Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 388
Topic's author
#331
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
A convert wouldn't necessarily believe after conversion because an Israelite wouldn't necessarily believe in Yahweh themselves. 
This is about the third tangent you've taken regarding "converts".  Suffice to say, the law considered converts to be part of Israel. I'm not interested in this rabbit hole.

Of course the whole Bible is about the law.
...but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.

Why do you find the passage in question abusive?
What passage?  We've discussed quite a few.  Exodus 20:16 was a passage brought up (not by me) in an ignorant attempt to refute (the bad kind of) slavery in the Bible. 
I'd have to go back and look (and I'm lazy). Do you think it's something important enough for me to go back and retrieve to discuss further?

If you can't remember the conversation (and can't be bothered to refresh your memory), I encourage you to drop whatever point you're attempting to make - it can't be that important.

What is leading you to believe that the scripture is instructing Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period (which doesn't even necessitate rape)?
Where did I suggest scripture instructs Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period? I think I understand why we disagree on what this passage says if your understanding of my words is any indication of your average reading comprehension.

I don't think this scenario is any different than American war brides.
This an attempt to retreat to safe ground by equating American War Brides with Biblically sanctioned rape. In other words, this is a motte, and a poor one at that.

First off, it's actually not true that the Bible says that David disobeyed once.

I was going by what the Bible says in 1 Kings 15:5:

[...] because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Secondly, Abraham was known to have concubines. And he didn't commit adultery until he was instructed to by his wife to go into Hagar his servant.

I guess you forgot what this part of the conversation was about. Your contention was that sex outside of marriage was not in any way condoned by Yahweh in the Bible. Abraham is another example of Biblical sex outside of marriage. 😏

The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.
...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.

I never equated soldiers with chattel slavery. 

If you've been paying attention to the conversation, you'd know I've been consistently objecting to chattel slavery in the Bible. Making a comparison between soldiers and slavery would naturally be understood in this context.

However, you do realize that chattel slaves were used in the Civil War, right? Obviously against their will (at least in the South).
This is, without a doubt, an equivocation of soldiers and chattel slavery. (another attempted motte) As should be painfully obvious at this point, I object to any chattel slavery. Additionally, being a soldier doesn't make one a slave.
#332
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
A convert wouldn't necessarily believe after conversion because an Israelite wouldn't necessarily believe in Yahweh themselves. 
This is about the third tangent you've taken regarding "converts".  Suffice to say, the law considered converts to be part of Israel. I'm not interested in this rabbit hole.

Have you ever known me to be forceful?

Sure they were considered a part of Israel.

Of course the whole Bible is about the law.
...but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.
There's really nothing pointless when it comes to comparing scripture with scripture. It seems a number of your complaints center around my referencing other portions of scripture, and comparing them with a scripture(s) in question. Do you think that the method (comparing scripture with scripture) is not valid for some reason?

If you think that, your continued discussions with believers will probably be quite frustrating.

What is leading you to believe that the scripture is instructing Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period (which doesn't even necessitate rape)?
Where did I suggest scripture instructs Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period? I think I understand why we disagree on what this passage says if your understanding of my words is any indication of your average reading comprehension.

Maybe you can develop your own version of spell-check/auto correct/grammarly. As one types, your version would warn the poster when they're misunderstanding you. (That's not what he meant.....What he meant was.....).

I don't think this scenario is any different than American war brides.
This an attempt to retreat to safe ground by equating American War Brides with Biblically sanctioned rape. In other words, this is a motte, and a poor one at that.
In your claim about rape in the passage in question, are you implying that the scripture is actually instructing rape? Or is just sort of assumed (allowing for rape) that due to human nature, it has to be a tolerance for rape by default?

At least I try to understand you. That's why I ask so many questions.

First off, it's actually not true that the Bible says that David disobeyed once.

I was going by what the Bible says in 1 Kings 15:5:

[...] because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
I know, but this verse here isn't going to go away.

.2 Samuel 24:10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

Secondly, Abraham was known to have concubines. And he didn't commit adultery until he was instructed to by his wife to go into Hagar his servant.

I guess you forgot what this part of the conversation was about. Your contention was that sex outside of marriage was not in any way condoned by Yahweh in the Bible. Abraham is another example of Biblical sex outside of marriage. 😏
And another example of a saint sinning against God.




#333
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne

The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.
...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.
First off, the word silly was an inappropriate word to use on my part. I think what you're saying is a misunderstanding of the texts, but not silly.

