Sorry to drag you back to the old topic, briefly. I've been walkabout in the last week, to look at Aboriginal rock paintings and listening to dreamtime stories, which instructed the Aborigines in such morals as Do not Steal, Don't be greedy, Share your goodies with your mob, and stick with your mob. Such stories showed the sticky ends visited on murderers and illustrated their very strict laws on kinship and marriage as well as their close ties to country and land management. Number one Aboriginal command, according to the Rainbow Serpent, a dreamtime creator being, is to put the welfare of children first.

In some ways I think any Moral Relativism exercised has been by earnest types who flattered themselves that the Aborigines had anything Moral to learn from the incoming white people. I did think of Andrew's examples of a murderous jealous God, when I heard one dreamtime story, in which the Rainbow Serpent was so wrathful about one tribe's neglect of a crying baby that the tribe was destroyed in a flood, baby and all.

With all due respect Wagga, I don't think there is any "context" to justify the behaviour described in the sections quoted.

In any case, the context I brought the issue up in was a comparison between the Morals of Yahweh and Zeus, and whether or not "defenders of the Faith" are exhibiting Moral Relativism despite claims to the contrary, NOT Bronze Age Tribal Warfare.

I don't agree there is all that much comparison with Yahweh and randy, adulterous old Zeus, who, according to the legends associated with him, was particularly fond of impersonating the husbands of innocent young women to have a good time, thus enraging Hera, his own wife, as well as compromising the welfare of the resulting children. In fact I think there is a better moral comparison between the Rainbow Serpent and Yahweh, both of which spirit entities abhorred child neglect.

One only has to read the Torah to know that Yahweh's prophets and leaders did warn the Israelites to care for the widows and orphans within their midst, much as Aboriginal elders and tribal leaders taught dreamtime precepts. But the main difficulty I have with such a comparison between the dreamtime and with biblical teaching is that the Rainbow Serpent, unlike Yahweh, didn't have much competition to be revered and heeded, in such an isolated part of the world. Nor did the Rainbow Serpent in the crying baby dreamtime tale, bother with even a legitimate military necessity as a reason to dispose of disobedient, neglectful people, unlike the Israelite examples Andrew uses.

In the example Andrew gave, of Yahweh claiming to be a jealous god, the context and necessity for Yahweh worshippers to stick with their mob, overwhelmingly has everything to do with the competing Pantheism of Egypt, the worship of Baal which involved burning babies and children in the fires of Moloch, not to mention the temptations of Dagon and other regional deities. As well as their conflicting monotheism, Israelites were unique in the ancient world in their ideas of public welfare and the care of children. Even the later Zeus-worshipping Greeks abandoned any children they were unable or unwilling to rear.

The time covered by the books of Samuel, Chronicles and Kings started from the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah III, a grandson of Rameses II, who named the Israelites as a vanquished foe on a stone monument, and whose reign ushered in the arrival of the Sea Peoples (Philistines). That all happened before 1000 BC, about when David and Solomon ruled Israel. Kings and Chronicles ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. That is well before Greek civilization had much impact in the Mediterranean area, a century later, after the battle of Marathon of 490 BC between Darius and the Athenians. In those days a nation's Gods and Goddesses were a matter of politics as well as religion, and invading armies insisted their own gods be worshipped by conquered people.

That is the context I think the so-called jealousy of Yahweh should be discussed. Again and again the Israelites, especially the Northern Kingdom, liked to dabble with Baal worship, etc, and by the time the Assyrians carried the Israelite ruling class off to captivity, in 722 BC, it didn't take long for these people to be assimilated into the rest of that empire. And that is the context. Either the Israelites stuck to their mob and god, obeying those rules or they ceased to be Israelites.

What I am talking about is quoting the Bible as straight history. It is a good history source which can be compared with Herodotus or the later Thuycidides, the writings of the Babylonians and Assyrians, if anyone can go digging with the likes of Leonard Woolley, or if anyone likes to learn about ancient peoples and their ways.

Hi everybody. I know I've been away from this awhile, but I had to jump in.
Andrew. All the examples I saw you give with "legalism" were negative. But what about the positive reasons for the rules?
The good Doctor gave the example of not sleeping with anyone until marriage. This was not to keep us from having fun, but to protect us. Not from some legalistic zealot throwing rocks, but on a personal level, from std's, or pregnancy. Not to mention the all to often abusive relationship.
Then you can add the strain on society now having to deal with a growing number of such cases.
God knew the end result of such acts, that is why He said no.

Hey everyone (: I've just gotten back from a week at church camp, so I'm not thinking totally clearly right now but I'll attempt to respond to a coupe of things

Puddle, of course, that is why I wanted to start the discussion! In fact it won't go anywhere if we don't find a strongly legalistic person (or someone to take that standpoint).

