It may well make sense to you, but aren't you missing the point, that no real sacrifice was involved? As a deity, just visiting, Jesus was perfectly well aware that all he was doing was shuffling off his mortal coil and almost immediately going back to where he belonged, where, no doubt, he sat down to a good cup of tea and proceeded to watch what effect his earthly mission had on those he had recently left behind.
No, you are missing the point. Repeating yourself doesn't somehow make it valid. Because there was a schism in the relationship, there was sacrifice involved. In addition, as a human the suffering and experience of death for Jesus at the hands of those he had created was very real.
Also, how happy was he to have assumed that mortal coil in the first place? There's a wonderful passage in Mark that gives us a clue. It's at 9:19. Jesus, ticked off once again by what he perceives as human stupidity, says, ''O, unbelieving generation! How long will I be with you? How long must I put up with you?"
Yes, and at one point, he weeps. All normal human experiences the Jesus endures for the purpose that God has set him.
These are clearly not the words of a man happy in his work. These are clearly the words of a man with one eye on the clock and wishing that it was five and he could go home, however bad the traffic was on the way. These are clearly the words of a man who just wants to get it over with so he can have a shower, sit down, and relax.
Whatever. Clearly you have nothing else to add.
I really don't see what sacrifice was involved, except the sacrifice of having to leave home for a short time and put in his shift, and we all, most of us anyway, do that.
No you don't. Your not in a perfect relationship and nor are you the creator of the world. You have no idea what sacrifice was involved.
An Absolute God, the Ultimate Being, has to first create everyone on earth...then, he finds it necessary to impregnate a virgin, in order to give birth to Himself, to come down to earth as an incarnation of Himself, in order to forgive His people who he had made in the image of Himself, and to 'sacrifice' Himself to Himself, so he could ultimately sit beside Himself, in order to save the world from...(wait for it)...the wrath of HIMSELF! Taa-Daa!!
It doesn't get much more ridiculous than that.
Which remains, still, a logical fallacy. Your opinion on whether it is ridiculous or not has no bearing on whether it is true.
You said one of your reasons for finding this God so appealing is the fact that He sent His only begotten son to die on the Cross and "thats' the kind of people you admire". What I'm saying is that it isn't a sacrifice at all,just a little "inconvinience"
That's correct. I admire people who give their lives for others - particularly those who do it for their enemies. For a human, that's the ultimate sacrifice. Hence I don't find it ridiculous that this is at the centre of God's plan for mankind.
How am I being overliteral? Jesus actually saved a woman from stonings, so if the NT is true(your belief is that its true) then stonings actually did happen, so it isn't difficult to imagine a non bleeding preteen or early teen's stoning.
You are being overliteral by assuming that the commands of God were carried out without regard for what their intent was. The intent of the command is to prevent sex before marriage not simply to stone someone who doesn't bleed. If someone might have a good reason for not bleeding then there is no reason to assume that the Israelites would have stoned her anyway.
There's a stoning incident mentioned in the NT (not even OT), there are the laws in the OT, am I supposed to travel back in a time machine with a camera to bring pictorial evidence of actual stonings, like those pictures of Kurdish girls's stonings
Now you are being disingenuous. The issue isn't whether stonings happened but whether the scenario you described ever actually happened.
By the way, how do you even believe that the Exodus happened, given that till date there's been no reliable archaeological findings for it and many Jewish archaeologists, and even Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe questioned its historicity?
Do you have something other than silence to say that it didn't happen? But I have no desire to address whatever random issue you want to bring up. If you have nothing more relevant to the thread, we are done.
You believe that stuff in the OT happened as its recorded in your Holy Book.I believe that stonings happened as thats' what God commanded His chosen people to do, AND Jesus saved a woman from stoning. If Israelis had found some way of overlooking that passage,through sure loads of credit to them. But as they stoned adulteresses right upto Jesus' time, maybe they'd not found a way out of those passages till post Talmudic times.Also these commands are as you call them "prescriptive" not simply "descriptive" so there is no reason to ignore them.
Actually, there is doubt whether the story of Jesus saving a woman from stoning was actually in the original texts so it's not a terribly good one to base your argument on.
And I didn't say the Israelite's 'overlooked' the passage but that you have no way of knowing that they would have applied it in the way that you have presented.
Modern and moderate Muslim nations like Turkey also have gotten round many of Allah's commandments, but Turks followed those instructions till less than 100 years ago, and all the evidence we have of Pre Talmudic Israeli society also show that they followed God's Commandments to the T. I'm sure Israelis stoned adulteresses as its described in the NT. How are "you" sure about their lack of stonings in Pre Talmudic times?
At no point did I say there was a lack of stonings. I'm surprised that you feel the need to misrepresent my argument if you really have a case to make.
And you'll need to ask muslims how they have 'gotten round' Allah's commandments.
Sure He didn't, but He didn't strike Jephthah down either, like He did those polytheistic worshippers, nor did He condemn Jephthah as you have pointed out yourself. God is a lot kinder to His chosen people's transgressions, than He is to the polytheists.
There were a lot of polytheists that God didn't strike down either. You have no argument here.
Yeah, sure. But again, He doesn't punish His chosen people for the dangers they pose to others', not even rebuke them. He consistently plays favorites throughout the Bible's OT
But he does punish his chosen people, though, doesn't he - or have you only read the OT selectively?
Now you are behaving in the same "cultural relativism" manner which you accuse atheists of doing. Atheists' are cultural relativists when it comes to their own morals, you are a cultural relativist regarding your God's morals. Interesting, but I get why a.ghazali was telling me to be wary.
No. Atheists are necessarily cultural relativists because they have no objective morality and so have no grounds for claiming that any behaviour, by anyone, at any time, is actually 'wrong' or 'right'.
For a Christian, obedience to God is morally right. God's commands to people may be different at different times because God's purpose for them is different or they themselves are different. The commands to the Israelites are an expression of God's character - including both love and judgement for sin - for them, in their culture at that time. But the absolute standard of morality as obedience to God remains true for all people at all times.
But your explanation still begs the question, why did God create such a sucky society? In the time of the Jews, there were societies like the Ancient Celts where there were no stonings and women could divorce their husbands' for myriad reasons like obesity or telling tales about their love life? Or the polytheistic Egyptians' where in the entire Ancient Egyptian language, there wasn't even a word for virgins, and the Ancient Egyptians' were more advanced than te Ancient Hebrews.
Your preference for a particular society does not constitute an argument against God's commands to the Israelites. I suspect that pleasing you was not part of God's purpose at that time.
And finally, if knowing about virginity was so important, why couldn't people simply have used the magic test described in Numbers, where the husband would take his wife to a Rabbi to have "mud water" so that "her belly would swell and her thiegh would rot" for non virgins too? Surely, "belly swelling thiegh rotting" is preferable to being stoned?
Whatever.
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"