Yes. concubines were part of their culture. That's why it was so difficult to keep that part of the law.

I think you're mistaking in thinking that the scripture is claiming that David only disobeyed once means sinning only once. That's not what it's about. David sinned numerous times.

Psalm 25:7 ESV / 2 helpful votes

Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, OLord!

He acknowledged that he had a problem obeying at times. I think it's safe to say this included lust, including falling with concubines.

Psalms 119:9-10
"Young people can live a clean life by obeying your word. I worship you with all my heart. Don’t let me walk away from your commands."



But lets............compare scripture with scripture with the one you gave.

The sin I referred to in 2 Samuel was not the same as the sin with Bathsheba because we can see that David's heart is with God by how relatively quickly he repented. This was not so concerning the sin with Bathsheba until Nathan the prophet confronted him. In 2 Samuel his conscience is focused on God. He didn't need a prophet to tell him he sinned.


Now, check this out.

2 Samuel 12 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
Nathan Confronts David
12 So the Lord sent Nathan to David. Nathan came to him and said, “There were two men in a certain city. One was rich, and the other was poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cows, 3 but the poor man had only one little female lamb that he had bought. He raised her, and she grew up in his home with his children. She would eat his food and drink from his cup. She rested in his arms and was like a daughter.
4 “Now, a visitor came to the rich man. The rich man thought it would be a pity to take one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler. So he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared her for the traveler.”
5 David burned with anger against the man. “I solemnly swear, as the Lord lives,” he said to Nathan, “the man who did this certainly deserves to die! 6 And he must pay back four times the price of the lamb because he did this and had no pity.”
7 “You are the man!” Nathan told David. “This is what the Lord God of Israel says: I anointed you king over Israel and rescued you from Saul. 8 I gave you your master Saul’s house and his wives. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if this weren’t enough, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise my word by doing what I considered evil? You had Uriah the Hittite killed in battle. You took his wife as your wife. You used the Ammonites to kill him. 10 So warfare will never leave your house because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.

Nathan was very calculative and tactful in confronting the king. So much so, that David didn't know that Nathan was equating him with the rich man in the question posed. David was even angered at the culprit in Nathan's scenario. David's conscience was not aimed in God's direction in this event. For some reason he lost his focus on God, so his heart was not with God in this scenario.

Do you see the difference?

I never equated soldiers with chattel slavery. 

If you've been paying attention to the conversation, you'd know I've been consistently objecting to chattel slavery in the Bible. Making a comparison between soldiers and slavery would naturally be understood in this context.

I know. The problem is that chattel slavery is not condoned in the Bible. Chattel slavery is referred to in the Bible. There were the practices of chattel slavery amongst neighboring nations like Egypt. It may have occurred within Israelite society at the time. But if it happened, it was in violation of Israelite law.

However, you do realize that chattel slaves were used in the Civil War, right? Obviously against their will (at least in the South).
This is, without a doubt, an equivocation of soldiers and chattel slavery. (another attempted motte) As should be painfully obvious at this point, I object to any chattel slavery. Additionally, being a soldier doesn't make one a slave.
Being a soldier doesn't make one a slave. However, chattel slavery obviously existed within the military in some nations, including the Southern army in the Civil War.

Chattel slavery may have existed within Israelite society. But if it did, it was in opposition of Israelite law.
Topic's author
#334
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.
...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.
First off, the word silly was an inappropriate word to use on my part. I think what you're saying is a misunderstanding of the texts, but not silly.

Yes. concubines were part of their culture. That's why it was so difficult to keep that part of the law.


The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 

I think you're mistaking in thinking that the scripture is claiming that David only disobeyed once means sinning only once. That's not what it's about. David sinned numerous times.

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.


Being a soldier doesn't make one a slave. However, chattel slavery obviously existed within the military in some nations, including the Southern army in the Civil War.

Chattel slavery may have existed within Israelite society. But if it did, it was in opposition of Israelite law.

I am satisfied you've acknowledged military service does not equate to slavery and at least the possibility of chattel slavery in Israel. I think I'll have to be content with this for now.


In your claim about rape in the passage in question, are you implying that the scripture is actually instructing rape? Or is just sort of assumed (allowing for rape) that due to human nature, it has to be a tolerance for rape by default?
The passage in question certainly strongly implies rape. I think it is quite reasonable that a woman who recently had her family murdered might not want to have sex with (or be married to) her family's murderer. Yet, there is no accounting for this - a man can have sex and be married to his spoils of war after 30 days - whether she (read "it) is willing or not.

