No, Galen, it was not I that brought up rape but Greasey and you. I simply refuted the notion that Mosaic law condoned rape. Personally, I do not at all see plainly that the Bible condones it. In addition, Judaism is based on more than just the Torah, so I attempted to share some of that with youas well.
However, you choose to continue to belive Mosaic law condones rape. I fail to understand why you woud do so, but certainly you have the free will to make that decision.
No, Galen, it was not I that brought up rape but Greasey and you. ...
Greasytech in post #7 used the phrase.
Abigail in post #9 used the phrase.
Abigail again in post #11 used the phrase.
In post #16, I quoted Abigail"s use of the phrase "rape" and quoted scripture which directly pertained to that topic [which is still not the topic of which I was asking when I started this thread].
So yes I guess your right. I did bring it up in the first place. [down in post #16 after it had already been bandied about for 9 posts].
Or to limit STDs [sexually Transmited Disease]. It was common to take all women as slaves and concubines, in this case they could only take the virgins.
Galen, then how do you explain this post, which, by the way, is number EIGHT (conveniently left out of the post)? It would seem to me, you are saying Mosaic law condones the practice at best, and supporting it, at worst.
Galen, then how do you explain this post, which, by the way, is number EIGHT (conveniently left out of the post)? It would seem to me, you are saying Mosaic law condones the practice at best, and supporting it, at worst.
I fail to see any connection between what I said and 'rape'.
Taking a wife from among another population. would possibly bring STDs into your population. If all your people are faithful in their marriages, then STD should be rare.
Since you do not know, how any of those females behaved themselves, you have no idea which ones were the whores, or the prostitutes. So restricting all 'spoils of war' brides to be virgin, would limit bringing STD back into your people.
You wish to talk about rape and saying that The Law forbids it, when a plain reading of the The Law clearly does not.
...
Surely The Bible does not need my defense. It is the Word of God.
Now, just look and compare those 2 sentences between the '...' ellipses there. Just look and compare. Now, like trying to find Waldo, can you see what's wrong with that picture that results from that comparison? Hhmmm? (Yes Virginia, there is something wrong there. I just want to see if you can find it.)
:unsure:
And religious people wonder why folks like me toss the whole faith in the Bible/religion thing. Sooner or later, crap like this gets to you, and you just can't take the insanity anymore.
I was asking if anyone was familiar with using the phrase 'Amalek' to describe terrorism.
People want to talk about rape instead, fine.
Now, just look and compare those 2 sentences between the '...' ellipses there. Just look and compare. Now, like trying to find Waldo, can you see what's wrong with that picture that results from that comparison? Hhmmm? (Yes Virginia, there is something wrong there. I just want to see if you can find it.)
Okay lets see:
You wish to talk about rape and saying that The Law forbids it, when a plain reading of the The Law clearly does not.
Surely The Bible does not need my defense. It is the Word of God.
Yes???
I dont know your Waldo. Uhm, a cartoon?
Are you saying that there is a Law in the Old Testament that forbids it? If so than please jsut quote it, rather than playing these word games.
The verse you discussed earlier clearly said that the rapist would have to marry the female, unless she was married or betrothed.
Do you, or Virginia have some other verse you would wish to bring up?
The main point I was bringing up was the blatant contrast between the claim that you made that the Law doesn't forbid rape (which in and of itself is quite a shock to any decent, moral individual <_< ), and your claim that that was also the Word of God.
Ie., one then must conclude that the Word of God doesn't forbid rape.
Now how the talk about Amalek turned into a talk about rape, ... beats me; you know how threads often go their own directions, at least on this board. But when rape isn't specifically forbidden in the set of scriptures, and those scriptures are (supposedly) THE Word of a God who is claimed to be the Author of what is moral and right, ...... whether its in context of the thread or not, this kind of conclusion has gotta give one pause here.
The verse you discussed earlier clearly said that the rapist would have to marry the female, unless she was married or betrothed.
Sooo, what would happen to the rapist if the victim was married or betrothed? Or the female for that matter?
