Every day, it seems, there are reports of pastors, ministers, priests, youth workers, church officials – you name it – who sexually abuse children, teenagers and other vulnerable people. These predatory abusers are especially repugnant because they are Christians; born again servants of the Lord, cleansed, supposedly, by the blood of Jesus. As such they have a higher moral standard than those of us who don’t have God to make us good. Or so you keep telling us. Instead these individuals take advantage of their status to rob others of their innocence, psychological well-being and the joy they should later experience in a healthy, adult sexual relationship.
You, the Bride of Christ, the Church at large, who harbour these truly awful people, need to get your house in order. You’ve had a mere 2,000 years to do it. Instead, you spend your time condemning atheists, gay people, trans-people, feminists. Have you not read 1 Corinthians 5:12: ‘What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?’ Likewise, you are told by your Saviour to attend to the log in your own eye instead of carping about the speck you perceive in others’.
You need to stop tolerating the abusers in your midst. Stop defending them when they’re found out, stop pretending all is wholesome and savoury in the Church. Stop lying when you claim that the few offenders who do get caught are mere bad apples and not ‘true’ Christians.
If not for the good of others, do it for your own sake. The Bridegroom when he descends to claim his Bride is not going to want to copulate with you, riddled as you are with malignant sexual disease.
rejectingjesus, 
Don, you write in the blog post that you sent a link for (remember, my blog is not a vehicle for you to promote your own):
I will speak of the sin of the church and the blindness that allows us to turn our eyes away from the sin of sexual abuse of women and children.
I will speak of the sin of local church and denominational leaders and the high-profile representatives of Christianity and we the nobodies in the pews of turning our eyes away from immorality in our midst and in our own hearts.
Do you? Do you really speak of these things? And does your speaking have any effect? Do you have an answer for why sexual abuse is so rife in the community of God, the bride of Christ? Can you explain why those who profess to love Jesus are capable of treating others so abysmally?
No, I thought not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Do you really speak of these things? And does your speaking have any effect?
Yes. And I don’t know. It takes sometimes a collective voice over time.
Do you have an answer for why sexual abuse is so rife in the community of God, the bride of Christ?
I don’t know that it is more than at any other time. Today every scandal is magnified by the media. (No one cares much when these same things go on in the home down the block where no one makes any claim of Christianity.)
Plus, we live in a highly sexualized culture where sex is of every variety is blasted at us all from every direction. But any sexual abuse is too much.
You know the biblical answer: the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Can you explain why those who profess to love Jesus are capable of treating others so abysmally?
“Profess” is the operative word. Not all who profess are truly walking with the Lord. But that is not an unusual phenomenon. Not all who wear a cop’s uniform are law abiding. Not all who profess to love their wife are faithful to her. Not all who hold public office act in the interest of the public they profess to serve. Maybe the only honest man is the one who makes no profession of anything. It does not make him good, of course, just not a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Don: I don’t know that it is more (rife) than at any other time.
A shockingly poor defence, Don. Saying ‘there always been abuse in the church and it’s no different today’ is no excuse at all.
Don: (No one cares much when these same things go on in the home down the block where no one makes any claim of Christianity.)
Of course they do, at least here in the UK. My point is that you God-botherers constantly tell us you are a) so much more moral than the rest of us and b) possessed by a ghost that leads you into all truth. Consequently, the Church is the last place where abuse should be taking place.
Don: Not all who profess are truly walking with the Lord. But that is not an unusual phenomenon.
Aah, got it. The completely discredited and invalid ‘not real Christians’ defence. As for corrupt cops and unfaithful husbands, see my remarks in the previous paragraph.
As goyo says in his comment, what sexual predators and molesters in the church demonstrate is how useless your God/saviour/holy ghost are in making new creatures of people and changing their behaviour. Clear evidence they don’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
the Church is the last place where abuse should be taking place.
And it probably is when everything is considered. But the hunger of the media for the shocking and titillating tends to put these stories on the front page.
As goyo says in his comment, what sexual predators and molesters in the church demonstrate is how useless your God/saviour/holy ghost are in making new creatures of people and changing their behaviour.
I think that is part of the news feed bias. You can read it as you like. My concern is not what you think of it but that Christians take the fact of our sinfulness seriously and get serious about abuse – which almost all I know of do.
LikeLike
You can’t blame the media’s ‘hunger for the shocking and titillating’ for the abuse that goes on in the church. It isn’t the media doing the abusing, is it.
The media’s reporting ensures churches don’t hide their misdemeanours as they would if they could get away with it. Nor do the media report solely on the church – abuse in schools, homes, show biz and more is also reported. You’re making excuses, Don.
You should be concerned about what others think of the daily occurrence of abuse in the church. It reflects extremely badly on Jesus and does nothing for the victims of abuse, about whom you’ve said nothing.
Meanwhile, the church continues lambasting gay people for their ‘lifestyle choices’, trans-folk simply for existing, women who have had or need to have an abortion, teenagers who have sex before marriage, Disney for its tolerance, Hollywood for its depiction of consensual sex… You name it, the church loudly condemns it – you yourself have done so – all the while tolerating and frequently covering up the abuse in its midst.
Logs and specks, Don, which was the point of my post.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You should be concerned about what others think of the daily occurrence of abuse in the church.
I really am far more concerned about what God thinks. And he has a greater concern than anyone else.
It reflects extremely badly on Jesus and does nothing for the victims of abuse, about whom you’ve said nothing.
That is true enough. It does reflect badly. But…
My daughter was for ten years deeply involved in rescuing underage trafficked girls in India. These kids were caught up, not by their choice, in the huge sex trade in India. Talk about child abuse, this is it.
She and her group of Christians from both India and the US created a safe place and helped in the recovery of these kids. In India, they were throwaways. To my daughter they were damaged children for whom she and others had compassion. So, unless you are as deeply involved in that sort of caring, you probably have no ground to stand on.
LikeLike
I see. So no-one can comment or criticise the church’s record of sexual abuse of women and children unless they are involved in rescuing victims themselves? Are you for real, Don? You’ve lost this argument and are now flailing about making excuses for the church’s culpability.
Oh… and my legs are just fine. I have some limited experience of supporting those escaping abuse.
LikeLike
I have some limited experience of supporting those escaping abuse.
Thank you.
So no-one can comment or criticise the church’s record of sexual abuse of women and children unless they are involved in rescuing victims themselves?
It is like being against crime but doing nothing to mitigate crime. Or lamenting the loss of Lahaina and not giving to aleve the suffering. It seems hypocritical.
LikeLike
So a bit like the church then?
LikeLike
Don:
“ I really am far more concerned about what God thinks. And he has a greater concern than anyone else.”
Really? Is that why he does absolutely NOTHING about the abuse among his “bride”?
You even admitted that xtians know god doesn’t answer their prayers, why would he help anyone suffering among the group?
Gotta keep the preacher protected!
Why, it’s even like how republicans defend trump…there are so many parallels, that the church and the Republican Party is becoming one!
Both the church and the conservatives defend the molesters, while the congregation suffers.
LikeLike
Is that why he does absolutely NOTHING about the abuse among his “bride”?
Really? You think so? He removes from positions of authority those who violate their trust. Or he removes from them the believers who are serious about following the Lord. It is a sifting process. I’ve seen that happen many times.
