriweather]

Dispensationalist then, eh? Got it.

Sorry. I don't fit into that box. Care to try again?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sorry. I don't fit into that box. Care to try again?

But you clearly believe the Laws of the OT don't apply to Gentiles, correct?

WHY don't they apply?

And how is your position NOT dispensationalist?

 

[westwall]

Christianity is a mental disease.

Socialism, YOUR GOD, has murdered more people in 100 years, than all of the people killed by ALL religions in 2,000 years.

DURRRR

 

[Meriweather]

The reason I ask is to figure out what kind of Christian you are. Are you a "dispensationalist" who infers concepts like a new dispensation in which the OT rules are no longer as clear? Or are you the kind of takes the obvious words and then creates new "definitions" so that the Bible no longer says what it clearly says.

I am the kind of Christian who, when reading the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) goes back to the original language (Hebrew) and uses those definitions instead of English (meaning both the King James English and modern English). Besides studying the language, I study the histories and cultures of that time to determine what the original author was telling his original audience. To top it off, I find commentaries from Hebrew scholars (both modern rabbis and rabbis who lived long ago).

 

[Meriweather]

Ahhh, so only FOREIGN witches were supposed to be murdered? Got it.

Well you "got it" all wrong. Jewish law pertained only to Jews. They could not have cared less about the religious practices of foreigners. They were focused on the rights and wrongs in Judaism and those who practiced Judaism. Jews did not put foreigners on trial.

 

[Meriweather]

(I hope you don't actually think witches are real or ever have been....)

No such word in Hebrew. The Hebrew is better translated as sorcery or magician, and even those words do not encompass the full meaning which also includes an element of intentional deception.

 

[Meriweather]

Does that apply to homosexuality as well?

For people of some religions, yes. However, I doubt those who adhere to the Jewish faith give a moment's thought to the practices and taboos of other religions.

 

[Meriweather]

Which parts of the Bible do you get to ignore?

Do I get to ignore, or do you get to ignore? I don't know about you, but not everything in the Bible is about me.

 

[Meriweather]

This part was the key:

"Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,"


So which of God's words do YOU normally ignore?

Already addressed.