P.S., you mean you never heard of the "Can you find Waldo" illustrations? Where there was this character named Waldo who wears a red & white striped shirt and hat, and he's in a big crowd of people, and the challenge was for you to find him. I think he was a mascot for Waldenbooks in order to get kids to read more books, something like that.
You ought to know me by now to know that I often use illustrations like that to help make my point in my posts. Apparently I used one that was unknown to you.
Ok, you want it to go back to being about the sin of Amalek? Fine. We'll do just that.
I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed.
That's from the article you posted that stood out to me, especially in light of the incident of Samuel telling King Saul to kill everyone he came across in his strike against the Amalekites. Everyone, including "infant and suckling". Plain right there in the scriptures.
Tell me please, does this incident not go *well* over that "bright moral line which can never be crossed"?
Yet Another One of those 'blatant contrasts' I mentioned earlier. <_<
Galen, you are not very good at playing "dumb" and "innocent". You tell others to take your mind out of the gutter, and yet it is you who is fighting for the position that the God you worship condoned raping women. Unless you believe the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the one in the New Testament?
I have done my best to lay out context as well as commentary on the topic you originally posted, as well as on the topic this thread moved to. I am now very sorry I attempted to share anything to offer perspective and understanding on this thread. Not because you disagree with me, but because your "I'm innocent" act strikes me as totally lacking in honesty.
Garth, what literally took place and why in the O.T., I suspect no one may no except those who lived in those times. If you are truly interested, I did offer some insight into how we can take what is written, internalize it, and use it in a way that may be positive for our lives. Beyond that, I have already expressed my thoughts on the article that was originally posted in this thread, and that too I stand by. Using God or Relgion to justify a war, is in my opinion, a dangerous and immoral thing. In regard to what is occuring in Lebanon, there isn't even a need for it, as most people would agree that one has a right to defend self and country when attacked by terrorists. But that too has been covered in the political forums.
Galen, you are not very good at playing "dumb" and "innocent". You tell others to take your mind out of the gutter, and yet it is you who is fighting for the position that the God you worship condoned raping women. Unless you believe the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the one in the New Testament?
I am certainly not innocent of much. I am a sinner. and I have committed many wrongs.
If you have a verse to share I am sure that you would do so. You wish to argue for a position without a chapter and verse backing that position.
I have done my best to lay out context as well as commentary on the topic you originally posted, as well as on the topic this thread moved to. I am now very sorry I attempted to share anything to offer perspective and understanding on this thread. Not because you disagree with me, but because your "I'm innocent" act strikes me as totally lacking in honesty.
Again. I dont recall saying that I am innocent of anything.
Garth, what literally took place and why in the O.T., I suspect no one may no except those who lived in those times. If you are truly interested, I did offer some insight into how we can take what is written, internalize it, and use it in a way that may be positive for our lives. Beyond that, I have already expressed my thoughts on the article that was originally posted in this thread, and that too I stand by. Using God or Relgion to justify a war, is in my opinion, a dangerous and immoral thing. In regard to what is occuring in Lebanon, there isn't even a need for it, as most people would agree that one has a right to defend self and country when attacked by terrorists. But that too has been covered in the political forums.
Terrorism may well be discussed in political forums, though from this rabbi's comments it looked like here was a Biblical context which addressed the topic of terrorism, thus I brought it to this 'doctrine' forum.
The main point I was bringing up was the blatant contrast between the claim that you made that the Law doesn't forbid rape (which in and of itself is quite a shock to any decent, moral individual <_< ), and your claim that that was also the Word of God.
'my claim' because I quoted the scripture?
... Ie., one then must conclude that the Word of God doesn't forbid rape.
Unless you can find a verse that does forbid it.
Sooo, what would happen to the rapist if the victim was married or betrothed? Or the female for that matter?
Same scripture passage, I thought that we had already discussed that part. Violate another man's wife or betrothed and you get killed.
P.S., you mean you never heard of the "Can you find Waldo" illustrations? Where there was this character named Waldo who wears a red & white striped shirt and hat, and he's in a big crowd of people, and the challenge was for you to find him. I think he was a mascot for Waldenbooks in order to get kids to read more books, something like that.
Okay, fine, and who is Virginia?