He corrects and convicts with the goal of restoring the sinner. I have seen that happen as well.
He heals the broken hearted and hurting. I have seen that happen as well and some of these like Beth Moore and Joyce Meyer have become healers for others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Moore#Early_life_and_education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer
These things don’t get front page coverage because they are not the sensational story, but they happen.
Gotta keep the preacher protected!
There is too much of that, I agree. But it is not as far as God is concerned. The teacher has the greater judgment.
And as I have said, though judgment seems to you to come slowly, it does come. There are consequences for sin.
But God’s is concerned about restoration above judgment. He is concerned about restoration of the sinner and of the ones that were hurt. Given time both of those do often happen.
Both the church and the conservatives defend the molesters, while the congregation suffers.
Well, the congregation does suffer, but the suffering is part of the correction. Most congregations that go through the failure of a significant person in the church suffer a lot. But the outcome down the road a few years is a new awareness of their responsibility and a greater care to prevent a repeat of the failure.
That can mean like a pendulum they swing beyond center where restoration and mercy are found to judgment where the offender can find no forgiveness. That would be as contrary to God’s purpose as to allow the sin to continue.
Goyo, you and Neil really don’t know how these things play out in the church. You only read the news. The true story is far more dynamic and healing. So, I don’t agree that God does nothing. He does far more than you realize.
LikeLike
Don: ‘Goyo, you and Neil really don’t know how these things play out in the church. You only read the news. The true story is far more dynamic and healing.’
Sure it is, Don. God lets corrupt pastors, youth leaders, elders and others molest children and take advantage of vulnerable women, then he says, ‘There, there, it’s all right, it’s all part of a dynamic healing process. Don’t you victims whine about it now, because I’ve got it all under control. I’ll handle it in my own mysterious way.’
It’s bunk, Don, and you know it. Your delusion has corrupted your ability to reason to such an extent that all you’re left with is callous nonsense like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad God didn’t die and make you God.
As I wrote the reply you quote, I was once again thankful that God is merciful and long suffering. If he were not, I would not be here. Nor would most of us I would guess.
If judgment rained down on us instead of mercy we would all be toast. But with God (the real one) “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (Maybe you remember that from somewhere in the dim past. James 2:13.) That is not to say that mercy is all there is. The whole verse goes, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful,”
Nor is it to say that Christians should overlook sin, not in themselves nor in others. It simply means mercy is first in priority. But it also implies that judgment of others’ sins without mercy will come back to bite you. And it surely does.
Fortunately, the entire world does not think the way you do. We would all be eating each other alive.
LikeLike
You’ve clearly no idea how I think, but in the kind of scenario we’re discussing I’m on the side of the victim. I don’t wait expectantly on a magic grandfather to sort out any problems. If he existed and cared for his children like Jesus says he does, he would prevent before it happened the abuse of others, by, let’s not forget, fellow Christians. Then you wouldn’t have to tie yourself into a pretzel trying to justify his behaviour – or rather his lack of it.
Thank Rao the whole world doesn’t ‘think’ like you (and believe me, it doesn’t. No one does.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, many of the “things” that you say “play out in church” and that you attribute to “God” would most likely play out in the long run anyway. It’s just that you and other believers like/want to see/think that’s it’s your god doing the work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do like to think that. And I am thankful for it.
LikeLike
Don:
“So, unless you are as deeply involved in that sort of caring, you probably have no ground to stand on.”
Bullshit! Unless you’re not involved in police work you have no grounds to report abuse of others?
Your argument is void of logic…as are all your other attempts at defending xtianity.
This is the exact problem!!
Don:
“He corrects and convicts with the goal of restoring the sinner. ”
Correction: The PERPETRATOR!!
You’re hopeless! After all the hours of discussion, what I glean from your comments are:
1. The church is helpless to defend its members from abuse from those in power.
2. Prayer doesn’t work, and all xtians know this.
3. If your parents are murdered and you are taken as a “sex slaver/wife” by your family’s murderer, that’s a good thing!
Your xtianity is useless.
LikeLike
Unless you’re not involved in police work you have no grounds to report abuse of others?
You haven’t read my reply to Neil. Not only do we have grounds we have the responsibility.
Sinner is more comprehensive than perpetrator. It implies that all of us are capable of evil whether we have committed that crime or not. That creates in those who understands that humility.
The church is helpless to defend its members from abuse from those in power.
You haven’t read reply to Neil. We not only have the power but the responsibility.
Prayer doesn’t work, and all xtians know this.
I will have to disagree. Prayer changes things, and the thing most in need of change is me,
God made us – including you – as his agents for good in the world. Most don’t understand that or reject it because it places a responsibility on them. They prefer to complain and blame God. Good luck.
LikeLike
Prayer doesn’t change anything, Don. If it did, the world would not be in its current condition. Christians want to believe prayer works but you know as well as I do there are innumerable times that YOU have prayed and nothing happened … nothing changed. The instances where you want to believe it made a difference is simply of matter of circumstances working in your favor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan is wise, Don, and you would do well to listen to what she has to say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You may believe that, but it would be hard to convince most Christians. Christians who engage in prayer regularly and spend time listening to God as they pray find that God answers many of their prayers. There are times, of course, when we pray without listening. Then what we ask for may not be what God desires for us. But most of us realize that it is because we did not pray according to God’s desire.
LikeLike
Oh c’mon, Don. You’re simply regurgitating the Christian mantra. Prayers go unanswered ALL THE TIME … but believers like yourself are simply unable to acknowledge this because it might diminish/remove your belief that “something” outside of yourself is working on your behalf.
Pray without listening? Not what “God” desires for us? 😖
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prayer is a conversation between yourself and God. As with most conversations it is two-way. Since God has the best plan for us, we should ask for that.
So why ask at all, if God is going to do what he will do? Because God desires it and desires that we be his agents in the plan. We do that partly by praying and then by doing. So most prayer will ultimately result in doing.
This last week my nephew and niece had their house burn down in a wildfire here in Washington, They lost everything. I and my wife prayed that God would show them the path forward. But we also sent a gift of money to help them through the days ahead. The money we sent will not be enough to make much of a difference, but it will help. They will still have a huge job recovering. But I am certain God will make a path through that. And I will continue to pray.
That is how prayer works. It is hypocritical for me to pray if I am unwilling to be part of the answer. But there is a lot I can’t do, so I rest in God’s care. As do they, btw. And God has already been supplying guidance and a way forward.
I didn’t need to ask God how to pray in this case. I already know his heart for his children. But I did wait to hear how God would have us respond. And I still am listening. Prayer is not magic. And prayer is not futile. Prayer is a conversation with God who loves his children. He hears and acts for our good. I am sorry you didn’t learn that when you were a Christian.
LikeLike
I won’t use the term “brainwashed” because of its connotations, but you certainly have been “persuaded” to believe that simply by sending words into the ether that magical things are going to happen. And then, of course, if circumstances happen to work in your favor, PRAISE GOD!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Praise God. But all of that actually relates to what I said in response to your earlier post. God wants no couch potatoes.
BTW if you have been following my conversation with Neil, why don’t you put this to the test. Begin to love your neighbor as you love yourself as well as you can, and begin to ask God to help you do so. See what happens.