Of course the whole Bible is about the law.
...but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.
There's really nothing pointless when it comes to comparing scripture with scripture. It seems a number of your complaints center around my referencing other portions of scripture, and comparing them with a scripture(s) in question. Do you think that the method (comparing scripture with scripture) is not valid for some reason?
If you told me the general principle of the Gospels was X, and I pointed to Genesis and asked why it didn't follow your principle...what would you think? You'd think I didn't understand your point, I was dancing around the issue, or maybe I was being malicious. I've said the general principle of "the law" is that it is directed to the nation of Israel and does not extend protection to non-believing foreigners (the law prescribes chattel slaves are to come from foreign nations and not Israel). You've brought up Psalms -which is not law -and adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. This leads me to peruse the possibilities ignorance, willful ignorance, willful and malicious ignorance? Clearly, there is a disconnect between us.

#335
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.
...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.
First off, the word silly was an inappropriate word to use on my part. I think what you're saying is a misunderstanding of the texts, but not silly.

Yes. concubines were part of their culture. That's why it was so difficult to keep that part of the law.


The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 
Job didn't seem to think so.


Job 31 New International Version (NIV)

31 “I made a covenant with my eyes
    not to look lustfully at a young woman.
 

This seems to coincide quite nicely with

 Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You're mixing up man's tendency to follow their penis with accepting sex outside of marriage. Prostitution is against the law in most countries. Yet, people from all walks of life, from the very top (political leaders, law enforcement), to the common John on the street participate. The fact politicians pay for escort services doesn't mean they proclaim prostitution is acceptable and lawful.

I think you're mistaking in thinking that the scripture is claiming that David only disobeyed once means sinning only once. That's not what it's about. David sinned numerous times.

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.
That poor woman who was almost stoned to death in the Book of John I'm quite sure wouldn't agree.

You seem to be the one suggesting a contradiction.

Do you think David was mistaken when he said:

.2 Samuel 24:10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

Do you think this wasn't David?

Psalm 25:7 ESV / 2 helpful votes
Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, OLord

Comparing your prior text reference:

1 Kings 15:5:

[...] because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

to

Job, the Good Man
1 A man named Job lived in the land of Uz. He was an honest and innocent man; he honored God and stayed away from evil.

Job had one wife, and wouldn't even look at another woman the wrong way. David on the other hand had a common weakness. But during his moments of falling, he continually repented, and followed God. The fall with Bathsheba was the exception.

Do you see that the 2 compliments are not identical?


#336
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
In your claim about rape in the passage in question, are you implying that the scripture is actually instructing rape? Or is just sort of assumed (allowing for rape) that due to human nature, it has to be a tolerance for rape by default?
The passage in question certainly strongly implies rape. I think it is quite reasonable that a woman who recently had her family murdered might not want to have sex with (or be married to) her family's murderer. Yet, there is no accounting for this - a man can have sex and be married to his spoils of war after 30 days - whether she (read "it) is willing or not.
For the sake of argument, I'll play the district attorney here.

I'll assume the stance that the exodus is pure fable......just as what you believe. I'll pretend not to believe for a moment..

After all, the Bible tells a story of an actual sea parting so that humans could walk in-between to make an escape from their captors. And the waters conveniently falling back down right when the Egyptians try to pass through the same avenue, killing all of them, and not harming one Israelite.

Obviously you believe this was made up. Why would you have a problem with the authors of the Pentateuch making up a story of a super moral God who demanded complete purity towards all women, domestic or foreign? Keep in mind, this wouldn't harm your position one bit. If the Israelite authors make up such outlandish claims of an entire sea parting, why would you insist that they didn't make their God out to be a super humanitarian who even cares for foreigners?


If you told me the general principle of the Gospels was X, and I pointed to Genesis and asked why it didn't follow your principle...what would you think? You'd think I didn't understand your point, I was dancing around the issue, or maybe I was being malicious. I've said the general principle of "the law" is that it is directed to the nation of Israel and does not extend protection to non-believing foreigners (the law prescribes chattel slaves are to come from foreign nations and not Israel). You've brought up Psalms -which is not law -and adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. This leads me to peruse the possibilities ignorance, willful ignorance, willful and malicious ignorance? Clearly, there is a disconnect between us.
The first part, it looks like you're making an assumption, but maybe if you provide a hypothetical scenario?

