DaveScot Responds to BarryA

I will not comment on this thread other than to say that DaveScot is not, in fact, responding to BarryA. I said nothing about the Old Testament, and in fact tried hard (and ultimately failed) to keep discussions of the Old Testament out of the comment thread, because such discussions are plainly a distraction.

I tried to keep the discussion of my post limited to philosophy, because this bears directly on the issue of philosophical materialism, which is germane to this blog. Discussions of Old Testament theology, both pro and con, are not within the scope of this blog. I am not unafraid to discuss those issues. I just do not think this is the appropriate forum.

Hi,

-”a rather destructive immoral human fabrication created during a much more barbaric, violent time and place in world history when the sword was more respected than the olive branch.”

Do you really think we live in a better time?

I don’t think so.

What about the killing of innocent people in Irak, Afganistan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, South Africa, Australia, South America etc… by the Europeans (which I am)!

I can’t believe some people are still optimistic about the our present time.

I don’t think the Old Testament times were more barbaric or less.

If God ordered me to kill a baby i think I could not do it. But when He did order the killing of all first born it was to show that He is not be made fun of I think. He gives life, and takes it back, it’s like that.

But the Jewish-Christian God is a just God and is not a psychopath, He is true to Himself.

Just my thoughts.

How crass. As the Creator of life, God has the right to take it.

See also:

Argument from Outrage

Extermination of the Amalekites

Extermination of the Canaanites

We already know that some killing is justified. Indeed, this is the principle behind the “just war” theory and the principle of self defense. So, it should not surprise us that God can be justified in killing in some circumstances. It is important to remember that the road to New Testament ethics was a long, arduous process. The so-called “People of God,” were, in the beginning, extremely crude, and in some cases, downright barbarous. You can’t begin the process of self-actualization with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. People have to be formed over multiple generations before they will even consider such appeals. It is also important to remember that some civilizations can become corrupt to the point of being irredeemable.

In the case of the population of Canaan, for example, the people were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. As troubling as it may seem to non believers, the creator does have certain moral privileges that his creatures do not have. One of those prerogatives is the moral right to decide when a certain society or culture is unsalvageable. As creatures, we are bound to allow the “wheats” and “tares” to grow up together. God is under no such obligation for the simple reason the he knows when it is necessary to uproot a civilization and we don’t. Usually, God doesn’t have to act at all, since most corrupt civilizations destroy themselves.

In any case, I know of no case in the Old Testament where God did not give fair warning prior to bringing down the hammer. Indeed, when God was getting ready to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Incredibly, God negotiates an agreement with Abraham to save the innocent and even sends angels to warn the righteous to get out in time. So, it’s not like God was happy to be doing this. How many times has the Creator tried to warn the creature, and how many times did the creature tell God to mind his own business. Actions have consequences. Prophets have been warning us in our own time to stop killing babies for convenience, but we continue on as if it was no problem at all. Quite often, these same abortionists are the first ones to get all riled up when they read Old Testament stories about God’s chastisements. Remarkable!

Yes, sometimes babies do have to suffer for the sins of their parents. So, what else is new? We all suffer from the ravages of original sin, and none of are spared because we were once babies. That is why we come out of the womb crying. This life is not called a “vale of tears” for nothing. Your real objection, at its most basic, is the idea that we must all suffer for the sins of our first parents. Everything else is a derivative of that problem. In fact, we are all tied together in some way and we all suffer when someone does evil. It is a natural consequence of being part of the same fallen human race. Rather than obsess over the Old Testament problem, we ought to attend to the New Testament solution.

I would like to add that I am very angry towards the US governement, for all the lies they’ve been feeding the world, with so-called “just wars” in the name of freedom and democracy. Sometimes using the name of God!! I am a Christian and I used to think that maybe this Irak war is just or something, but now it’s obvious that the goal is not democracy and certainly not bringing the Irakis a better life. Well it’s just history repeating:
1) western governments put a dictator at the head of an interesting country (natural resources)
2) this dictator starts going off track, and wants to re-nationalize the natural resources
3) Western world + multinational corporations are not happy with that
4) let’s start a war!
5) let’s encourage our youth to enter the military and let’s make them believe they are fighting for our freedom

When will Americans wake up?

I see world governments worst than darwinists in the sense that those governments (not just the US, but Europe also) lie and openly lie to the masses with no shame whatsoever.

I think it’s still similar to Darwinism in its use of propaganda especially via the media.

For a lot of americans, if we criticize the US government, we are anti-americans! It’s like Darwinists callin dissenters anti-science.

Anyway it’s important to think critically in all sphere of life, which I am sure all of you do.

Cheers,

PS; I am not anti-american nor anti-west, just anti BS.
Maybe I was off topic a little bit, but sometimes people and governments use the name of God to make believers believe that the leaders are godly since they mention God! But of course it’s just a manipulation, it has always be I hope one day believers will not be so easily duped.

Jonathan,
thanks for the links, I am always intrigued by those slaughters too.