With your sexual activity point, those are all good health class reasons, all mostly solvable (at this point in time), almost makes God look outdated. Pregnancy is very preventable if you're willing to be safe, most std's are preventable or curable, and those that aren't I believe will be in the next couple of decades, assuming our scientists keep working. As for abusive relationships, that is a relative claim as it can be applied to any type of relationship, and depends alot more on the people involved than the activities going on.

Wagga, I'm not really sure what you're referencing that I said, could you refresh my memory? Sorry, as I said I've been gone a week and I'm really tired right now so I have no idea what you mean at the moment

Andrew

The trouble is that any answer I would give as to why x is wrong would be based upon an objective value system---a system which you reject.

But the REAL issue for me, is whether or not God communicating to people actually necessarily counts as Prophecy or Revelation. I don't think so.

All communication from God, whether direct (special revelation) or indirect (general revelation) would be revelation as it would communicate something about God.

In fact the above quote you posted Doc, indicates that instead of using Prophets as representatives, God will communicate DIRECTLY with people through Christ, thus eliminating the middle-man.

Christ is the middle-man---the theological term is mediator or priest. The whole of Hebrews is devoted to explaining how Christ is our great high priest.

But maybe not. 1 Corinthian seems to suggest that communication with God and Prophecy are a continuing process

There are two senses of the term "prophecy". One is a direct communication from God to the people through the prophet. The other is the preaching and exposition of God's written word. What they have in common is the forth-telling of God's revelation. The difference is that one is always inspired and ceased whereas the other is not and continues.

TBG

So are you tacitly admitting that Jesus ISN'T God TBG?

IF Jesus really is God, then there is no "Middle-Man". Communications with the Son are the same as Communications with the Father, because according to you (in fairness most conceptions of Trinitarianism), they are One and the Same.

And NO, there is a clear linguistic distinction between "communication" and "revelation", a college student should know better than to try that one on .

In any case, Where is it written that God will never communicate with Man post-Biblically? I've already covered the verse regarding Revelation, which is an admonition against altering the Book of Revelation. You're reading more into it than is necessary. Not to mention that a non-communicative God borders on Deism.

GB

Pregnancy is very preventable if you're willing to be safe, most std's are preventable or curable, and those that aren't I believe will be in the next couple of decades, assuming our scientists keep working.

Say all that as much as you want, but abstinence is still the only 100%-effective method against STDs and pregnancy.

Well, okay, abstinence is 99.99999999999999999999999998% effective against pregnancy. Can't discount the possibility of immaculate conception, right, Mary?

As a general rule, I see abstinence as against human nature, so I don't sit in moral judgment on others surrounding such issues.

But personally, I have to concur with Stard. I have a lot less headaches to deal with by living a relatively monastic lifestyle.

Or I could just be a nerd.

GB

IF Jesus really is God, then there is no "Middle-Man".

You forget that Christ is man too.

And NO, there is a clear linguistic distinction between "communication" and "revelation"

In terms of God's communication with us, there is not.

Where is it written that God will never communicate with Man post-Biblically?

I never said He doesn't: He does it through the Scriptures and through the preaching and teaching of them in His Church.

TBG

Wagga, I'm not really sure what you're referencing that I said, could you refresh my memory? Sorry, as I said I've been gone a week and I'm really tired right now so I have no idea what you mean at the moment

Oops! After so many pages of argument I lost track of who said what. It seems that it was Gandalfs Beard. And apologies to Gandalf's Beard as well. I will also have to plead tiredness after a flying visit to Kakadu and Darwin, among other places.

This is the page 96 quotation to which I was referring.

Exodus 20
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

If one is to take the Bible Literally, then God here is admitting to the Sin of Jealousy, W4J. How is this different from the Greek Gods?

Quite a bit of difference, actually. Due to the graven images, which Abraham realised were a load of tripe, but other neighbouring nations, including the Greek Gods, used incessantly. The thing is that as I have remarked beforehand, national gods were also national identifiers in the ancient world. Including the Israelites. Monotheism was a distinct departure from the norm and the priests who represented that monotheism and the principles associated with it had no choice but to insist on unswerving loyalty among adherents.

1 Samuel 15
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Here God orders via Samuel the slaughter of all, including "children and infants." Is this "merciful"?

Not to mention that further on God tells Samuel to admonish Saul for NOT killing all of the livestock and taking it as plunder.

No it isn't "merciful", but I can't see Israelite soldiers changing the nappies of Amalekite infants, can you? And is it any more merciful to spare helpless infants and children so that they might die in the wilderness, anyway? Unfortunately that was also the mores of the times under discussion.

I don't know why the livestock were to be slaughtered. But then look at the slaughter of chickens, pigs, cattle etc, for disease prevention in these modern times. What do we know about the Amalekites and how they lived? Did some of their habits and animal husbandry encourage disease?

Numbers 31: 17-18:
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This is Moses speaking on behalf of God. But, as some have pointed out in prior posts this could just be a description of Bronze Age behaviour not a Prescription by God, right? Right?....