I take it then that you are also un-familiar with the concept of 'Amalek' killing the stragglers take followed behind the main-party, being equated with 'terrorism'. I had not heard of that either.
I take it then that you are also un-familiar with the concept of 'Amalek' killing the stragglers take followed behind the main-party, being equated with 'terrorism'. I had not heard of that either.
I am indeed familiar with that account in the OT where the Amalekite army attacked the children of Isreal from behind as they were enroute to the promised land. ... And the children of Isreal kicked their behind real good then too.
So why was it that Samuel found it necessary to re-punish them 3-400 years later for the same incident? And by doing the same thing to them (killing their children, et al)? That was one of the times where the bright moral line was clearly crossed.
"... Ie., one then must conclude that the Word of God doesn't forbid rape."
Unless you can find a verse that does forbid it.
So you can't say that rape is against the Word of God simply because it doesn't specify it in the scriptures?
This is a classic example of the serious flaw of the _blind_ obedience of the "It is written" mentality. If scripture dictates something, it must be right. If the scripture doesn't forbid something, it must not be wrong. And the like.
Anybody with a brain would realize that rape is morally and ethically wrong, and should be forbidden by a moral and ethical God. Period. If one needs the "In the third verse of the second chapter of the Holy Book, it sayeth that thou shouldest not commit rape!" approach to know this, ... then that someone have a serious problem!
P.S., I think you know, after seeing many of my posts, that my usage of "No Virginia, yadayada" is a take-off usage of the "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" phrase. If not, there it is.
If you are truly interested, I did offer some insight into how we can take what is written, internalize it, and use it in a way that may be positive for our lives.
Abigail, I see the value in that point of yours. Unfortunately, if we're talking about a real incident as depicted in the scriptures (as I have no reason to interpret that figuratively), and since there are those who portray that real incident as just and Godly, that puts a whole different angle on things.
Enough of an angle that has inspired folks like me to re-evaluate what we have learned about God, scriptures, and the like. Maybe Sushi can tell you more of what I'm talking about in this respect.
"Abigail, I see the value in that point of yours. Unfortunately, if we're talking about a real incident as depicted in the scriptures (as I have no reason to interpret that figuratively), and since there are those who portray that real incident as just and Godly, that puts a whole different angle on things.
Enough of an angle that has inspired folks like me to re-evaluate what we have learned about God, scriptures, and the like. Maybe Sushi can tell you more of what I'm talking about in this respect."
Garth, how one chooses to interpret the scriptures is up to the individual. How much is literal, how much is figurative is likewise up to the individual. I wsa simply offering another POV of how some Jewish people interpret what is written - an interpretation I happen to derive benefit from.
I have a pretty clear understanding of Sushi's opinions on God and the Bible. Another one of the beautiful things about being free from a high demand organization like TWI is that I am free to love and respect him for his beliefs, as he is me, even if we do not believe the same thing. Regardless of our differences of opinion regarding religion, our moral values are basically the same. Just as I am free to think you are a decent human being with decent values even if you have a different opinion on these issues. However, I do struggle with holding out respect for people who use God and religion to justify killing people or otherwise hurting them, which was why I felt it was important to offer another perspective in the first place.
I think it lies squarely on how one perceives God as to interpreting what he says to do. The purpose and reasoning of people has everything to do with how one takes what God says to do.
And that is what God has to work with, with each one of us.
Isn't this true of what we have to deal with today in our own lives?
How was God perceived in the minds of the Hebrews?
How was God perceived in the minds of others?
Death was imminent, whether by the sword or natural causes.
How do you think this affected people?
How do think this affected God?
The example of Abraham going to sacrifice his son comes to mind.
As for Moses, he didn't war with anyone as I recall.
It was after his death that many wars occurred.
What does that mean you may say.
Well...Moses was much closer to God then Joshua and the rest,
P.S., I think you know, after seeing many of my posts, that my usage of "No Virginia, yadayada" is a take-off usage of the "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" phrase. If not, there it is.
Yes, thank you, now after looking the full phrase up on 'wikipedia' I found it.
Thank you.
