Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (589370)	7/9/2004 11:51:57 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"Some of the Israelite men had been having sex with the Midianite women thus tempting them away from the one true God. So to solve this problem they decided to exterminate the whole lot of them. It's a lot like saying, "our men are having sex with the goats, we better kill all the goats." Only it's worse because we're talking about people." What in the heck is wrong with just saying that? Then I would know why God ordered the destruction. It's not easy to read biblical passages and get the complete context through a passage or two. Now at the expense of being ridiculed again, I have another question. You explain the situation with this analogy: "So to solve this problem they (God?) decided to exterminate the whole lot of them. It's a lot like saying, "our men are having sex with the goats, we better kill all the goats." Only it's worse because we're talking about people." Is the "they you refer to supposed to be God? And did the men that had sex with the women get killed too, or were they part of the army that did the killing? Note that I am not well versed in the details of the bible. I have tried to read it in the past, and too much of it (particularly in the old testament) seemed counter to the God that I had pictured. I am genuinly curious how some of these stories can (or cannot) be justified to the loving view of God that is more prevelent in the new testament. Pilch does a pretty good job imo in presenting the case in a logical way from the perspective of a devout believer. Why don't you try to do it from the other perspective? It seems difficult for you to do it without being condescending, and appearing to have a negative view of those who do believe the bible more literally. "Yet Moses orders their extermination because his men found their women enticing." Did God order their extermination, or Moses? Not in your opinion, but per the biblical sense. "I find such moral relativism to be troubling and unacceptable." Where you seem to differ from me (and appear to be a bit extreme on the other side) is that you seem to believe that if Christians believe it was ok per God's will in biblical times, you think they are ok with these types of events in modern time "in the name of God". From my perspective one needs to act on these beliefs (as the terrorists do) to be considered bad people. To believe that if God willed Florida to break off from the mainland and all Floridians perish in the sea (let's say it's because they can't operate a punchcard machine) would be ok (because it was God's will) is different than a Timothy McVeigh or OBL guy actually trying to do it. People that believe in God strongly do not put their own intellectual capabilities above the entity that CREATED their intellectual capabilities, so they cannot put themselves in position to say that God was wrong. You seem to be looking at the act of breaking Florida off from the mainaland and killing everybody as bad (as we all should), but then put yourself in position to say that if God willed it, it is still bad, and you are smarter than God is. To give you more of a hint as to where I stand, I tend to believe stories like the ones you sight are just that. They are like the parables, where a story is told to give a lesson to people to give them direction about how to lead a better life. I don't know enough about the bible to say what all the lessons are, so don't start grilling me on details. Like I said, I am not an expert of biblical teachings by any stretch of the imagination. "According to the Bible there are such things as evil races of people that righteously should be exterminated. I can't accept that either." This is a bit difficult to me, and is why I asked Pilch about the "chosen" Jews. Doesn't seem like God would have favorites. Do you have an example from the bible that illustrates this? "I just find such a moral code to be seriously flawed and i don't see it as an expression of hate to say so." The moral code of Christianity is pretty unasailabel, I think. Love your neighbor, don't judge others, do unto others as you want them to do to you, live in moderation, etc. You are (whether you think so or not) taking someone's beliefs in a higher being that they feel they have no right or ability to second guess as an approval of the acts that were done by God (in their belief). I appreciate you getting deeper into your beliefs, and am interested to hear all views. But I have seen throughout them (except the 1st one, which was not judgemental) a way of presenting the arguments that ties behavior that is universally accepted as evil (except by terrorists) as acceptable to people who only believe that they are not smarter than God, and are in no position to second guess him. In other words, you have good arguments to not believe. But you are using the arguments to condemn those who do by implying (heavily) that they condone such things as genocide. "You're the one doing all the name calling. I've been trying to discuss this subject seriously" I'm calling it like I see it. Maybe you don't think you are name calling, but when an acceptance of genocide is the conclusion you reach by someone believing that God is eminently more qualified at who stays and who goes, you are. Maybe just say "I don't see how they could believe that", instead of "some Christians condone genocide if they believe that genocide to be God's will".