Yes it could be a description of Bronze Age behaviour, especially as there were no standing armies as we know them today until the Romans happened on the scene. Most armed forces were ordinary blokes who wanted to know what was in it for them, hence the problem of plunder etc. Otherwise a sizeable army would melt away if it didn't get paid for its efforts. Especially when the men involved were herders or farmers with other concerns to worry about.

By the way, that ordinary citizens took part in warfare was the reason why the Greeks included serving hoplites in government and hey presto, we had the beginnings of democracy. Oops that is a political statement.

There is a point to the virgins in the quote as well. The Amalekites, allegedly descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau, were associated with both Canaanites and Amorites, and have also been associated with Mecca and with Arabia Petraea. As such they were also associated with Baal worship, with temple prostitutes and much else. Obviously virgins would be worth sparing, as they would not have been infected with any disease having not participated in such practices.

Yes, I agree that all these arrangements about booty etc could have been just common custom in those days, accepted by everyone concerned. But one of the things about the Tanakh or Pentateuch which is really striking is the emphasis on public health regulations. These were the first nomads to consider such matters apparently. Whichever way those verses are seen, they don't mean that Moses wasn't a capable leader who did speak for God, as his people understood the term. Nor do I think it is an argument for or against the existence of God.

Andew.

Your answer seems to be based on a strong faith in their being a cure being found for std's, or in contraception. That is, a faith based upon man's abilities. Seeing how "modern medicen' has yet to even cure the common cold, and all the drugs I see advertised include leangthy disclaimers of side effects, I would put my faith alswhere.

As for abusive relationships. I will spare details, but I have lived long enough to have seen the connection between loose moral behaiviore and an increase in abuse.

About 'revelation', it should be tested against what we already have. If said revelation is in keeping with the Bible, it should be followed, but if someone claimed to have a 'revelation' that it is all right to steal, for instance, that should not be listened to. God wouldn't contradict himself.
And about sex, there are other consequences besides the physical. What about the emotional aspect--get attached to someone, they leave, over and over again, because sex was all they wanted? Even if there was medication that could prevent all diseases, it couldn't protect you against the emotional consequences.

Say all that as much as you want, but abstinence is still the only 100%-effective method against STDs and pregnancy.

Of course, there's always a risk - at this point in time - I suppose. And I don't really want to get into an abortion debate just yet

Your answer seems to be based on a strong faith in their being a cure being found for std's, or in contraception. That is, a faith based upon man's abilities. Seeing how "modern medicen' has yet to even cure the common cold, and all the drugs I see advertised include leangthy disclaimers of side effects, I would put my faith alswhere.

As for abusive relationships. I will spare details, but I have lived long enough to have seen the connection between loose moral behaiviore and an increase in abuse.

Well, theoretically, if our existance were to continue on long enough we would solve all of our "problems," I mean just a couple of years ago people thought the swine flu was a deadly epidemic, now it has been revealed to be rather insignifigant.

Ah, well in my short life I too have seen abusive relationships, however I have seen non-abusive sexual relationships, I've seen abusive sexual relationships. I've seen abusive non-sexual relationships, and abusive sexual ones.

there are other consequences besides the physical. What about the emotional aspect--get attached to someone, they leave, over and over again, because sex was all they wanted?

For one, emotional consequences are extremely relative. That said, I think all of us have been "hurt" by a relationship where the other person just wanted to get something from us, whether it was sex or something else. That's a part of life, it doesn't have to be, but as long as there are selfish people it will be.

Once again, your faith appears to be in something man made.
Yes the swine flu was not all it was hyped up to be, but it is far from proof that humanity will solve all our problems.
If this theory were to have any validity, it would need to have proof. Something like a historical record of continued loss of diseases knowen to man. Or a continued order to society ( without the loss of personal liberty, as we see in totalitarian states ).
But we do not see this. If anything I believe we are seeing the opposit.

If I have faith in anything, it's the belief that history will repeat itself.
Diseases that are now treatable or curable:

Polio. Cancer. Tooth cavities. Sleep apnea. Depression. Allergies. Small pox. Influenza. Tetanus. Molaria.

...To name a few. Of course, not all cases of these are all treatable...yet. But if mankind continues the way it has for all known history, these won't be a big problem for long. Of course, we can always do the opposite, sure. Maybe that will happen, we can't know, but I personally doubt it. But again, whatever happens, happens.

Ya know, if we're talking about history repeating itself, it seems that for every disease we manage to find a cure or treatment for, three new un-treatable ones pop up... so I'd be careful of that.

By that same token, I don't think all our problems will ever be solved, if only because it seems that for every problem we do solve, three more new problems come up...

Besides, talking of the future doesn't exactly help with what choice one should make now, in the present, in any given situation. Unless we somehow develop time travel. Although that's a whole 'nother can o' Wurmples.

And no, I don't want to get into an abortion debate... on this site... ever. The political nature of such a debate is against the forum rules.