Many of you guys, say things that I miss or dont entirely understand, so I usually blow it off, but this time, it caught my attention as it might have been some important flourish as to why everyone seemed so terribly upset, thus I asked.
I assumed that it was some reference to a 'friends' or 'sienfield', or one of the other sit-coms that ran while I was serving overseas or underwater. I do commonly miss references to sitcoms that I have not seen, which is why I assumed as such.
such is the nature of the temples and gardens, i suppose
and so our perspective of divinity also grows and grows and grows
and builds and builds and builds
and a very simple way to see this in values clashes of the OT, and in terrorism today
is accepting that there is a spectrum of faith,
and using it to see how stages relate to each other
and where each stage of faith requires the previous stage to get where it is
....God being involved at every stage, of course
simple example:
every culture started at a value system based on sheer survival and a deep relationship with a brutal environment
...we could call it "red" or 1
...and it had a lot to do with nature and bloodlines
but this level of values needed something beyond mere survival to unite tribes
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "orange" or 2
...and it had a lot to do with some mythic moral idea that united people beyond mere survival
...and so a new kind of family emerged that was beyond bloodline
and of course, some bloodlines realized this before others (thus the OT clashes)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere myth to explain reality
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "yellow" or 3
...and it had a lot to do with personal independence and the beginnings of rational thought
...we first saw this wave in civilization in recent centuries, even though individuals and small groups dabbled long before (such as the great thinkers of history)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere rugged individualism
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "green" or 4
...and it had a lot to do with universal compassion and care regardless of all previous value systems
...we first saw this wave in civilization in the last century with things like civil rights
even though individuals and small groups dabbled long before (such as the great saints of history)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere compassion
but i will not get into the other "colors," in order to spare yall a long post
...but i think you might get the point
every "color" of values brings a gift, but has a limit (and an ugly side)
and every "color" of values needs the support of previous values
(such as survival, story, independence, compassion, etc...)
btw..i am only using colors and numbers because they are more-or-less neutral labels
and i am really only addressing values in a collective sense, as opposed to other traits and individual considerations
that said...
Galen, i think you may really be onto something
but i suggest that you dont stop at an "orange" interpretation of the OT
even though the people of the OT period were moving through that stage
what we see in the OT with Amalek,
is how those who share the "red" values are threatened by those who share the "orange" values of the Israelites (and shared mythic family value).
and the OT stories were written in a "red" world where "orange" was trying to emerge.
But terrorism today is a bit more complicated than that,
because the phenomenon of terrorism is being carried out by "reds" and "oranges"
in a world that is "yellow" and very rapidly trying to be "green" and beyond
and those who still live in the "red" and "orange" values of a younger earth
most naturally feel as if the world no longer has room for them
and are lashing out
and this has been true of muslims, christians, buddhists, hindus, aboriginies, atheist anarchists, etc...
and those who live in the "orange" and "yellow" and "green" values simply do not have the perspective that it takes to solve the problem
and so typically make things worse
to summarize...the OT stories are pointing at something very valid
but lack the capacity to address the complexity of what is happening today
I really liked that link to the Torah discussion that somebody included. Jewish/Rabbinical thinking about a topic. Research, in fact.
Obvioulsy with so much being now available on the internet, such "tools" are easier to access. No doubt there is a hard copy available of similar material. Never heard mention of it from The Teacher or The Fairhaired Boy. :blink: Funny that.)
Recommended Posts
Galen
I was asking about Amalek.
You wish to talk about rape and saying that The Law forbids it, when a plain reading of the The Law clearly does not.
I dont think that I am working hard to do much other than build our new house right now, simply sharing scripture is not hard.
:)
Surely The Bible does not need my defense. It is the Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
No, Galen, it was not I that brought up rape but Greasey and you. I simply refuted the notion that Mosaic law condoned rape. Personally, I do not at all see plainly that the Bible condones it. In addition, Judaism is based on more than just the Torah, so I attempted to share some of that with youas well.
However, you choose to continue to belive Mosaic law condones rape. I fail to understand why you woud do so, but certainly you have the free will to make that decision.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Greasytech in post #7 used the phrase.
Abigail in post #9 used the phrase.
Abigail again in post #11 used the phrase.