LikeLike
Proselytising, Don.
LikeLike
Don, I have NO NEED to “put this to the test.” As I’ve said MANY times before, I’ve been there, done that. I KNOW what it’s all about and long ago recognized the futility of it all.
“God” is nothing more than an entity that resides in the mind of folks who are incapable of running their own lives. Every blog that entertains discussions between believer and non-believers amply demonstrates this.
One more time. I DO NOT need your god or any other god to live a happy and satisfying life. I’m very capable of facing and dealing with whatever misfortunes come my way … and I tend to think Neil and his blog friends feel the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘It implies that all of us are capable of evil’. Yes, Christianity does imply this and it is wrong. Certainly some are capable, but many are not. Christianity is anti-human at its core.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christianity is realistic about human nature. Humanism may be optimistic, but as far as I have observed, it fails to deal with the nature of human beings and thus fails to deal with the failures.
LikeLike
How can we determine what evil is?
Is it committing genocide by drowning the entire world? Is it wiping out neighbouring tribes and taking their children to use in whatever manner suits? Is it ordering a gullible old man to kill his own son before telling him it was only a
joketest? Is it sacrificing an only child to realise some ill-conceived and unintelligible plan? Is it abandoning my friends to be murdered en masse? Is it turning a blind eye to sexual abuse perpetrated by one friend on the children of another? Is it demanding worship from everyone on earth who’ll burn forever and ever if they don’t comply?Is that how we’re defining evil, Don? If it is, then despite the standard set by your God, in whose image we are supposedly made, most of us are not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How can we determine what evil is?
Good question. How do YOU determine what evil is? These things you list, what makes them evil to you?
Kim Jong Un. Stalin. Were they evil? Is the rape of altar boys by homosexual priests evil? Was Jeffery Dahmer evil? Was destroying men women and children in the fire bombing of Dresden evil?
What would you do about people who do such things?
When you figure that out, maybe we can talk about the list.
LikeLike
What can I do about such evils? What can you do? Not a lot. As individuals we can oppose them but we can’t do much in real terms because we are not God.
God, on the other hand, is God, according to you and other fantasists, and he does nothing. Apart that is from appointing ‘agents’, who, two thousand years on, have accomplished nothing either but have, rather, contributed significantly to the problems we face.
You simply cannot see that none of the magic is working. None of it ever has and none of it ever will.
This is a good attempt, nonetheless, at deflecting responsibility from your God. When it comes to obfuscation, you’re pretty good at this secret agent malarkey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
God according to you and other fantasists [is able to do something] and he does nothing.
One of the things God has done throughout history is let evil run its course so that evil may be seen as evil. (It has worked you. You can identify evil when you see it.) Perhaps it will get our attention and we will repent. But he has done more than that. He has sent his agents of peace into the world to not only demonstrate the goodness of his plan but to enlist others to join them in doing it.
Apart that is from appointing ‘agents’, who, two thousand years on, have accomplished nothing
We are all agents appointed by God to care for the earth and those upon it. We all are appointed by God to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. That has been so from the beginning. It is not a Christian thing. It is a mankind thing.
You simply cannot see that none of the magic is working. None of it ever has and none of it ever will.
It works on the scale of individuals. It turns people into agents of peace. I see that with the people – myself included – who work with the homeless in shelters and missions. They are agents of peace and good. I see that in the many who meet and minister to the needs of immigrants at our borders. (Rather than herd them up and put them in what amounts to prisons.)
I see that in places where people like my daughter have given their lives to rescuing girls held as sex slaves. (It was Christians who took this charge seriously – like the Quakers – who as much as anyone rescued the slaves and set them free during the 1800s in America.)
I see it when people go to places where disasters have occurred and help to rebuild lives and communities.
These are not all Christians, btw, this is not a uniquely Christian thing. It is a mankind thing. But my point is that there are many who are engaged in doing something about evil. And God bless them.
What can I do about such evils? What can you do? Not a lot.
Individually we cannot change the world. But collectively we could – if we choose to do so. It really is quite simple: love your neighbor as you love yourself.
So why don’t we? Why don’t we turn people to God rather than away from him and toward peace and good rather than away from it? There was help for Jeffery Dahmer if he had been turned toward God and good and away from the pull of his fleshly desires. But we allow people to go their own way without intervening until it is too late.
Why do we not feed the starving? We could if we chose. Why do we not end war? We could if we chose by simply refusing to fight and doing good to those who we now see as our enemies. (Putin could have gained Ukraine as a friend if he had chosen to do so.) You might remember “Lysistrata”. Funny, but effective.
Why do we not do what we can? Why do I not do what I can? I don’t claim to be a paragon of virtue here.
The answer is that we love ourselves but not our neighbors.
You see, God has a solution that works. And it does not take a rocket scientist to see that it works. The problem is that we choose to love ourselves but not our neighbors.
So, the fact is you and I can do a lot. We can be agents of good and peace where we are.
LikeLike
As we are. No god required.
LikeLike
Great, but imagine how much more effective you could be if you had God as your partner and director. That is what Adam and Eve failed at. They thought they could make a good go of it on their own. Imagine if we all waited on God for his wisdom when we set out to build civilization. Think of all the mistakes we might have avoided. Instead of coal we might have found windmills enough. Instead of paving over with concrete we might have found a way to build cities without killing everything in our path. Imagine seeking cooperation rather than competition. Wow! That would be wonderful.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it? And we could get back to burning witches, suppressing women and stoning homosexuals. I can’t wait.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don:
“Glad God didn’t die and make you God.”
I know, because you know what the first thing I would do if I were god?
I would immediately get rid of all sickness…cancer, heart disease, etc. that’s an easy one.
Then, I would feed, water, and clothe the world.
Those are just two easy things I would do if I were god.
Your god is non-existent, because he doesn’t do anything to alleviate suffering in the world. If he has the cure, but doesn’t use it, he’s responsible.
You, on the other hand, can’t suggest any improvements, because you have to defend the system as it is, as god’s perfect creation!
Do you see how that works?
LikeLike
b>Your god is non-existent, because he doesn’t do anything to alleviate suffering in the world
Really?
You are not getting then idea, Goyo. God made us his agents – that means all of us. If we all loved our neighbors as we love ourselves, we could feed and clothe the world. We could end war, which is a major cause of suffering. We could apply ourselves with the gifts of intelligence to the curing of sickness.
Imagine what we could do.
But we don’t. Why do you think that is?
However, as I have mentioned in the past, I have a whole lot of friends who are doing just that. They are working to relieve suffering, delivering food and water, ministering to the sick and so on. I personally give each month to an orphanage in Pakistan where kids are feed and clothed and a roof over their heads is provided, and much more. They have people who care for them. I give to various agencies involved in disaster relief. I supported my daughter in her work to rescue trafficked girls in India. And a whole lot more over my life.
I take the responsibility to love my neighbor seriously. And many Christians I know do.
I hope you are doing something similar. To complain that God doesn’t do anything when we fail to do what we can is why the world is in the state it is.
God has a great plan to include us in both the helping and in the blessing of having helped. When that doesn’t happen, it is we who are the problem.
