Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you see is the purpose of a holy book? In your view, how is it used?
If a person doesn't know what a book is for, or how to use the book, then they aren't going to understand it.
Optimum results for a tool or guide or manual are obtained when a person understands what it is for, and understands how to use it, and uses it in the manner for which it is intended.
A "holy" book is neither a guide nor a tool. It is a description of how others viewed God on their terms, in their times and in their culture.
It's usefulness is in showing us how other people sometimes got it right and sometimes got it wrong, and God who speaks to the heart and THROUGH the hearts of people who listen will help them find their own journey through the sometimes bewildering landscape of spiritual successes and failures that went on previously.
Turned into a "rule book" it simply means we make the same errors of our ancestors. This in no way denigrates what the book can do for us, but it does mean it can prevent us from falling into some of the same traps those ancient Hebrews fell into.
To give one example---does God punish the children of parents who do wrong in His sight. It depends on which verse of Scripture one gives heed to.
Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
compared to Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Now its up to us to figure out which of these verses makes the most sense to us in our times and in our culture. Perhaps Exodus was a reflection on the years of slavery in Egypt and the writer so interpreted. But Ezekiel saw it in a different light.
If we can't "get" that, then we have no alternative but to believe in a god who is purely arbitrary whenever He is "inspiring" someone to write something down.
A "holy" book is neither a guide nor a tool. It is a description of how others viewed God on their terms, in their times and in their culture.
It's usefulness is in showing us how other people sometimes got it right and sometimes got it wrong, and God who speaks to the heart and THROUGH the hearts of people who listen will help them find their own journey through the sometimes bewildering landscape of spiritual successes and failures that went on previously.
Turned into a "rule book" it simply means we make the same errors of our ancestors. This in no way denigrates what the book can do for us, but it does mean it can prevent us from falling into some of the same traps those ancient Hebrews fell into.
To give one example---does God punish the children of parents who do wrong in His sight. It depends on which verse of Scripture one gives heed to.
Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
compared to Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Now its up to us to figure out which of these verses makes the most sense to us in our times and in our culture. Perhaps Exodus was a reflection on the years of slavery in Egypt and the writer so interpreted. But Ezekiel saw it in a different light.
If we can't "get" that, then we have no alternative but to believe in a god who is purely arbitrary whenever He is "inspiring" someone to write something down.
both apply.
why would you say it can only be one or the other?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-06-2017 at 10:42 PM..
both apply.
why would you say it can only be one or the other?
Because he has a working intellect that rejects contradictory premises and standards, something so many of you seem to accept flagrantly in irrational support of primitive nonsense about God "written in ink."
Because he has a working intellect that rejects contradictory premises and standards, something so many of you seem to accept flagrantly in irrational support of primitive nonsense about God "written in ink."
it isn't contradictory.
it's like someone says "it's hot in the desert" and a different person says "it's cold in the desert"
and you can't see that both apply.
it is not "irrational" nor is it "primitive nonsense." it is simply your inability to understand or grasp a concept.
"working intellect" ??? really???
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-07-2017 at 01:17 AM..
it isn't contradictory.
it's like someone says "it's hot in the desert" and a different person says "it's cold in the desert"
and you can't see that both apply.
Not seeing the contradiction bespeaks volumes about the caliber of reasoning applied.
Not seeing the contradiction bespeaks volumes about the caliber of reasoning applied.
are you able to explain how both these can be true?
"it's cold in the desert" and "it's hot in the desert"
is it a contradiction or not?
if that is written in a book, do you reject the book as primitive nonsense?
How about the irrational primitives who put this in a book: H20 is a gas, H20 is a liquid, H20 is a solid. Riddled with contradictory premises and standards, surely you reject that book as well. That is if you have a working intellect.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-07-2017 at 01:45 AM..
To give one example---does God punish the children of parents who do wrong in His sight. It depends on which verse of Scripture one gives heed to.
Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
compared to Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
are you able to explain how both these can be true?
"it's cold in the desert" and "it's hot in the desert"
is it a contradiction or not?
Obviously your hot/cold example is not a contradiction. The quotes from Exodus and Ezekiel, however, are less obvious. I assume your view is that sometimes God punishes children for the sins of their parents, and sometimes he doesn't, so there is no strict contradiction - assuming that we are talking about different children. (Or, perhaps, you think "visiting inequity upon" is a subjective concept?)
If you take the wording of Exodus and Ezekiel literally, there is no suggestion that we are talking about any specific children, nor any hint that punishment should be thought of in some subjective way, so the most straightforward interpretation is that the two passages are, indeed, contradictory. So let me ask you this: What do YOU think? Does he or doesn't he? (Maybe only his hairdresser knows for sure?)