In post #16, I quoted Abigail"s use of the phrase "rape" and quoted scripture which directly pertained to that topic [which is still not the topic of which I was asking when I started this thread].
So yes I guess your right. I did bring it up in the first place. [down in post #16 after it had already been bandied about for 9 posts].
:)
Edited by GalenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Galen, then how do you explain this post, which, by the way, is number EIGHT (conveniently left out of the post)? It would seem to me, you are saying Mosaic law condones the practice at best, and supporting it, at worst.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I fail to see any connection between what I said and 'rape'.
Taking a wife from among another population. would possibly bring STDs into your population. If all your people are faithful in their marriages, then STD should be rare.
Since you do not know, how any of those females behaved themselves, you have no idea which ones were the whores, or the prostitutes. So restricting all 'spoils of war' brides to be virgin, would limit bringing STD back into your people.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
:)
That post said nothing about rape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I guess I think a death sentance is a little severe for possibly carrying an std.
Is that why they killed the baby boys???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Now, just look and compare those 2 sentences between the '...' ellipses there. Just look and compare. Now, like trying to find Waldo, can you see what's wrong with that picture that results from that comparison? Hhmmm? (Yes Virginia, there is something wrong there. I just want to see if you can find it.)
:unsure:
And religious people wonder why folks like me toss the whole faith in the Bible/religion thing. Sooner or later, crap like this gets to you, and you just can't take the insanity anymore.
:wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I was asking if anyone was familiar with using the phrase 'Amalek' to describe terrorism.
People want to talk about rape instead, fine.
Okay lets see:
Yes???
I dont know your Waldo. Uhm, a cartoon?
Are you saying that there is a Law in the Old Testament that forbids it? If so than please jsut quote it, rather than playing these word games.
The verse you discussed earlier clearly said that the rapist would have to marry the female, unless she was married or betrothed.
Do you, or Virginia have some other verse you would wish to bring up?
Edited by GalenLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The main point I was bringing up was the blatant contrast between the claim that you made that the Law doesn't forbid rape (which in and of itself is quite a shock to any decent, moral individual <_< ), and your claim that that was also the Word of God.
Ie., one then must conclude that the Word of God doesn't forbid rape.
Now how the talk about Amalek turned into a talk about rape, ... beats me; you know how threads often go their own directions, at least on this board. But when rape isn't specifically forbidden in the set of scriptures, and those scriptures are (supposedly) THE Word of a God who is claimed to be the Author of what is moral and right, ...... whether its in context of the thread or not, this kind of conclusion has gotta give one pause here.
Sooo, what would happen to the rapist if the victim was married or betrothed? Or the female for that matter?
P.S., you mean you never heard of the "Can you find Waldo" illustrations? Where there was this character named Waldo who wears a red & white striped shirt and hat, and he's in a big crowd of people, and the challenge was for you to find him. I think he was a mascot for Waldenbooks in order to get kids to read more books, something like that.
You ought to know me by now to know that I often use illustrations like that to help make my point in my posts. Apparently I used one that was unknown to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ok, you want it to go back to being about the sin of Amalek? Fine. We'll do just that.
That's from the article you posted that stood out to me, especially in light of the incident of Samuel telling King Saul to kill everyone he came across in his strike against the Amalekites. Everyone, including "infant and suckling". Plain right there in the scriptures.
Tell me please, does this incident not go *well* over that "bright moral line which can never be crossed"?
Yet Another One of those 'blatant contrasts' I mentioned earlier. <_<
I know, I know, I'm such a pain in the keister.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Galen, you are not very good at playing "dumb" and "innocent". You tell others to take your mind out of the gutter, and yet it is you who is fighting for the position that the God you worship condoned raping women. Unless you believe the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the one in the New Testament?
I have done my best to lay out context as well as commentary on the topic you originally posted, as well as on the topic this thread moved to. I am now very sorry I attempted to share anything to offer perspective and understanding on this thread. Not because you disagree with me, but because your "I'm innocent" act strikes me as totally lacking in honesty.