LikeLike
Don, -IF- your god is as powerful as you claim, then why doesn’t “He” do the work? You nor any of the folks who like to “claim his name” have the ability nor the power to clean up this mess that all of us humans have created. But “HE” DOES! All by “him self.” The only reason you want to say it’s the responsibility of humans is because there is no “God” available to step up and do the work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
why doesn’t “He” do the work?
The simple answer is that he chose to make us his agents (partners) in the management of the world. The answer I really like is that he is preparimng us for a greater task, the management of the new heavens and new earth.
That idea is stated directly in Psalm 8 and implied in Genesis 2. But it is the underlying basis of the whole of scripture. He wants no couch potatoes.
LikeLike
***SIGH*** 🙄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“Humanism may be optimistic, but as far as I have observed, it fails to deal with the nature of human beings and thus fails to deal with the failures.”
Wrong…the humanist manifesto clearly states that slavery is evil and should be outlawed in the entire world.
You and god say that slavery is good, and is beneficial to the human race.
LikeLike
And has humanism eliminated slavery? As a humanist, how are you working to eliminate slavery?
The fact is slavery is alive and well. I’ve seen it personally in India. What is humanism doing to eliminate slavery in India? Christians are working to do so. My daughter among them.
But we in the US are implicated as well as we buy products created by economic slaves. What is humanism doing to eliminate economic slavery in places that produce the goods we buy?
God has a better idea. Eliminate slavery in me. And in everyone who follows Jesus. As that happens and has happened, slavery is eliminated. That is what happened in the US and Great Britain as far as slavery of Africans was concerned.
Christians more than anyone were involved in opposing slavery in the 1800s, and they were successful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“ God has a better idea. Eliminate slavery in me. And in everyone who follows Jesus.”
What?
Romans 6:20-22 says you are now a slave of god…
Ephesians 5:6 says you are a slave of christ.
God doesn’t eliminate slavery…it’s the opposite! You’re trying to twist the words around and make it sound like god opposes slavery, when he most assuredly condones it!
LikeLike
You’re so right. I’m in the process of writing a post about God’s preoccupation with slavery. He regards his fawning acolytes as just that – his slaves. (Thank Rao he doesn’t exist.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
You might consult Deuteronomy 15:16-17.
LikeLike
Thanks, Don. That really explains everything. So have you had your ear pierced by having a metal rod shoved into it against a door?
Your promotion of this barbaric drivel knows no bounds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well then, I’d suggest you forget about historical context. Read everything through 21st century Western eyes. That should real everything to you.
LikeLike
Meaning what? I thought God was unchanging. If so, and slavery was okay in OT times (more than okay; a wonderful thing according to you) then it must also be now.
Conversely, if slavery is not okay now, then it can’t have been then either. Which is it, Don? Has your God, the one who is the same yesterday, today and forever, changed his moral stance over the years?
But we’re not going to discuss slavery again. You’ve made your point repeatedly and at great convoluted length. Reiterating it yet again will not make it any more plausible; your argument has been refuted, repeatedly and convincingly. You just go on believing ‘the context’ tells you slavery was a marvellous state of affairs for all concerned when patently it wasn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
God didn’t change. We did. Civilization did. The unchangeableness about it is that God gave laws that were good for people at that point in history.
Neil, you again are assuming that what is today has always been. Believe it or not, things change.
LikeLike
Which is the point I made: cultural mores change. Slavery is unacceptable today and correspondingly God now disapproves of it too. That it wasn’t unacceptable for him in BC-whenever is because it wasn’t unacceptable for the culture then.
Remarkable isn’t it that where we go, he follows. It’s as if he’s nothing more than a reflection of our own moral development.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cultural mores change, which is why slavery is unacceptable today and why God apparently disapproves of it now too.
Of course.
LikeLike
WONDERFUL! You recognize what we’ve been saying all along … laws that were good for people at that point in history … but most definitely not valid, needed, or relevant to people living today. Just like those laws outlined in the Hebrew Bible related to clothing, foods, worship, etc. that are no longer practiced.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Great! We agree on something.
LikeLike
You are mixing two different topics, Goyo.
Interesting that you would use the word “condone.” To me that means something like the dictionary def. “approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.”
Yes. God condoned slavery for a time but was decidedly leading his people to reject slavery because it reduced and restricted people to something less than what God designed them to be, autonomous human beings. We live in a time when, slavery has been replaced with equality, at least in the ideal. (For a large part it has been God’s people who have worked for the elimination of slavery or who have been the primary movers to eliminate slavery.) But in reality, slavery is still alive and well in the world.
Slavery today is based on using people as property rather than seeing them and honoring them as human beings. (Seeing them as property was not the tenor of the Old Testament laws regulating slavery.) Using people is contrary to biblical principles. Reducing them to something less than equal in humanity is contrary to biblical principles. From the beginning in Genesis 2 we are all made in the image of God and are to respect that image in others.
Now, related to the other topic. Yes. We are invited to become slaves to God. The word in Paul’s writing is doulos. It means bond slave and is explained in the Old Testament as a voluntary commitment to a master because the master is good and does good for his douloi.
LikeLike
Don:
“ Slavery today is based on using people as property rather than seeing them and honoring them as human beings. (Seeing them as property was not the tenor of the Old Testament laws regulating slavery.”
Again, WHAT?
Lev:25-43-46:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
“They will become your PROPERTY, you can bequeath them as inherited PROPERTY…make them SLAVES for LIFE!”
You honestly don’t understand this subject, do you?
Do you even read your bible?
I’m not sure you’re even a xtian at this point. Everything you’ve discussed, from prayer…”of course every xtian knows god doesn’t answer prayer “, to god doing anything about evil…“god helps those who help themselves”, and “god uses us to help him help us” is showing me your interpretation of the bible is very “liberal”.
Nan is right…god can fix everything…why doesn’t he?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wrote this a few years ago. “Slavery is not God’s design for human beings. But it is a reality in our world and has always been. God’s laws given to Israel controlled slavery and made it humane. His commands for Israel also resulted in foreign slaves having the rights, privilege and blessing of a natural born Israelite. That was a blessing that could not be measured. It made the serving worth the cost.”
If you follow the lives of people who had been conquered by Israel, you will find that they or their families became full members of the community of Israel.
http://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2016/12/slavery-past-and-present.html
LikeLike
Nan is right…god can fix everything…why doesn’t he?
Because he gave us that job.
I didn’t make that up. See Psalm 8.
And as we engage in these things as God’s agents and partners, we find that the blessing of seeing things put right and protected is incredible. You would turn us into couch potatoes who have no more blessing than someone who watches a football game from his living room. That’s a whole lot less than the exhilaration of being on the team and winning the game.
LikeLike
Don:
“ God condoned slavery for a time but was decidedly leading his people to reject slavery because it reduced and restricted people to something less than what God designed them to be, autonomous human beings”
“God was “decidedly” leading his people “…
“because it reduced…”
You used the words “decidedly” and “because “. ..
How do you know this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“God’s laws given to Israel controlled slavery and made it humane. ”
Exodus 21:20–21, “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property [lit. money
What about striking a man or woman with a ROD is humane?
You’re trying to whitewash that crap! Do like koseighty says and just read the damn verses.