It reminds me of what Sionnists are doing in the middle east. I am not anti-Jew of course but Sionnists seem to be Godless, and seems to want to shut down any dissent (even here in France).

The western world blames the Arabs for many things, but when we look at all the unjustice that they have to endure it’s understandable that they start to hate the west and Israel.

I used to think it was God’s plan for Israel to be back to its homeland. I am for it to be there, but I oppose the slaughter of so many innocent lives, not just a physical slaughter but also a moral slaughter, deprived of all their human rights.

What would Jesus say to Israel (the government not the people, let’s be clear on that) nowadays?

The world could have been such a great place to live in, but we humans spoil everything, too bad…

I am a long-time reader of this blog, and I cannot recall any time in the past that two regular contributors to this blog aired their disagreements by creating new posts and counter-posts. Why not just post your disagreements in the comments section? It’s starting to look like in-fighting, and it’s not even a topic that pertains to the purpose/thrust of this blog.

DaveScot, I agree with Sarfati. If God is the creator of life, he can do with that life what he wills. If he wants to take that life he can do so. In this case, there is justification for God’s taking of life, but that is besides the point. God, as creator, has prerogatives that his creatures do not. It is comparable to parents and children. There are things parents can do that children cannot, and yet it would be “childish” for the children to complain about this. I’m not saying I am not troubled by the killing of those children, but there is nothing immoral about it. It would be immoral for us to take life because we are not the author of that life, but God is.

DaveScot,

One important difference between the OT God and the example Barry provided: There are zero indications that God commanded it for amusement. Right off the bat, that’s a distinction from the soldier.

There’s another difference: God, by His nature, is privy to information beyond that of humans. If we trust that God has our best interests in mind, and we truly believe that a command comes from God, it is irresponsible (to say the least) to avoid such a command.

I’ll even give you an example. Let’s say you work in a poor hospital in Calcutta. A man shows up one day, inspects a patient, and informs you that the staff must chop off the patient’s right leg and right arm. In this scenario, you’re just a poor worker - you look at the patient, and they seem healthy to you. But the man is a doctor. He has a reputation for keeping the health of the people he cares for in mind, and having access to knowledge far beyond you.

Should the orders be followed or not? If you argue no on the grounds that the patient seems healthy to you and that’s all that matters, we’re in a bind. It throws expertise and reasonable trust out the window. If you argue yes on the grounds of the doctor’s traits, you can see the conclusion that follows.

A final important distinction between the cases: Even where killing is justifiable in Christian belief, it is never something that should be viewed as good, certainly not something to be happy about. (And I will be the first to admit not everyone follows this through.) If I were to kill a man in defense of others, left with no other option, it would be justifiable. Gloating, being glad at it, even viewing the death as a ‘good thing’ would not be.

Dave Scot,

I am a big fan of your objectivism and your usually clear mind. Then you make a post like this.

Not according to Christ. The problem here is that most Christians talk the talk but don’t even come close to walking the walk. I’m more of a follower of Christ than the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians. I at least try to walk the walk and know very well when I’m not walking it. Most of rest of you are in deep denial about your own sinful behaviors. Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague. No killing of anything is a common thread in many religions including, properly interpreted, Christianity. Admit that your animal desire to eat the flesh of other animals is, in the modern world where you have no problem (it’s very healthy in fact) subsisting on fruits and vegetables, a hedonistic practice. Stop lying to yourself that it’s anything other than hedonistic animal behavior.

The statement just does not logically follow from what we know of Christian teaching. It is obviously colored by an unobjective view of Christianity. All I can say is please do not speak on the Bible or Christianity. Your ignorance and somewhat warped agenda on these items is really on display. I don’t know who else to put it. Thanks,

Sorry, that should be “I dont’ know how to put it”

Dave,

When I was nine years old I was on an island in Italy where my folks came from. We spent over two months there one summer. The year was 1959. The island was poor. And, of course, Americans were rich, so not in need of money. Somewhere along the line, some ‘cousins’ of mine told me that there was a man close by who would pay us to shuck corn. Loving the local ice cream, I agreed. So, for four or five days, there I was shucking “dried” corn—which causes your fingers to bleed. For two weeks I asked my cousins for the pay. They told me that this man always would ask for help saying he would pay, but he would never pay.

I was steamed. My ravaged fingers demanded justice. And I got it.

A few days after being informed of this man’s unjust behavior, I found out that he owned a certain parcel of land near where my ‘uncle’ had a piece of land he too farmed. The next evening, as the sun was setting so that no one could see me, but I could see what I was doing, I yanked out an entire row of of his crop—I thought that was about what he owed me. [Italians get angry; then they get even!!]

Now, I’ll use this story as an analogy. All of us are like those plants lined up in rows in that man’s garden, owned by landowner. But, instead, let’s now pretend that it is God’s garden. Now, if God, as landowner, were to ask his steward to pull out a row of the crops, do you think the steward would object, or would he just go ahead and yank out the plants? But what if I were to yank out the plants, would that be just? Would the steward just stand by and let me do it? In other words, what is evil for us to do is not necessarily evil for God to do.