Garth, what literally took place and why in the O.T., I suspect no one may no except those who lived in those times. If you are truly interested, I did offer some insight into how we can take what is written, internalize it, and use it in a way that may be positive for our lives. Beyond that, I have already expressed my thoughts on the article that was originally posted in this thread, and that too I stand by. Using God or Relgion to justify a war, is in my opinion, a dangerous and immoral thing. In regard to what is occuring in Lebanon, there isn't even a need for it, as most people would agree that one has a right to defend self and country when attacked by terrorists. But that too has been covered in the political forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Come on, Garth, take a stand. You're a royal pain in the foot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I am certainly not innocent of much. I am a sinner. and I have committed many wrongs.
If you have a verse to share I am sure that you would do so. You wish to argue for a position without a chapter and verse backing that position.
Again. I dont recall saying that I am innocent of anything.Terrorism may well be discussed in political forums, though from this rabbi's comments it looked like here was a Biblical context which addressed the topic of terrorism, thus I brought it to this 'doctrine' forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
'my claim' because I quoted the scripture?
Unless you can find a verse that does forbid it.Same scripture passage, I thought that we had already discussed that part. Violate another man's wife or betrothed and you get killed.
Okay, fine, and who is Virginia?
I take it then that you are also un-familiar with the concept of 'Amalek' killing the stragglers take followed behind the main-party, being equated with 'terrorism'. I had not heard of that either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So why was it that Samuel found it necessary to re-punish them 3-400 years later for the same incident? And by doing the same thing to them (killing their children, et al)? That was one of the times where the bright moral line was clearly crossed.
So you can't say that rape is against the Word of God simply because it doesn't specify it in the scriptures?
This is a classic example of the serious flaw of the _blind_ obedience of the "It is written" mentality. If scripture dictates something, it must be right. If the scripture doesn't forbid something, it must not be wrong. And the like.
Anybody with a brain would realize that rape is morally and ethically wrong, and should be forbidden by a moral and ethical God. Period. If one needs the "In the third verse of the second chapter of the Holy Book, it sayeth that thou shouldest not commit rape!" approach to know this, ... then that someone have a serious problem!
P.S., I think you know, after seeing many of my posts, that my usage of "No Virginia, yadayada" is a take-off usage of the "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" phrase. If not, there it is.
Abigail, I see the value in that point of yours. Unfortunately, if we're talking about a real incident as depicted in the scriptures (as I have no reason to interpret that figuratively), and since there are those who portray that real incident as just and Godly, that puts a whole different angle on things.
Enough of an angle that has inspired folks like me to re-evaluate what we have learned about God, scriptures, and the like. Maybe Sushi can tell you more of what I'm talking about in this respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Abigail, I see the value in that point of yours. Unfortunately, if we're talking about a real incident as depicted in the scriptures (as I have no reason to interpret that figuratively), and since there are those who portray that real incident as just and Godly, that puts a whole different angle on things.
Enough of an angle that has inspired folks like me to re-evaluate what we have learned about God, scriptures, and the like. Maybe Sushi can tell you more of what I'm talking about in this respect."
Garth, how one chooses to interpret the scriptures is up to the individual. How much is literal, how much is figurative is likewise up to the individual. I wsa simply offering another POV of how some Jewish people interpret what is written - an interpretation I happen to derive benefit from.
I have a pretty clear understanding of Sushi's opinions on God and the Bible. Another one of the beautiful things about being free from a high demand organization like TWI is that I am free to love and respect him for his beliefs, as he is me, even if we do not believe the same thing. Regardless of our differences of opinion regarding religion, our moral values are basically the same. Just as I am free to think you are a decent human being with decent values even if you have a different opinion on these issues. However, I do struggle with holding out respect for people who use God and religion to justify killing people or otherwise hurting them, which was why I felt it was important to offer another perspective in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I think it lies squarely on how one perceives God as to interpreting what he says to do. The purpose and reasoning of people has everything to do with how one takes what God says to do.
And that is what God has to work with, with each one of us.
Isn't this true of what we have to deal with today in our own lives?
How was God perceived in the minds of the Hebrews?
How was God perceived in the minds of others?
Death was imminent, whether by the sword or natural causes.
How do you think this affected people?