You still haven’t commented on how people aren’t treated as property when the bible clearly says they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about striking a man or woman with a ROD is humane?
Here’s the passage:
20 “If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.
There were laws regarding injury to another that governed both freemen and slaves. See verses 18-19. If someone injures another he must support the injured man until he is completely healed. That is what the master was to do for his slave.
If the man dies, vengeance will be required whether than man was a slave or freeman: a life for a life.
You still haven’t commented on how people aren’t treated as property when the bible clearly says they are.
A slave was purchased, or in the case of a Hebrew slave he was in debt to his master and his period of slavery was the means of paying off the debt. In either case, the debt he owed made him the equal of the money he owed (“money” is what the Hebrew phrase means here). There is no sense that he is property or less than human.
It was possible for a slave to buy his freedom by paying off the debt or paying the master the price that was paid for him. Until the debt was paid, his service was the benefit the master received.
LikeLike
I’ll post this, Don, but really I’m tired of your defence of the indefensible. How a captured ‘enemy’ is indebted to his or her captor is unexplained, both by you and the bronze age regulations you quote. Similarly, how a purchased slave is ‘indebted’ to the master who’s bought him and so turned him into ‘property’ is also unjustified (and unjustifiable.)
Slaves were property who could be beaten at will and with impunity, provided they didn’t die from the severity of the beating. And you still say this was a humane and civilised practice? Come off it, Don. The very verses you quote tell us otherwise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blogging is so much fun. Yu can sit in your ivory tower and ignore the reality around you.
What do we do with prisoners of war? ANSWER, PLEASE.
LikeLike
This is the start of four long essays on the subject of OT slavery that Don has sent over the last couple of days. I’m not going to post them, unless the rest of you have half an hour to waste reading them. They make the same points he made several weeks ago, are overlong and ignore that I told him we weren’t going to discuss the matter again.
The answer to your question, Don, is that it’s irrelevant. We don’t claim God sanctions our treatment of prisoners of war and whatever else the US may do, it doesn’t make lifelong slaves of PoWs and their progeny.
Please don’t send another dissertation in response to this.
Sent from my ivory tower to yours. Shouldn’t you be out saving the world or something, rather than sitting at your computer picking fights with atheists?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don: What do we do with prisoners of war? ANSWER, PLEASE.
As Neil says, we don’t claim our systems was given to us by an all-knowing, all-kind god. We’re doing the best we can. And we continue to improve in our treatment of others.
No, what we do isn’t an interesting question. Certainly not in this discussion.
What is interesting is what “God’s Law” does to “his people.”
God allows, and often commands, his people to raid their neighboring tribes. In these raids they can take livestock, treasure, men, women, and children.
Generally, they are allowed to keep all these things. In special cases, God will command the destruction of some or all of these items.
This reduces God’s chosen people to a nation of thieves. They raid their neighbors for the things they want or need – food, silver, gold, livestock, slaves, “wives,” sex slaves. Even when they are at peace, they continue to steal the labor of the slaves they’ve stolen and rape the women they’ve “married.”
The economy of God’s people is built on stolen treasure, stolen livestock, stolen labor, and stolen sex.
Another proof that God is a moral monster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is interesting is what “God’s Law” does to “his people.”
Really. I do too. It makes them aware of the sternness of God’s law.
God allows, and often commands, his people to raid their neighboring tribes.
Does he? I don’t think so. You need to read enough to get the background. In every case the “raids” were raids of people who had raided Israel. They were enemies. (And being enemies of Israel made them enemies of God.) The raids were retaliation or defensive not offensive.
In special cases, God will command the destruction of some or all of these items.
This reduces God’s chosen people to a nation of thieves.
Does it? Remember, they were raiding people who had raided them. So, they were getting their property back or the equal of it.
However, in special instances like the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites were enacting God’s punishment on the Canaanites for their extraordinary sin over a hundreds of years of time. I guess you can blame God for that, but justice is his middle name, so be careful.
They raid their neighbors for the things they want or need – food, silver, gold, livestock, slaves, “wives,” sex slaves. Even when they are at peace, they continue to steal the labor of the slaves they’ve stolen and rape the women they’ve “married.”
The slaves they took were actually a mercy. They might have killed them. But they took them as captives of war. That included the women. (You all like the idea of “sex slaves.” That sounds so evil.) There were no sex slaves. That would have violated the fundamental laws that God had given Israel.
They were slaves who became the wives of the men who took them captive. They had all the protections wives had. (BTW, wives in ANE cultures were almost always given in marriage to men whom the girls hardly knew. These were not marriages of love, though they often became so. That is probably hard for you to understand, but it happens today as well. And it works. ) They had all the benefits as well. Think what life would be for a woman without a husband or father to protect her. That would be cruel. So, if you find an instance of that approved by God, you have reason to blame God.
The economy of God’s people is built on stolen treasure, stolen livestock, stolen labor, and stolen sex.
I remind you, the treasure was theirs to begin with. The Israelites simply were recovering it. Read Judges. But That will probably whiz right by your head.
They were not raiding people to obtain sex slaves. Taking an enemy woman as a wife was a mercy for her and no particular benefit for the man. There were obligations.
Another proof that God is a moral monster.
And that is the whole point, isn’t it? Glad you are up front about that.
LikeLike
The raids were retaliation or defensive not offensive. — And Jesus said, turn the other cheek.
I find it a continual amazement how believers manage to make excuses for the MANY negative actions performed in “God’s name.” Yet turn around and preach to LOVE one another.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The attacks on Israel were attacks on God. No one should think that God will allow attacks on his chosen people to go unpunished.
God’s purpose was to protect Israel, for it was through Israel that salvation would come to the world.
Turning the other cheek was an individual thing.
LikeLike
The attacks on Israel were attacks on God. REALLY? Then why didn’t “he” take care of the matter “himself” instead of putting “his” creations in danger and causing many of them to be killed and slaughtered.
And you know as well as I do that these slaughters didn’t stop with the Israelites. There have been untold numbers of battles “in the name of God.”
Ahhh, but “he” is such a loving “god.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
“In the name of God” is not always by God’s direction. You know that. I know that.
LikeLike
Is that kinda’ like saying “God Damn You!” … but not really?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don: Turning the other cheek was an individual thing.
And God’s not man enough to live by his own rules.
LikeLike
God is the ultimate judge.
I know that you and other atheists here find that abhorrent. You don’t think anyone should be held accountable to God – or to anyone I suppose. But justice is required for there to be order rather than anarchy.
LikeLike
And from YOUR POV, “god” is the ultimate judge, right? Even though there is NO valid indication that such an entity even exists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is your favorite fallback, Nan. I go out into the sunshine of this beautiful fall day and look around. And I ask the question, where did all this come from? Science has no answer. It tells me about cause and effect, but that is not an answer to the question. That leaves a Creator as the answer. That is simple logic.
Pretty much the whole world with the exception of those who choose not to accept that answer (the evidence is there, so lack of evidence cannot be the reason) accept that to be true.
LikeLike
Don, you are making your OWN evidence via your Christian beliefs. I see all the same beauty as you but I don’t attribute any of it to an airy-fairy entity that is supposed to live in some invisible land far, far away. I simply accept it for what it is …
I don’t need a raison d’être.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Accepting it for what it is. But what is it? Really, what is it?