Now it seems that in the OT God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. I don’t remember Abraham saying that there’s no way that he would do something like that, and that any God who would ask for someone to do something like that is no kind of God I would follow. In fact, Abraham was ready to do what God has asked him to do. All life belongs to God. It doesn’t belong to us.

As to the killing of innocent children, the spiritual parallel is this: the non-Jews represented sin, and killing even the last child in a village symbolizes that when we desire to go to God, we must expunge sin from ourselves completely—or else it will take root again. (Notice we’re back to the garden again.) I, too, was once troubled by what we read, but God has given me to understand all of this in a spiritual way. Hope this helps some.

Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague.

But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish. They were only about a hundred yards away from the shore. When they arrived at the shore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish lying on it, and some bread. Jesus told them, “Bring me some of the fish you’ve just caught.” John 21:9-10

“My position is that in the ordering of baby killing God was wrong and therefore cannot be a trusted source of moral absolutes.”

This is the funniest thing I have heard all day. You are simply begging the question in your favor. You make yourself (not God) the trusted source of moral absolutes, and because God does what you don’t like, God isn’t the trusted source of moral absolutes. Put another way, if God is the trusted source of moral absolutes, then God didn’t do anything wrong.

And you’re ruining the Darwinists main argument against ID, that’s it’s supported only by a bunch of retarded Christian holy rolling Bible thumpers, and here you are, an atheist, as a contributor to a pro-ID site!

PaV, good point about the owner. It is just for me to destroy what I own and have created, but may not be if I’m destorying what someone else created and owns (without their permission.)

Lets add a look at capital punishment. Right / Wrong because life is sacred - right? Is God for or against?
Consider it a STRONG command for the governing legislative body to take the life of one who takes anothers’ due to the fact that life IS SO sacred it is to be protected. To argue against capital punishment is to argue that a human life is not sacred enough and interestingly a point of view more from materialistic naturalism that of revelation.

I know this is off-topic, but given some of the previous posts on Islamo-fasicsm, I can’t help but make some observations.

No where in the Qur’an does it mention that God ever ordered the killing of babies, and yet the Qur’an is portrayed by many in the West, and even many on this website as being allegedly a uniquely violent scripture. After observing this discussion it seems that this is done more for the sake of fear-mongering and to promote a particular political agenda. Clearly the Bible contains violent passages and yet a double standard is adopted in evaluating it, at least as far as the media and political apparatus of this country is concerned.

Just war theories in Christianity and Islam are remarkably similar, yet Islam is portrayed as violent and Christianity as peaceful. A perusal of our histories can not be used to justify this portrayal either. Christian civilization was definitely no less violent than Islamic, and post-Christian secular civilization seems more violent than either. It’s time re-evaluate guys. Pazu brings up some important points that are worth consideration. As Western civilization, we have to look at the violence that we are committing all the time and ask ourselves whether the justifications proffered really hold water. Why is it that 500,000 Iraqi’s have died and no one seems the least bit outraged? Was this about democracy, WMDs? Does anyone even remember? Why is it that we are now on the brink of another war and yet few are protesting? Why is that the same false propaganda used to justify the Iraq war is being used against Iran, and yet no one has the historical conscious to remember? Why is it that we only hold Hamas accountable for its killing of civilians but leave the Israeli government’s murder of civilians unchallenged when they are much larger in scale and magnitude? Why do we ignore the profound similarities between Christianity and Islam, in favor of a discourse of the “clash of civilization,” when such a discourse encourages this type of conflict and violence? Is this how Jesus (peace be upon him) would approach things in this day and age?

Off topic, and please delete this if necessary, but could somebody please eviscerate what looks like an error filled propaganda attempt by the NC”S”E entitled “Creationism disproved?” (question mark in origianl title).

Specifically, it appears that juxtaposing different creatures with different types of eyes proves evolution. Using the new-science™, there doesn’t appear to be a need to demonstrate that the octopus evolved from the marine snail which evolved from the nautilus which evolved from the snail which evolved from the mussel (as their fishy-smelling graphic indicates). And there does not seem to be a need to show the quantitative genetic distance between each stage. No, simple graphics trump math. Also, the term probably is part of how you “prove?” something.

Also, the great anthropologist and NC”S”E head Eugenie Scott seems to think that a pinhole camera can be focused, when in fact, as any undergraduate who has had optics knows, real pinhole cameras have infinite depth of field.

—–Dave: “Not according to Christ. The problem here is that most Christians talk the talk but don’t even come close to walking the walk. I’m more of a follower of Christ than the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians. I at least try to walk the walk and know very well when I’m not walking it. Most of rest of you are in deep denial about your own sinful behaviors.”

