edgarblythe wrote:I missed out on the reason for spelling it "G-d."
Ultra-orthodox and Orthodox Jews tend to write G_d, out of respect. Reform Jews frequently do not.
set, is your genesis reference to multiple gods a reference to the use of "we" when god speaks?
That, and the constant reference to false gods, which don't deny the existence thereof, just the spiritual rectitude of their worship . . . there are, i believe, other inferential references, as well, but it has been a good many years since i've read Genesis, and i hardly consider it worth what would effectively be, a sixth or seventh reading.
Setanta wrote:That, and the constant reference to false gods, which don't deny the existence thereof, just the spiritual rectitude of their worship . . . there are, i believe, other inferential references, as well, but it has been a good many years since i've read Genesis, and i hardly consider it worth what would effectively be, a sixth or seventh reading.
All of the text of the Torah (old testament) can be interpreted in many many different ways. Remembering that the modern text has been "roughly" translated and passed down for thousands of years.
I never take what I read in the bible at face value, I always read the many side notes regarding the text. Many different Rabbinim over the centuries have translated those texts in many different ways. Even today, the Rebs that I know argue over what some of that text really means.
Nothing is taken at face value as far as I'm concerned. I always have to aske myself, "What did that mean?". I am constantly asking those questions.... In short, what I put to you is this: Just because it speaks of fire, don't take that inference literally, there is usually much more to it than that.
As far as what you posted about scurrilous behaviour and blood.. remember that these were not good times for ANY peoples. There was no value on life for about 95% of the earths' population at that time. And if you were Jewish, you were on someone's hitlist, period.
husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
onyxelle wrote:husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
I agree with your hubby on that one. Although I don't believe in the G_d of the "New Covenant", or Jesus Christ.
onyxelle wrote:husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
That's good; most of this discussion here could is centered around the OT Covenant \ Relationship.
I had a pretty disappointing night last night with a group of people that really have some revisionist ideas about picking and choosing only what they want in the bible ie (everyone is going to heaven no matter what)
Splitter wrote:As far as what you posted about scurrilous behaviour and blood.. remember that these were not good times for ANY peoples. There was no value on life for about 95% of the earths' population at that time. And if you were Jewish, you were on someone's hitlist, period.
That someone is putatively worse off than oneself is no consolation in one's misery, nor sufficient justification for deplorable acts. Furthermore, i question what you mean by "any poeples." Do you suggest that the Chinese in the Shang period, the Autumn period and the first dynasty were universally, and in the specified period, eternally miserable? Do you suggest that Amerinds in the two Americas lived a bad life? Do you suggest that the Hill Fort Kelts and the La Tène Kelts, as well as the Gothic and Teutonic German peoples universally lived in misery? I suspect, of course without knowing to a certainty, that your statement is made from the narrow perspective prevalent since at least the 16th century among christians of European descent, which views only the people and events of the middle east when making such sweeping statements. In addition to those people whom i have mentioned, i suspect you are ignoring the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, of the Indian subcontinent, of the Central Asian highlands, of the Austrialian "dream time"--such a sweeping statement can hardly be founded in a consideration of well informed knowledge of how "95%" of the human race lived in a period from 4- to 2,000 years ago.
husker wrote:onyxelle wrote:husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
That's good; most of this discussion here could is centered around the OT Covenant \ Relationship.
I had a pretty disappointing night last night with a group of people that really have some revisionist ideas about picking and choosing only what they want in the bible ie (everyone is going to heaven no matter what)
Yeah.. nice night, I can tell.
I believe that you must lead a good life while you are alive in order to partake in the afterlife. We are building "credits", for lack of a better word. In my mind, there is no such thing as being saved, or that someone died for my sins (so it is not okay to murder someone and ask for forgiveness, and if you are "saved", you are forgiven).
Another discussion....
Setanta wrote:Splitter wrote:As far as what you posted about scurrilous behaviour and blood.. remember that these were not good times for ANY peoples. There was no value on life for about 95% of the earths' population at that time. And if you were Jewish, you were on someone's hitlist, period.
That someone is putatively worse off than oneself is no consolation in one's misery, nor sufficient justification for deplorable acts. Furthermore, i question what you mean by "any poeples." Do you suggest that the Chinese in the Shang period, the Autumn period and the first dynasty were universally, and in the specified period, eternally miserable? Do you suggest that Amerinds in the two Americas lived a bad life? Do you suggest that the Hill Fort Kelts and the La Tène Kelts, as well as the Gothic and Teutonic German peoples universally lived in misery? I suspect, of course without knowing to a certainty, that your statement is made from the narrow perspective prevalent since at least the 16th century among christians of European descent, which views only the people and events of the middle east when making such sweeping statements. In addition to those people whom i have mentioned, i suspect you are ignoring the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, of the Indian subcontinent, of the Central Asian highlands, of the Austrialian "dream time"--such a sweeping statement can hardly be founded in a consideration of well informed knowledge of how "95%" of the human race lived in a period from 4- to 2,000 years ago.