To me it is an incredible creative work, a panoramic landscape, draws me in to wonder about the creator. And the Creator? He must be even more awesome.
That has been the musing of men and women for all the time that we have been human. Few have chosen to look at the panorama and be satisfied with what they see. There is something within us that doesn’t allow that. Someone said long along, it is “eternity in our hearts” that moves us on to wonder.
LikeLike
There is something within us that doesn’t allow that. REALLY???? I hadn’t noticed.
LikeLike
If I have followed your story, there was a time when it was. But it is possible to deny it and place yourself under the spell of Naturalism. That was a choice. Just as my choosing to listen to the inner voice of intuition and spirit is. Or we can go with the flow, the zeitgeist of the age, and not choose at all. But that changes. I reminded Neil of that and the way literature through history reflects the zeitgeist of the age. BTW if anything, I tend to be a romantic, if you know what that means as far as the literary trends in American and British literature goes.
LikeLike
the spell of Naturalism ???? So now because a person doesn’t believe in your invisible entity, they’re under a SPELL??? Sorry, but the only folks that are actually under a spell are those who have been entranced by preachers and priests who spin tales of make-believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don: In every case the “raids” were raids of people who had raided Israel. They were enemies. (And being enemies of Israel made them enemies of God.) The raids were retaliation or defensive not offensive.
Maybe you need to re-read the book, Don. The Hebrews invaded Canaan unprovoked. The Hebrews were Germany invading Poland or Russia invading Ukraine. They were the aggressor. They were wrong. They were the evil ones.
So, on my list of the things the Hebrews stole as part of their nation of thieves, I forgot the most obvious – They stole the very land itself.
LikeLike
The Hebrews invaded Canaan unprovoked.
God was not unprovoked. The Canaanites had for several hundred years pursued evil.
See Genesis 15:12-16 esp. 16.
“The Canaanites really did practice child sacrifice. Human sacrifice was widespread amongst many cultures in ancient times but infant sacrifice was relatively unknown outside of Canaanite civilization. The deliberate murder of infant children was a pronounced feature of Canaanite religion.” https://biblereadingarcheology.com/2016/05/13/did-the-canaanites-sacrifice-their-children/
See Duet. 12:31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
LikeLike
So couldn’t God have smote the Canaanites himself?
Doesn’t it all smack of excuses? ‘We only brutalised them and took their females to use as we saw fit because they were, like, real bad dudes’.
And where does it say in these verses that the Israelites were only taking back what was rightfully theirs? You made this claim, now back it up, preferably with real historical evidence – not make-believe from the bible.
Many experts believe the Israelites were Canaanites themselves!: ‘The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan…’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#:~:text=The%20prevailing%20academic%20opinion%20today,in%20Ammon%2C%20Edom%20and%20Moab
Petty tribal wars, Don, nothing more. No God involved, except in the excuses department.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So couldn’t God have smote the Canaanites himself?
Agents.
And where does it say in these verses that the Israelites were only taking back what was rightfully theirs?
The only history we have of the days of the judges is the biblical history. So, whether good, bad, or ugly, that’s it.
One of the oft remembered biblical stories (oft remembered by critics) has to do with the Midianites. They are featured regularly in Judges. (See Judges 6 et al.)
First mention of conflict was when the Midianites tried to lure Israel into idolatry (Numbers 25). The result was a campaign against the Midianites (Numbers 31) in which all the men and women were killed but the young girls saved to be the possession of the Israelites who fought against them.
But, of course, not all Midianites died because they show up later in Judges.
The point is that Midian was the original antagonist and though Moses did destroy the major part of the Midianites, they remained for many years as antagonists and in sufficient numbers to raid and oppress the Israelites in Canaan perhaps as much as one hundred years later. And even though Gideon did have a great victory (in which God caused the Midianites to attack each other) they were not totally destroyed.
In that destruction Israel took back what had been taken from them. This was a defensive action as were all the campaigns against the Midianites. But the conflict was originally a retaliation for the Midianite attempt to seduce and thwart God’s plan to place Israel in the land of promise. They were enemies of God as much as they were enemies of Israel.
LikeLike
So you’ve no extra-biblical evidence. Where then does the bible say the Israelites took back what was rightfully theirs from the Canaanites, not the Midianites whom you’ve introduced as a smoke screen.
Poor, Don. Poor.
LikeLike
According to the Bible and supported in history and archaeology the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice along with a variety of pagan rites and rituals. (Deut. 18:9-14) See also “According to the classical sources, the Carthaginians followed the Canaanite/Phoenician pantheon and strictly followed those rituals, which occasionally included the sacrifice of their own children.” https://www.dailyhistory.org/Did_the_Carthaginians_Really_Practice_Human_Child_Sacrifice
That practice among others was the reason the Canaanites forfeited Palestine. In a way, God was taking back the land which had been polluted by these pagan rituals.
I suppose you are in favor of child sacrifice since God is against it and think that God was unjust in cleansing the land.
LikeLike
I didn’t dispute any of this. I asked you to provide biblical evidence that the Israelites were merely taking back what was theirs as you claimed. You don’t have any such evidence which is why you’re chucking any old irrelevance into the pot.
LikeLike
Already did that when I wrote about the Midianites.
LikeLike
You provided evidence about the slaughtering of the Canaanites when you wrote about the Midianites? Sure you did. Like I provide data about the U.S. when I write exclusively about Canada.
You just don’t get it do you. You think so long as you’re defending your fictional God (or one of the versions of him) it doesn’t matter how careless or irrelevant you argument is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don: According to the Bible and supported in history and archaeology the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice along with a variety of pagan rites and rituals.
According to archaeology, the Hebrews are descended from the Canaanites. It was the Hebrews performing these pagan rites and rituals including child sacrifice.
LikeLike
The Hebrews and Canaanites were both Western Semitic people, but the Hebrews were called by God to forsake their pagan origins and follow the one true God. (That is what the story from Abraham on is all about.) From that time on God directed them to eschew the pagan religious practices. That should be abundantly clear in the various texts I’ve provided.
LikeLike
Don:
“There is no sense that he is property or less than human.”
Lev:25-43-46:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
It literally says “he is your PROPERTY!”
Also, notice the wording:
“You must not rule over your fellow israelites ruthlessly…that means you CAN rule over your other slaves ruthlessly.
Don:
“It was possible for a slave to buy his freedom by paying off the debt or paying the master the price that was paid for him.”
Where does it say this?
Chapter and verse, please.
Aren’t you tired of defending the indefensible, yet?
As Neil and others have pointed out, owning another human being as property, to buy, sell, and pass on as an inheritance is always WRONG!
There is NO excuse ever, to enslave another human being.
How do I know?
Ask the slave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“I suppose you are in favor of child sacrifice since God is against it and think that God was unjust in cleansing the land.”
So since they were practicing “child sacrifice”, god sent his “soldiers” to KILL ALL THEIR CHILDREN?”
Here’s a similar story:
“Wagner chief trained Russian convicts to ‘finish off’ Ukrainian children”
Wagner paramilitary group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin trained Russian mercenaries to ‘murder children and women’ by throwing grenades through the windows of their homes in Ukraine.