Let me first begin with a point of agreement on a related topic that you raised on an earlier thread. Without qualification, I agree with you that cruelty in any form always violates the natural moral law, whether it is directed at animals or humans. In my judgment, this is a self-evident moral truth. I do think, however, that intent matters a lot. While I don’t consider it immoral to kill certain animals for food, I seriously question the morality of hunting for sport. To give you an idea of where I am coming from, I submit that anyone who sponsors a dog-fight would be a good candidate for hell. Obviously, I would also apply that standard to anyone who would “spear puppies.”

I also agree with you that many Christians do not seem to walk the walk. It is one thing to preach, but it is something else to take your own medicine. What is there to say? There are few things worse than a hypocritical Christian who uses religion to serve his own purpose. Popes, for example, who are called on to be saints, can create untold damage to the Church and the culture at large because they have so much influence. Corruptio optimi pessimum est, says the proverb: ‘the corruption of the best is the worst’. On the other hand, some of the greatest saints and some of the greatest reformers were also popes. Indeed, I think our last two popes have been phenomenal and I submit that most popes have been profoundly beneficial to mankind. It is the same with Christians in general. You always get a mixed bag.

On the matter of violence, though, I disagree with you that Jesus Christ forbade all killing or that he was a pacifist. If he really believed such things, he had plenty of opportunity to make the point with the Roman soldiers. There is no record of him ever raising an objection about their vocation. Many who read the New Testament labor under the misconception that the phrase, “turn the other cheek” was a Ghandi-like exhortation. But it does not mean that we should never fight. It means that we should control our pugnacious nature. I submit that Christ felt that war was a great evil, but that it is sometimes a necessary evil, especially when the choice is between war and slavery. For my part, he hated all violence, but I think he would have signed on to the proposition that some violence is necessary, in keeping with some have called the “just war” theory.

In truth, Jesus Christ raised the bar for morality to unheard of levels. Not only may we not commit unnecessary acts of violence, we must avoid all cruelty, even cruelty of speech. Humans can commit little murders with words, causing their victims to sob their way to the grave. But the bar is even higher than that. We may not even allow our anger to get out of control, since even anger itself can be a form of violence. As a general rule, if we are angry for ourselves, we are probably violating the moral law; if, on the other hand, we are angry on behalf of others, including animals, we are probably following the moral law. You will notice, for example, that Christ became furious with the money changers in the temple, and he ran them out by force. On the other hand, when it was his time to offer himself up, he was as gentle as a lamb. What a man does is not nearly as important as why he does it.

Why is it that 500,000 Iraqi’s have died and no one seems the least bit outraged?

Mohammed, the best estimates of Iraqi deaths range from 90,000 to 200,000.

A good deal, if not most, of those dead come from Islamic terrorists targeting Iraqi civilians.

How do you expect peace to come if U.S. forces leave?

Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of (in addition to the example that Atom mentioned above)…

Jesus causes a whole herd of pigs to be drowned. Luke 8:33

Paul calls “abstain from meats” a “doctrine of devils” 1 Tim 4:1-3

God tells Peter in a dream “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat … all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.” Acts 10:13

John the Baptist ate “locusts and wild honey”. Mat 3:4

And, of course, Jesus fed the 5,000 with “loaves and fishes”. Mat 14:17

On topic: The question seems to be,
“Why did God command the killing of whole groups of people including babies and animals?”

I don’t know. But I have a hypothetical example of an instance where what seems to have happened is incorrect, and the truth of what really happened occurs at a later point in time. I just shared this with my son.

If my son and I were crossing the street, and all of a sudden he were violently shoved to the ground by me, resulting in road rash on his hands and face, his initial understanding of what was happening might be “My father has committed an injustice.”

If, as he was getting up he saw me being creamed by a semi-truck doing 70 mph, he would then come to realize that I did not commit a violent injustice, but an act of mercy, and that I had put his safety above my own interests.

The difference in time between the first and second understandings is short in this case, but it is not too hard for me to imagine that what now seems like an injustice using human reasoning might someday be understood to be an act of love and grace in the future.

That being said, I am not sure about the value of public disputes by significant members of the same team, when these disputes are unrelated to the purpose of this blog.

Let’s leave the meaning of the old testament to other sites.

Joel is correct in 23; our imperfect knowledge of our consequences is limited and does not take into account eternal hell which God would have perfect knowledge of. I would consider hell a much greater “evil” to be avoided for humans, than babies though both are repugnant in their own right. Thus if by babies many more people avoid the pitfall of hell in the “human race’s” future then the action is justified by the evil avoided. To which one would argue why did God allow evil to exist in the first place since he has perfect knowledge of the future, to which I would answer that again, we would have to consider that a much greater good is accomplished through this “allowance of evil”.

Salam Mohammed,

I agree with what you wrote.
Back in 9/11, I was a student in northern France and I was staying at a student residence, there were lots of Moroccans there. As we watched the news of the twin towers collapsing and then the revealing of the so-called Al-Qaeda terrorists (one passport of one of the “terrorist” was allegedly found in the rumbles of WTC1 WTC2 WTC7 whereas nothing ales survived except pieces of hardware here and there), all my Moroccans friends rejoiced.