Wow, you are so much more knowledgeable than I am. I think I'll just back out now since you have all the answers and are vehemiently against everything I type.
Please take my comments about my "expertise" in account. ...and that I'm not going to argue. I have my opinions, you have yours. So be it.
Splitter wrote:onyxelle wrote:husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
I agree with your hubby on that one. Although I don't believe in the G_d of the "New Covenant", or Jesus Christ.
Splitter, I might have missed it are you Jewish?
I have no quarrel with that, and your snide remark: "I think I'll just back out now since you have all the answers and are vehemiently against everything I type."--was uncalled for. This is a site at which people debate rather rigorously, most often to a higher standard than my own. When you make unsupported statements from authority, it is likely that you will be called on it. It seems to me that you had made your statement based upon what one might call, for lack of a more precise term, a "middle-eastern-centric" view, which was not uncommon up until about 60 to 70 years ago, and still obtains casually among christians and Jews in many European communities (in which category i include the contemporary nations of the Americas). To the extent that you offered that statement in mitigation of my criticism of the bible, i was interested to know just how universal you thought that analysis to be, and strongly suspected that it was an offhand remark based upon seeing "civilization" of any importance as residing only in the middle east. Outside of China, the Indian subcontinent and the middle east in this period, most human cultures were illiterate (which doesn't mean they were any less valuable, simply that they hadn't invented or been introduced to writing). In that circumstance, precise knowledge of what most people considered to be their circumstances, and the annals of their ancestors is mostly lacking. It is therefore difficult to make sweeping statements about how most people lived in the period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago and provide substantiation. Although the issue of what the bible does or does not teach is focused on the middle east, the title of the topic simply uses the word god, and could possibly be addressed by those who have no part of Judeo-christian tradition. Additionally, as an historical source, the bible sucks. I can't accept such a sweeping statement about how people lived, especially when used to excuse the excesses of the characters in the bible, without questioning the provenance.
husker wrote:Splitter wrote:onyxelle wrote:husker wrote:The God of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ would not ask this.
had a big argument w/ my husband about this very thing last night. it is his opinion, that this is not something God would ask...
I agree with your hubby on that one. Although I don't believe in the G_d of the "New Covenant", or Jesus Christ.
Splitter, I might have missed it are you Jewish?
Yup.. Conservative teetering on Orthodox..
Setanta wrote:I have no quarrel with that, and your snide remark: "I think I'll just back out now since you have all the answers and are vehemiently against everything I type."--was uncalled for. This is a site at which people debate rather rigorously, most often to a higher standard than my own. When you make unsupported statements from authority, it is likely that you will be called on it. It seems to me that you had made your statement based upon what one might call, for lack of a more precise term, a "middle-eastern-centric" view, which was not uncommon up until about 60 to 70 years ago, and still obtains casually among christians and Jews in many European communities (in which category i include the contemporary nations of the Americas). To the extent that you offered that statement in mitigation of my criticism of the bible, i was interested to know just how universal you thought that analysis to be, and strongly suspected that it was an offhand remark based upon seeing "civilization" of any importance as residing only in the middle east. Outside of China, the Indian subcontinent and the middle east in this period, most human cultures were illiterate (which doesn't mean they were any less valuable, simply that they hadn't invented or been introduced to writing). In that circumstance, precise knowledge of what most people considered to be their circumstances, and the annals of their ancestors is mostly lacking. It is therefore difficult to make sweeping statements about how most people lived in the period from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago and provide substantiation. Although the issue of what the bible does or does not teach is focused on the middle east, the title of the topic simply uses the word god, and could possibly be addressed by those who have no part of Judeo-christian tradition. Additionally, as an historical source, the bible sucks. I can't accept such a sweeping statement about how people lived, especially when used to excuse the excesses of the characters in the bible, without questioning the provenance.
My statement was directed, as you point out, in a biblical sense. In biblical times there is no reference to Chinese, etc. While there lives were/are no less important, they are not mentioned in the bible.
Thus, now you know what I am referring to....
I can handle debate, but I am no expert. I only know what I read and have been taught. And I, by nature, will not argue with you.
It appears that you are dead set against the bible and its' teachings, that is your choice. You can bash the OT as much as you like, also your choice. People like you do stuff like that, I recognise this, knock yourself out.
dyslexia wrote:Quote:People like you do stuff like that
???
What didn't you understand about that entire statement? I have explained atleast 3 times now that these are my opinions. None of you have to agree to them, and most of you will not. I accept that.
So let it go instead of being a jerk. My above statement was my way of saying, "You are going to berate my religion or my beliefs, that is apparently what you do, so go for it, I won't argue."
No reason to read into it more than it is.
my question was in re Setanta, there is no one like Set so I wondered just who are these people "just like you"
You know Dys, other people have told me there is no one like me, although they usually finish the sentence with something such as: " . . . thank God."
as to mt being
it's just a pesonality thing with me.
Setanta wrote:You know Dys, other people have told me there is no one like me, although they usually finish the sentence with something such as: " . . . thank God."
Hehe... now that is funny!