They were saying that when we take over towns and villages, and get into houses, we will be killing women and children.
‘Before entering premises, we had to throw a grenade, then get inside and if there were women and children inside who are wounded, not killed, then to finish them off – because they are Ukrainians.
‘We had to kill everyone. We are Wagner, we kill everyone.’
“We are god’s chosen…we kill everyone “
LikeLiked by 1 person
So since they were practicing “child sacrifice”, god sent his “soldiers” to KILL ALL THEIR CHILDREN?”
The alternative? It was to take them as slaves. I don’t think you like that much either. The problem you are having with this is not unique. I do too. I’v e inherited something of the Humanism you have. Both of us are thinking from our historical and cultural perspective.
The bibliucal perspective for this specific instance which was the conquest of Canaan: The judgment for extreme idolatry which included child sacrifice was the complete elimination of the culture. That would have included men, women, children, cats, dogs, idols, and so on. It didn’t happen, as you know. The Israelites did not cleanse the land of the population and their idols. But it was the command.
We ask why so extreme? The Bible does not say specifically, but we can put ourselves back in the time period and guess. (1) It was intended to prevent any of the Israelites from absorbing the religion and culture of the Canaanites. (2) It was to be a statement of God’s holy justice. It was intended to put the fear of God into their enemies.
This is the only case of offensive warfare I know of for the Israelites. Every other case is defensive. In these cases the degree of destruction varied according to the severity of the antagonist’s treatment of the Israelites. It was eye for an eye justice.
Yes, children were sometimes killed depending on the eye for an eye standard.
An aside: You’re wringing your hands as any good 21st century humanist would do. I do not. I believe that the children were not culpable and had not sinned. They were innocent, and God provides eternal life by his mercy and the death of Jesus for these kids. You don’t believe that, so you are left with hand wringing.
LikeLike
Alternatively, having muscled in on Canaan (according to the story anyway) they could’ve just left their new neighbours to it and lived peaceably, side by side with them, minding their own bloody business. But, no they decide to massacre them instead, stealing their land and making slaves of their female kids.
Centuries later, when the story came to be written, the author decided to justify all this by pretending his ancestors were directed by YHWH to carry out the atrocity. Apparently, this made everything okay. The same author probably invented the whole cockamamie story in the first place, given the Israelites were Canaanites themselves, as archaeology affirms.
Your view, that YHWH took the Canaanite slave girls to heaven once they died is far, far from any biblical notion of salvation, and even further from reality. But if it keeps you happy, that’s just lovely.
LikeLike
But, no they decide to massacre them instead, stealing their land and making slaves of their female kids.
Actually, no. They didn’t decide. God decided.
God determined to eliminate the idolatry and immorality of the Canaanites, which he allowed to remain for something like 400 years giving them time to change. But they did not.
Centuries later, when the story came to be written, the author decides to justify all this by pretending his ancestors were directed by YHWH to carry out the atrocity, which made everything okay.
How do you know this? There is no evidence for any justification centuries later. There was no pretending that God directed this judgement. Please stick to the facts we know. That may be why you misunderstand the Bible; you make too much up.
the Israelites were Canaanites themselves, as archaeology affirms.
The people of Abraham had lived among the Canaanites for centuries before going to Egypt to escape the famine. They were Western Semites, as were the Canaanites and all the people of the ancient Levant. Is there any surprise that they seem like they were Canaanites? In addition, the Hebrews did not actually eliminate the Canaanites. They did not destroy many of the cities. In the beginning the Hebrews lived in villages not cities. They were shepherds, remember. In a large part, they assimilated the Canaanites into their nation. So, if archaeology did not show a similarity, it would be a surprise.
Your view, that YHWH took the Canaanite slave girls to heaven once they died is far, far from biblical notions of salvation,
It is far from YOUR notion of salvation. And that is the problem you have; you don’t really know the theology or even the history of theology of the Reformation and following.
The doctrine of some Reformed theology is that God chooses prior to our faith and choosing. In this case, the “slave girls” cannot change their status as among the redeemed or the lost.
Other branches of theology (Arminian I.E.. Arminius was a theologian during the Reformation.) teach that one must choose. In this case, anyone who is lost has not chosen to trust in God for salvation.
But that requires that those “slave girls” be capable of choosing. What if they are too young to understand? (Some call this before the age of accountability. The Jews practiced this, and it is the basis for the Basr Mitzvah when a boy comes of age.)
In that case Arminians believe that God’s mercy covers children. They are not culpable for their sin since they did not know what sin was. So, they are covered by the forgiveness available in Jesus.
God does not send anyone to Hell who is not responsible for his sin and his or her choices. That extends to everyone. I am of that opinion.
LikeLike
1. While the events of Deuteronomy are said to occur in the 13th century BCE the consensus is they were written in the 7th century, ‘centuries later’. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deuteronomy
2. I didn’t make up anything. Your beloved Bible writers are the ones who do that. Speaking of which –
3. There is no evidence the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. The story is myth.
4. God? You mean the God you’ve repeatedly failed to provide evidence for? The God who is one of many thousands human beings have created, none of which have existed? Yup, that god.
5. The Bible says all have sinned. It doesn’t excuse anyone who is unaware of and ‘not responsible’ for their condition. That you have to resort to a minority interpretation to get round this tells us you’re clutching at straws. It’s all rubbish of course, when there’s no such thing as ‘sin’, nor any such place as heaven.
6. You’re right I don’t resort to later interpretations of the Bible (your ‘Reformed theology,’) I focus on what the Bible says; sola scriptura,
remember?
LikeLiked by 1 person
concensus
“Consensus” again. Among whom? What does seem reasonbable is that the accounts of Deuteronomy happened and the record of their happening was preserved and that the particular record of them which is preserved in the Hebrew scriptures was written and perhaps redacted later, perhaps in the 600s B.C. That they were rewritten is virtually certain since what is preserved is written in a later style Hebrew than was used in the 14th century B.C.
There is no problem with that, contrary to what you seem to imply.
no evidence the Israelites were slaves in Egypt.
I refer you to a bog I wrote several years ago. Sinc e then even more evidence has been found by archaeologists.
concensus
“Consensus” again. Among whom? What does seem reasonbable is that the accounts of Deuteronomy happened and the record of their happening was preserved and that the particular record of them which is preserved in the Hebrew scriptures was written and perhaps redacted later, perhaps in the 600s B.C. That they were rewritten is virtually certain since what is preserved is written in a later style Hebrew than was used in the 14th century B.C.
There is no problem with that, contrary to what you seem to imply.
no evidence the Israelites were slaves in Egypt.
I refer you to a bog I wrote several years ago. Sinc e then even more evidence has been found by archaeologists.
“[O]ver 100 years later [after the Hyksos were expelled] what look like Asiatics are pictured along with Nubians in this “famous painting from the tomb of Rekhmire, who served as Grand Vizier to two pharaohs in the 15th century BCE” which shows a large group of slaves making bricks as forced laborers for the Pharaoh.” https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2017/06/a-people-in-search-of-history-pt-4.html
It is virtually certain that Jacob’s family went to Egypt during a famine in the 18th century B.C. That is about the time the Hyksos arrived. They lived in the same place in Egypt, Goshen. The archaeological finds in Avaris tell the story. It is also certain that not all the Asiatics were expelled with the Hyksos. The paintings on the walls of temples and palaces tell the story.