I did not rejoice of course, and I thought they rejoiced because they were just happy “Christians” died. I did believe whatever the media said that time. Even though my Muslim friends brought some good points, and didn’t believe the official version right from the start.

Anyway, after the declaration of war on Afghanistan and Irak, a lot of skepticism could be heard in Europe..at first I thought it was anti-american driven, and I thought those wars were justified (well i didn’t know much about geo-politics, but it seemed to me Saddam was evil etc…. even though put at the head of Irak by the US government).

Mohammed, I think in the name of Christianity a lot of unforgivable things have been committed, but Christianity in itself is not violent. The states of the middle ages, wanted to keep the population illiterate for their own advantage. The state was closely linked to the Church, with all the abuse of power, authorities etc this position would bestowed.

You are right that in the west we are manipulated by a one sided view of geo-politics matters, and for good reasons. It’s in the interest of the west corporations and banks (who virtually own our banks like the fed, the euro bank in Frankfurt etc…).

I am hopeful the American citizens will realize that they are not ruled by patriotic and Christians people.

What the west has done is unforgivable and even though my voice counts for almost nothing, I ask for forgiveness at least symbolically. Our governments destroyed the lives of countless in the name of domination and power. I don’t think it will ever stop though. I even fear the horrors we see in the so-called 3rd world (created by the west, once again), will come knocking at our doors very soon, if not already.

God bless us, and God bless the innocent.

PS: this clash of religions is maintained by the media and the politics to instill fear in the population, but I have Muslim friends and I really love them and they never threatened me or anything like that, they love to debate actually on religion and politics matters.

I am not anti-american, I actually love America, but I do hate the US-governments and I even hate my own government as well as the new super state which is called the European Union.

I know many atheists who dislike this immensely and scream injustice and even call God evil, yet God is God and He IS real and we are limited, thus we are the ones who have to adjust our limited thinking. In fact I would argue that God, through the cross, has done everything possible to reconcile man to himself yet many men will not do the least effort to reconcile their thinking to God

DaveScot, now you are hedging:
“Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague.”

Wrong, Christ never harmed anyone including those who harmed him. You seem to be making an exception for yourself that Christ never took and making it seem like he did, which is exactly what you are accusing BarryA of doing. Am I wrong?

Also consider Romans 13:1-4.

Davescot wrote:

Dig it: you asked if the bayonetting of babies was wrong in all times and places then you went on to restrict the times and places to those times and places where the God of Abraham didn’t command the killing.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Barry. It’s all times and places, which must by definition include the times and places described in the Old Testament, or it isn’t all times and places.

Dave, is it your position that these things actually occurred in history, at the command of the God of Abraham? If that is the case, your rebellion is meaningless, as you are are attempting to moralize superior to the One who created you, and your ability to moralize. However if you don’t believe in the historical validity of this command and its source, then you’re arguing against a putative fiction, and merely impeaching the beliefs of your opponents in the debate. That’s ad hominem argumentation.

Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague. No killing of anything is a common thread in many religions including, properly interpreted, Christianity.

Are you referring to this Jesus, and this Christianity?

Revelation 19:13-15 (excerpted) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. ….Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations….He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

Revelation 19:17-18 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.”

Isaiah 63:3-6 (excerpted) “I have trodden the winepress alone; from the nations no one was with me. I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redemption has come….I trampled the nations in my anger; in my wrath I made them drunk and poured their blood on the ground.”

Keep in mind that these are parallel accounts of future events, and can’t be relegated to the savage past. This is “New Testament.”

Hi DaveScot,

-”When any two countries both have a MacDonald’s they never get into a shooting war with each other.

Food for thought.”

What do you mean?

I used to work at McDonald’s, which was fun, but I realize now that it’s also imperialism. They want to conquer the world (which they have successfully), in my small neighborhood I count 3 MacDonald’s in a very short perimeter + other fast-food.

My problem I have with that, which i didn’t have a few years ago when I was still a teenager, is that it homogenizes countries. Every country now has McDonald’s, Starbucks, KFC… you name it! We are under US domination. But the scary thing is that young people love those, and I like those too, but the problem I am noticing more and more is that, France has just become another US state, there’s nothing much that separates us from Americans, at least culturally (we are still much different). Same movies, tv shows, food, clothes, cars what else?

Those corporations are so ridiculously rich that they can buy any piece of land in the world, leaving the indigenous people poorer. Look at what Monsanto is doing in Argentina and India (soon in Europe too, but we are opposing strongly GMOs, but we will get there too because Monsanto is so powerful that governments will inevitably succumb to their offer), far more threatening than McDonald’s.

Anyway, I think the world is worse than ever, and I happen to find me contemplating ancient times as being better.
Will we ever find ourselves again owning lands? People (at least in France) are confined to small apartments, small houses, because prices are expensive. I would like to own some piece of land, coz I can’t live in a small apartment, but will it be possible? I envy the time when most people here had farms. Greedy promoters have constructed every single parcels left of land in the cities. I am afraid for future generations. And I am “only” 26.