Which of the following do you believe?
(1) God punishes offspring for the sins of their parents.
(2) God does not punish offspring for the sins of their parents.
(3) Both (1) and (2) are true because sometimes God does, and sometimes God doesn't.
(4) Both (1) and (2) are true because "punishment" is in the eye of the beholder (i.e., subjective as in "I feel hot"/"I feel cold").
I think your best option is (4), but I'd be curious to know how you explain it.
Personally, I think that if God EVER punishes children for the sin of their parents, then God is morally wicked (or, at least, he sometimes can be), and he is not "all-loving." If you are a fair and loving God, why would you punish someone for a sin their parents committed?
On a separate note: I'm also curious to know that you think God means when he says that he is a "jealous" God? What wisdom are we to gather from that statement?
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-07-2017 at 07:30 AM..
are you able to explain how both these can be true?
"it's cold in the desert" and "it's hot in the desert"
is it a contradiction or not?
if that is written in a book, do you reject the book as primitive nonsense?
How about the irrational primitives who put this in a book: H20 is a gas, H20 is a liquid, H20 is a solid. Riddled with contradictory premises and standards, surely you reject that book as well. That is if you have a working intellect.
It's a bad analogy, Tzaph, and example of how analogy can be misused - to try to prove something not sure rather than clarify something that is sure.
Sure it's hot in the desert when the sun's up and cold when it's gone. And a scripture is informative when a critical intellect (or as Mystic would put it "Concrete thinker") is applied, and delusive when an uncritical intellect is applied. You see, you can prove anything by fiddling the analogy. But I think mine is more correct.
Obviously your hot/cold example is not a contradiction. The quotes from Exodus and Ezekiel, however, are less obvious. I assume your view is that sometimes God punishes children for the sins of their parents, and sometimes he doesn't, so there is no strict contradiction - assuming that we are talking about different children. But, if you take the wording of Exodus and Ezekiel literally, there is no suggestion that we are talking about any specific children, or any specific period of time, so the most straightforward interpretation is that the two passages are, indeed, contradictory. So let me ask you this: What do YOU think? Does he or doesn't he? (Maybe only his hairdresser knows for sure?)
Which of the following do you believe?
(1) God punishes offspring for the sins of their parents.
(2) God does not punish offspring for the sins of their parents.
(3) Both (1) and (2) are true because sometimes God does, and sometimes God doesn't.
(4) Both (1) and (2) are true because "punishment" is in the eye of the beholder (i.e., subjective as in "I feel hot"/"I feel cold").
Personally, I think that if God EVER punishes children for the sin of their parents, then God is morally wicked (or, at least, he sometimes can be), and he is not "all-loving." If you are a fair and loving God, why would you punish someone for a sin their parents committed?
If parents are drug dealers they put their children at risk and the children are harmed. That is an outcome or consequence of the "sins of the fathers" being visited upon several generations. A cycle of violence crime harm abuse results and repeats. Is that a punishment or is it an outcome? Is it a punishment or a consequence?
The point is for us to take responsibility for our choices and actions and see how our actions affect others. To take responsibility for how we live our lives and not blame others.
How does the cycle of violence crime harm abuse ever stop or change ? When someone takes responsibility and seeks to do things differently. Then there is a different outcome a different consequence. If someone gets an honest job, stops engaging in criminal activity, gets into recovery for drug addiction then the quality of their life Is very different.
If parents are drug dealers they put their children at risk and the children are harmed. That is an outcome or consequence of the "sins of the fathers" being visited upon several generations.
I see. So what we see in Exodus is God is taking responsibility for the relentless machinery of causation, which has nothing to do with personal fairness. God set the gears in motion; now he stands back and lets the chips fall where they may. I can accept that. In fact, if there is a God, then I'd say that this is probably what God has done.
A seven-year-old child who sees his family burning to death in a forest fire just minutes before he, himself, slowly dies in the flames is not being punished because he, himself, did anything wrong, but, rather, because he and his family were, simply, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The passage in Exodus is simply misleading insofar as it seems to imply that God's jealously is the reason for inequity being visited upon generations of people.
Was the great flood an impersonal accident that happened to kill everyone except Noah and his family? Or was that more like the actual punishment of a God who was pissed-off about the way things were going? BTW, on a different note: I've heard some Christians claim that no children or animals were actually harmed in the production of the Great Flood scene. Is that true?
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-07-2017 at 08:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