That the Hebrews exited Egypt in mass is certain by Egyptian history told by Manetho. “Josephus quotes the extremely significant Egyptian historian Manetho (early 3rd century BCE) who provides two accounts of the Exodus.” https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/article-700876
There is much more. But let’s put to rest that idea that the Hebrews were not slaves in Egypt.
LikeLike
There is a consensus, Don, that ‘consensus’ is spelt ‘consensus’.
While we all recognise you know better than any consensus in existence, you might try going with it occasionally, instead of being a slave to independence.
You’re out on a limb otherwise, sawing yourself off from the rest of the tree and fated to crash to the ground at any moment.
LikeLike
Isn’t it interesting how SO MANY believers (AND church leaders) simply walk all over the entire sola scriptura doctrine in order to interpret things the way they want?
LikeLike
Sola scriptura is the doctrine of scripture alone as the source of our knowledge of God and salvation. It is the liberal theologians and secular biblical scholars who have abandoned that.
LikeLike
Don:
“The bibliucal perspective for this specific instance which was the conquest of Canaan: The judgment for extreme idolatry which included child sacrifice was the complete elimination of the culture.”
Wait! Didn’t you say that god never commanded genocide?
I don’t remember the thread, but I do remember you saying that god DIDN’T order genocide.
Don:
“Yes, children were sometimes killed depending on the eye for an eye standard.”
How were they killed, Don?
Lovingly, with anesthesia, or violently, maybe abused a little before…how can you continue to defend this?
Don:
“. I believe that the children were not culpable and had not sinned. They were innocent, and God provides eternal life by his mercy and the death of Jesus for these kids. You don’t believe that, so you are left with hand wringing.”
No, I’m left with disgust at a human being in the 21st century that still defends this shit!
LikeLike
Wait! Didn’t you say that god never commanded genocide?
I don’t think so. But he did. That was pretty much what the flood was about. Even though I think it was regional, it was the destruction of a civilization in the Middle East and the preservation of a family of faith.
But the destruction of the Canaanites and their idolatrous and religion was not genocide as I understand the word. The Canaanites in Palestine were part of a lot larger ethnic group we call the Western Semitic people, as were the Hebrews, btw. The Israelites were not commanded to destroy all Western Semitic groups.
How were they killed, Don?
They were killed in war or as in the case of Jericho (Yes. I think Jericho was included in the conquest.) by earthquake and war.
I wonder, do you also decry the deaths of people in the earthquake in Morocco? Or the deaths of seniors due to Covid in nursing homes – need I go on? Don’t all die?
The problem we have in understanding one another is the great divide between Humanism and Theism and the difficulty you have in understanding God centered Theism. I find that you are not alone. Mant Theists actually are Humanist and think God should take care of them, cure their diseases, let every child live to be 100. Bless our football team and so on.
That ignores (or is unaware of) what God is about in history. If there is a single idea that captures God’s purpose it is Hebrews 2:10. God is bringing many sons and daughters to glory. He is not about providing everyone with the American dream of a chicken in the pot and two cars in the garage.
This is such an important topic for Christians to get right that I’ll work on a blog on the subject. If you get my notices of new blogs, you might find it interesting.
LikeLike
**SIGH** It’s always something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been reading David’s life in 1 & 2 Samuel and have been reminded of his many failures and sins. Yet he had this virtue: he had a heart for God that led him back from his failures to repentance. In the end, those who looked back on his life could say that he fulfilled God’s purpose for him in his generation. I hope that people will be able to say that of me when all is said and done.
LikeLike
Don:
“I’ve been reading David’s life in 1 & 2 Samuel and have been reminded of his many failures and sins.”
I watched “Dahmer” on Netflix, and was reminded of his many failures and sins…you know, when he killed and ate several young men… and it brings me comfort knowing that after all that, he repented in prison, and is now in heaven with David, singing praises to Jesus in the daily worship services!
Just think, Jeffery Dahmer fulfilled god’s purpose for him in his generation..he removed many undesirable homosexuals from his neighborhood, and is now counted among the faithful in heaven!
He should have a mention in the book of hebrews, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remains to be seen, Goyo. It remains to be seen.
LikeLike
Don:
“I will speak of…”
What does that mean?
You will talk about but do nothing about sin?
Yeah, you talk about subjects on atheist blogs…we’ve heard all your bullshit before!
Do you stand up in church and call out the various sinners in your congregation?
Do you automatically trust a person who says they’re a “preacher”?
Why is there sin, when you supposedly have the very “spirit of god” living inside you?
Is he that easy to ignore?
Your god is weak!
For all the promises in the bible…
he does nothing about evil or sickness…it’s like he doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
You will talk about but do nothing about sin?
Did I say that? Let me correct. Christians are well aware ofm our own sinfulness. Almost vevery group I know of takes serious recautions to prevent sexual abuse in the church.
Do you stand up in church and call out the various sinners in your congregation?
Sometimes. But the pattern Jesus gave to us was to go to that person personally first. Howevere, we do act to prevent further abuse when the report is credible.
Do you automatically trust a person who says they’re a “preacher”?
Not in my church.
Why is there sin, when you supposedly have the very “spirit of god” living inside you?
Because we are not made instantly holy. It is a journey. I am on that journey as is every other Christian.
Is he that easy to ignore?
No. But sin is strong and we must choose which dog to feed, if you understand that allusion.
he does nothing about evil or sickness…it’s like he doesn’t exist.
You have no idea. I know that I would be very different if I had not met the Lord. The people I grew up with have spent a lot of their lives doing all the things that would be okay in my cowboy culture but are contrary to holiness. I was saved from that.
Understand, I am not claiming to have arrived at the goal of Christlikeness. I am grieved by some of the things I have done. But even Paul did not claim that. No one honestly can. Jesus alone can do so. But I am not what I would have been if I had not turned my life over to the Lord.
LikeLike
The very things that Don points out in his “I will speak” are rampant in churches everywhere. And from my perspective, this is one of the most relevant reason why “the church” is nothing but a group of needy people who think/believe that a supernatural entity is going to make their lives better.
Bottom line … their “God” doesn’t change anything except their weekly schedule.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly Nan!
There’s a “Bible study group” where I live which my wife attends…(yes, she’s still a believer), and she’s told me that after the initial scripture reading, the conversation usually turns to how messed up the world is, and how it’s the “liberal’s” fault, and how the answer is “more god stuff everywhere”.
“Love your enemies” is something that’s obviously not studied.
But these same people continually argue, and fight with each other on their Facebook pages!
It’s the old “we’re not perfect, just forgiven” excuse.
Absolutely sickening!
And that’s don’s church too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
HA! I had to giggle at your “Love your enemies” remark! Soooo true and yet “they” can’t see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don: The unchangeableness about it is that God gave laws that were good for people at that point in history.
So, God is a moral relativist. Got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
goyo: [Don] You used the words “decidedly” and “because “. .. How do you know this?
God has blessed Don with that magical ass from which he can pull any “fact” he needs to prove his point. The gifts of God are wondrous, indeed. Verily.
LikeLiked by 1 person