I have a good life but it seems the future is more unstable every day. Just look at the dollar. How will American face the North American Union? see NAFTA being signed in their back, while they are debating whether Paris Hilton should go to jail?

Food for thought.

“There is nothing new under the sun”

“Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions.”

- Solomon

(soon in Europe too, but we are opposing strongly GMOs, but we will get there too because Monsanto is so powerful that governments will inevitably succumb to their offer)

What is it with the paranoia on this board in the last week. I haven’t had this much fun since alt.conspiracy on the old UseNet.

You will get GMOs — just as we will eventually start building nuke plants again. Why? Because they are better and safer than the alternatives, which in the case of GM food would be massive amounts of pesticide and fertilizer or hunger.

Another thought:

There was another thing Jesus avoided like the plague: politics. According to John 6:15, Jesus could have become king. In fact, the people intended to make him king by force. But he did not let that happen. Also when asked to make what was essentially a political judgment in Matthew 22:15-22, Jesus artfully dodged the question. (Ironically proving that had he chosen to play politics, he would have wiped the floor not only with the Jewish Sanhedrin but anybody else as well.)

Do these episodes mean that true follower’s of Jesus should not pursue public office? Does it mean that Jesus felt that government was evil? Of course not! There were a lot of things that Jesus never did. Jesus had a mission, a reason for being on earth in the flesh. That mission was to be a pure, spotless lamb, an unblemished sacrifice. There could be no doubt to anyone, including God, that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. For him to fulfill that purpose, his intentionally tied his hands while he was here in the flesh. However, as the passage in Revelation which Apollos quoted makes quite clear, his hands are tied no longer.

More accurately his hands are tied till the end of the world.

Hi tribune7,

GMOs are not better for health.
Please watch this European documentary, it is quite enlightening:
http://www.videosift.com/video.....Foods-Safe

Don’t be fooled by Monsanto’s “peace and love” motto, i.e. GMOs will eradicate hunger in the world.

All they are interested in is get a hold of all seeds on the face of the world. Because farmers need to buy seeds every year since those GMO seeds no longer self reproduce.
Also farmers need to buy huge amount of pesticides. The crops no longer belong to the farmer, but it’s Monsanto’s property.

Monsanto wants to patent all their GMOs seeds and even porks!!

You can google it if you don’t believe me. http://newstandardnews.net/con.....items/2240

It seems you trust blindly the agro industry too much ignoring the real damages to your US economy, and my own economy. For instance in India, a lot of farmers bought GMO cotton believing the nice little video of Monsanto saying that they would produce much more cotton with that GMO.

After the delusion passed, a lot of farmers went bankrupt and had to move to the city. Most of them couldn’t even resell their destroyed fields, since the pesticides destroyed the soil’s life.

Anyway it will come in our countries, actually it’s already in the American plates.

maybe I am wrong, but don’t you think we should have a clear explanation and debate with the people, scientists, and independent critics?

I think it’s too important for us and future generations to be dismissed. But we are too busy to care about that, and media don’t do their job once again.

DaveScot: This is not a distraction but rather a fair answer to your original question and ignoring your later contradiction which you imposed when you didn’t know how to respond to that answer.

Maybe someone could un-censor my posts that Barry censored as a “distraction.”

Sorry, to cause such a stink, but I didn’t feel it was a distraction to bring up Old Testament evidence to somebody who claims to believe in it.

Oh well - You made my point, anyway, in a much more direct manner

I think that on the Christian world view at least, the babies who are killed at God’s command go to spend eternity with God, which is not a bad place to be. I think what makes such a case of killing babies exceptional is the fact that God commanded it, if people go about killing babies on their own initiative then I think it becomes wrong. One point is that God can at any time restore the lives He has taken, we can’t. I think the most intellectually satisfying response to the problem of “old testament atrocities” that I have heard is this mp3: http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audi.....cities.mp3

There’s still a thing that is shocking to me when I read it, i think it’s in Leviticus.

The Israelites were asked to offer every first-born!!

Does it mean they had to sacrifice the first born?

I understand this sounds very shocking, I believe it’s a prefiguration of what the Father will do with his Son. And I think nowadays it would be considered unlawful for sure, which it is, unless God commands it. And he only commanded it to His representative people.

DaveScot wrote:

I’m more of a follower of Christ than the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians.

Especially with that “humility” thing. You’re the most humble person you ever met! LOL!

Most of rest of you are in deep denial about your own sinful behaviors.

I wish I could be. Then I’d know I was better the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians.

As it stands, I’ve no more guarantee of eternal afterlife than any other miserable wretched sinner. I trust (have faith) that my Saviour will see fit to be my advocate during Judgment, rather than my prosecutor.

Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague.

Not really. Certain fig trees and herds of pigs were not known to please Jesus.

You must subscribe to the Hippy Jesus caricature foisted off onto us by the likes of Andrew Lloyd Webber.

He wasn’t a Buddhist or a Jain. He was a Jew. He spoke like a Jew. He lived where the Jews lived. All of His close friends were Jews. And no doubt, He ate like a Jew. Lamb at Passover, the whole shebang. Sorry.