How do think this affected God?
The example of Abraham going to sacrifice his son comes to mind.
As for Moses, he didn't war with anyone as I recall.
It was after his death that many wars occurred.
What does that mean you may say.
Well...Moses was much closer to God then Joshua and the rest,
until Jesus.
Just a little tidbit of info.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Yes, thank you, now after looking the full phrase up on 'wikipedia' I found it.
Thank you.
Many of you guys, say things that I miss or dont entirely understand, so I usually blow it off, but this time, it caught my attention as it might have been some important flourish as to why everyone seemed so terribly upset, thus I asked.
I assumed that it was some reference to a 'friends' or 'sienfield', or one of the other sit-coms that ran while I was serving overseas or underwater. I do commonly miss references to sitcoms that I have not seen, which is why I assumed as such.
Thanks again.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
some thoughts on the overall topic...
i'll try not to put everyone to sleep
from what i understand
mankind is in an ongoing relationship with God
one that grows and grows and grows
and builds and builds and builds
such is the nature of the temples and gardens, i suppose
and so our perspective of divinity also grows and grows and grows
and builds and builds and builds
and a very simple way to see this in values clashes of the OT, and in terrorism today
is accepting that there is a spectrum of faith,
and using it to see how stages relate to each other
and where each stage of faith requires the previous stage to get where it is
....God being involved at every stage, of course
simple example:
every culture started at a value system based on sheer survival and a deep relationship with a brutal environment
...we could call it "red" or 1
...and it had a lot to do with nature and bloodlines
but this level of values needed something beyond mere survival to unite tribes
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "orange" or 2
...and it had a lot to do with some mythic moral idea that united people beyond mere survival
...and so a new kind of family emerged that was beyond bloodline
and of course, some bloodlines realized this before others (thus the OT clashes)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere myth to explain reality
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "yellow" or 3
...and it had a lot to do with personal independence and the beginnings of rational thought
...we first saw this wave in civilization in recent centuries, even though individuals and small groups dabbled long before (such as the great thinkers of history)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere rugged individualism
and so out of it came a higher value system we could call "green" or 4
...and it had a lot to do with universal compassion and care regardless of all previous value systems
...we first saw this wave in civilization in the last century with things like civil rights
even though individuals and small groups dabbled long before (such as the great saints of history)
but this level of values needed something beyond mere compassion
but i will not get into the other "colors," in order to spare yall a long post
...but i think you might get the point
every "color" of values brings a gift, but has a limit (and an ugly side)
and every "color" of values needs the support of previous values
(such as survival, story, independence, compassion, etc...)
btw..i am only using colors and numbers because they are more-or-less neutral labels
and i am really only addressing values in a collective sense, as opposed to other traits and individual considerations
that said...
Galen, i think you may really be onto something
but i suggest that you dont stop at an "orange" interpretation of the OT
even though the people of the OT period were moving through that stage
what we see in the OT with Amalek,
is how those who share the "red" values are threatened by those who share the "orange" values of the Israelites (and shared mythic family value).
and the OT stories were written in a "red" world where "orange" was trying to emerge.
But terrorism today is a bit more complicated than that,
because the phenomenon of terrorism is being carried out by "reds" and "oranges"
in a world that is "yellow" and very rapidly trying to be "green" and beyond
and those who still live in the "red" and "orange" values of a younger earth
most naturally feel as if the world no longer has room for them
and are lashing out
and this has been true of muslims, christians, buddhists, hindus, aboriginies, atheist anarchists, etc...
and those who live in the "orange" and "yellow" and "green" values simply do not have the perspective that it takes to solve the problem
and so typically make things worse
to summarize...the OT stories are pointing at something very valid
but lack the capacity to address the complexity of what is happening today
...my 2 cents
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sirguessalot -
Well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
(This is just an aside.
I really liked that link to the Torah discussion that somebody included. Jewish/Rabbinical thinking about a topic. Research, in fact.
Obvioulsy with so much being now available on the internet, such "tools" are easier to access. No doubt there is a hard copy available of similar material. Never heard mention of it from The Teacher or The Fairhaired Boy. :blink: Funny that.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.