I could go for a gyro right about now.

Dave, thanks for your reply.

Apparently you actually agree with BarryA:

Anyhow, Barry’s question is about something that could be rightly called a transcendent moral value. I believe that was discovered by many religions, including many Christian sects beginning with the Essenes (Christ’s peer group of Jews), the Nazoreans, and the Ebionites. No unnecessary killing of any living things is still practiced by many Christian sects today.

So apparently there is a such thing as transcendent moral truth, in your own estimation — and your disagreement is not with this fact, but with either: 1) the identity of the law giver; 2) the scriptural accuracy of the nature of the law giver; 3) that there must be a law giver for there to exist a transcendent moral law. I’m suspecting your disagreement is some combination of 1 and 2, and I’m guessing that you’ve accepted 3. Would this be correct?

I understood the scope of BarryA’s post was in debating: a) whether there exists a self-evident, transcendent moral code; b) must there be a law giver for such a code to exist. I gathered that his restricting of the Old Testament discussion was to prevent those who would deny his example of absolute truth from running to the tall grass of endless OT debates about God’s motives and prerogatives; and to discourage the faith-minded among us from leaping to God’s defense every time someone misused the OT to change the subject.

I’ll conclude with a platitude: The Bearded Thunderer loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life.

DaveScot @ 9:

Stephen: We already know that some killing is justified.

DaveScot:Not according to Christ.

Yes, according to Christ.

Christ Himself taught in the parable of the ten minas that His enemies who rejected His reign would be slain.

Millions if not billions of people will be justifiably killed by Christ upon His return at Armageddon.

Billions will be killed by God-wrought disasters as foretold by Christ during the Tribulation.

And ostensibly more during the final days of Christ’s millennial reign.

Every time you kill another living thing that isn’t harming you in any way you’re doing something that Christ avoided like the plague.

Christ Himself killed a fig tree because it wasn’t bearing fruit. Christ Himself aided Peter in the catching of countless fish, and further cooked a fish breakfast prior to His ascension.

Christ Himself taught in the parable of the prodigal son that a fatted calf was killed in celebration.

God, in a vision, told Peter to “kill and eat” a wide variety of animals that God had “cleansed”.

Christ did not teach that bodily sustenance was to be found only in “manna”, as it is understood that living things were killed as food for people. It was further understood that killing in self-defense does not equate to murder, although such self-defense of the Christian’s worldly life, however lawful, was neither advocated nor creditworthy.

I’m more of a follower of Christ than the vast majority of so-called self-annointed church going Christians. I at least try to walk the walk and know very well when I’m not walking it.

No, you are not. Christ doesn’t grade on a curve, it isn’t a point system, it is pass/fail. You either accept Him as Lord and Saviour or you are not following Him, you will not be known or acknowleded by Him. All of your “walk the walk” is in vain and displeasing to God/Jesus because it lacks the core prerequisite of faith in Christ. All the “so-called self-annointed church going Christians” whom you dismiss, OTOH (if their profession of faith in Christ is real) actually do “walk the walk” however imperfectly, whereas you have yet to take the first step of that walk, and until you do there is no rest of the Christian walk for you to boast in.

In your opening post you write:

If the Old Testament is a true accounting of God’s interaction with the world then I have no choice but to conclude that my morals are superior to His.

There are several different contexts in the bible: literal, figurative, allegorical, symbolic, spiritual, physical, historical and prophetic. They are all true but they are not all illustrative of God’s morals; many are illustrative of human immorality and foolishness, such as your presumption to properly interpret scripture and exalt your morals above God’s.

Hi! I’m here to box with God. Now, you may think my arms are a little too short to box with God, but let me reassure you, I AM REALLY SMART! In fact there are a lot of times when I think I must be smarter than God. Especially when I’m publishing on this blog! And not only that, but I’m a good person.

(Did I tell you I was a good person?)

So listen up, you pathetic meat-eating, Bible-thumping intellectual slobs. Your “god” sucks. I mean, just look at all that Old Testament crap. All God ever did was order the murder of innocent little babies. Even I know better than that. I must be smarter than God!

Don’t you know about those peaceful earth-loving pagans, the Amalekites? Okay, so they attacked the nation of Israel without provocation when they came out of Egypt. All right, so they took every opportunity to attack thereafter. Okay, so they were a bunch of murdering merciless thugs.

But that doesn’t mean those stinky Israelites had a right to defend themselves! That doesn’t mean there’s any connection between Hitler and Darwin! (Did I tell you there wasn’t any connection between Hitler and Darwin? I don’t know why people keep wanting to connect Hitler and Darwin.)

Your “god” is a baby killer! He killed all those Egyptian babies! I don’t care if he gave Pharaoh nine chances! I don’t care if the enslavement of the Israelites had become unbearable! I don’t care if in general I feel that slavery is an abomination! This is different! Your God is an immoral God!

Let me tell you, a good person like me would never do anything like that. (Did I tell you I’m a good person? I really am a good person. Heck, I’m far more Christian than most of you so-called Christians! Jesus is just all right with me! Dig it!)

No, I haven’t actually read the Old Testament—but I’ve read Sam Harris! And let me tell you, that was enough. I was really steamed up after I read that book. Some day I’d like to meet Sam Harris. He sounds like he’s almost as smart as I am!

(Did I remember to tell you there wasn’t any connection between Hitler and Darwin? I don’t know why people keep wanting to connect Hitler and Darwin. People like that are really stupid. Hitler, Darwin, Hitler, Darwin, Hitler, Darwin—that’s all they ever talk about! Boy, I sure wish I could get my hands on people like that. I’d show them what’s what. As it is, I’m stuck here on this obscure little blog with all these dim-witted theists. Oh, well; we all do what we can.)

Hi allanius,

SO you must be anti-abortion then, right?

First, get a hold of a Bible, read it, and then come back. Thanks!

Pazu @47

Read Numbers 18:16-19. Its pretty clear. Every first born whether animal or man belonged to the Lord. He purchased it in the passover. The humans were to be redeemed. ( In other words purchased back from the Lord, not sacrificed ). The oxen and sheep were to be a burnt offering.

God freed his children from the prevalent practice of sacrificing of children. The practice is condemned most violently by God. Anyone who reads this passage and thinks that God is advocating child sacrifice is being willingly ignorant of what it says.

Pazu–

Anyway it will come in our countries, actually it’s already in the American plates.

Since at least 1994. No harm here.

maybe I am wrong, but don’t you think we should have a clear explanation and debate with the people, scientists, and independent critics?

Absolutely. But remember that those who create demons (agra-business, big oil, nukes whatever), and set themselves up as saviours (documentary makers, politicians) are usually lying.

tribune7,

-”But remember that those who create demons (agra-business, big oil, nukes whatever), and set themselves up as saviours (documentary makers, politicians) are usually lying.”

I don’t think those documentaries set themselves up as saviours, they just do their jobs at presenting what causes controversies.

I am greatly skeptical of the GMOs, especially when it’s patented as a commercial product. That’s outrageous, if it’s not to you, then fine, eat them. But I’ll do my best to avoid them. And I hope France and Europe will forbid them. A lot of people are raising their voices against them.

Don’t you think we had enough of being robbed our land, resources by multinationals? I think the cup is more than filled.

JDH,

I read the passage, I think I had misread it or didn’t understand what it really meant by offering the first-born. I was really shocked and disturbed by that first-born offering.

Thanks for the insight, I feel relieved that the Israelites didn’t have to offer (as in a sacrifice) their first kids!

The Israelites were asked to offer every first-born!!

Does it mean they had to sacrifice the first born?

Pazu

Leviticus specifically prohibits child sacrifice

As noted earlier the idea that the first born belong to the Lord comes from Numbers 18:

16 When they are a month old, you must redeem th15 The first offspring of every womb, both man and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals. 16 When they are a month old, you must redeem them at the redemption price set at five shekels [a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs.
17 “But you must not redeem the firstborn of an ox, a sheep or a goat; they are holy. Sprinkle their blood on the altar and burn their fat as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 18 Their meat is to be yours, just as the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh are yours.

I read it as the imposing of a tax to fund Temple services required by all Israelites upon the birth of their first child.

tribune7,

-”I read it as the imposing of a tax to fund Temple services required by all Israelites upon the birth of their first child.”

Yeah. Sounds like a tax or something like that.

StephenB: “We already know that some killing is justified.”

Dave Scot: “Not according to Christ.”

Christ accepted the Old Testament as authoritative, “It is written” (passim), “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Christ even affirmed the teachings that misotheists like to mock.

Dave Scot will really need to do better than selectivity about what teachings of Christ he accepts and his squeamish argument from outrage. His opinion about morality is just tha, and I could get the same at any gutter infidels site. What matters is the opinion of the Lord God ???????????.

I don’t think those documentaries set themselves up as saviours, they just do their jobs at presenting what causes controversies.

I haven’t seen the documentary in question but be as suspicious of a documentarian as you would a spokesman for a multi-national corporation. Those documentarians are getting something out of it. The first question you have to ask is what.

I am greatly skeptical of the GMOs, especially when it’s patented as a commercial product.

Oh, there are issues I’ll grant you that. But the frankenfood thing is tragically overblown.

Don’t you think we had enough of being robbed our land, resources by multinationals? I think the cup is more than filled.

You said you wanted land of your own and feared you would never be able to get it. I suspect that is more of a result of French law rather than international economics. Look at who is setting up the multinationals as bogeymen. Then get mad and start a French libertarian party.

Pazu -

Thanks for reading it. I am sorry if I came off a little strong, its just I get so tired of people saying things like, ” do you know the Bible says…” when quite often it states nothing of the sort or the opposite. Just like some of Dave Scot’s claims above. They just do not follow logically from actually reading the text. Many people read into the Bible what they want to see.