If you're looking to categorize me in one of those 3 options, what I can tell you is that I am no more convinced of your claims than ever. I would hesitate to say I'm less convinced now, but after each conversation with a number of people who take your world view, the lack of convincing seems more profound.

As far as a disconnect, I would agree that once a conversation ends up to be a "You say tomato, I say tomawto" standoff, the conversation will become fruitless.

#337
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It was stated at the synod of Constantinople in 1872 that "racialism and nationalism are foreign to the tradition of the Orthodox Church."
#338
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Though this is somewhat perverted by many protestant denominations which are border on antinomianism, there is really much in common in ethics between Orthodox  Christianity and Judaism. Relevant in particular to this topic is the understanding that we don't hold those who do not belong to our faiths to the same standard. 



Topic's author
#339
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 
Job didn't seem to think so.
Job could speak for no one but himself. The law speaks to an entire nation. 

This seems to coincide quite nicely with 

 Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This verse is certainly more progressive, but it was written in a completely different time.  Mosaic law would have predated the gospels by ~1500 years. The link between the two is tenuous - especially given the contrasting theologies.

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.
That poor woman who was almost stoned to death in the Book of John I'm quite sure wouldn't agree.

You seem to be the one suggesting a contradiction.
I should have said sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and is not always looked down upon.  That being said, I generally avoid discussions about Biblical contradictions (or perceived contradictions). It has been my experience people interested in discussions on this topic are generally much more passionate about winning than truth. I prefer not to be one of those people.

Obviously you believe this was made up. Why would you have a problem with the authors of the Pentateuch making up a story of a super moral God who demanded complete purity towards all women, domestic or foreign? Keep in mind, this wouldn't harm your position one bit. If the Israelite authors make up such outlandish claims of an entire sea parting, why would you insist that they didn't make their God out to be a super humanitarian who even cares for foreigners?
The words of the OT do not suggest a super moral god - it is story of a powerful, capricious, petty, ignorant tyrant who happened to prefer the Hebrews. As the saying goes,"If Moses and Yahweh had both been angry with the Israelites at the same time, not one of them would have survived!" To argue that this same god is/was a super humanitarian is absurd to the Nth degree. Mosaic law was crafted with this god in mind or by this god (as the case may be), and it shows.

As far as a disconnect, I would agree that once a conversation ends up to be a "You say tomato, I say tomawto" standoff, the conversation will become fruitless.


If the difference between Psalms and Mosaic law is not clear to everyone, I don't see how you a conversation strictly about Mosaic law could be had. That being said perhaps you'll find this amusing (as I did), a disagreement on how to say the name of a fruit is not actually fruitless... ;-P
Topic's author
#340
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
Relevant in particular to this topic is the understanding that we don't hold those who do not belong to our faiths to the same standard. 
Thank you for your honesty.

#341
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Honesty is all you will get out of me. What I am trying to say is that Jews do not expect non-Jews to follow the law of Moses. Likewise, we Christians do not hold those outside the church to the same expectations of those. who are in it.

The post above was also relevant.





"It was stated at the synod of Constantinople in 1872 that "racialism and nationalism are foreign to the tradition of the Orthodox Church.""

Topic's author
#342
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The post above was also relevant.

"It was stated at the synod of Constantinople in 1872 that "racialism and nationalism are foreign to the tradition of the Orthodox Church.""


I don't recognize claims of orthodoxy. Plus even if I did, this proclamation occurred thousands of years after Mosaic Law and decades after the founding of America. The relevance is overstated.
#343
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne

Well, The Orthodox Church is THE Christian Church. It does matter, because the position of the Church is the position of Christianity. How it is relevant to the topic, it is that the church is open to all nations, and that Christian Nationalism is sn officially recognized heresy of the church. There are persons from all nationalities in the church. If not, persons from all nations are accepted.
#344
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity. 
Job didn't seem to think so.
Job could speak for no one but himself. The law speaks to an entire nation. 
Actually, Job speaks to the entire world (pretty much).

I'm not all that clear on your argument. I might be able to relate to it if there were chapters in the Bible that strictly laid out the law without any other reference to human circumstance. However, every chapter directly laying out the law has moments of human circumstance just like every other chapter in the OT like Psalms and Job. Referencing and quoting other people from other chapters who knew the law is not any violation.

This seems to coincide quite nicely with 

 Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This verse is certainly more progressive, but it was written in a completely different time.  Mosaic law would have predated the gospels by ~1500 years. The link between the two is tenuous - especially given the contrasting theologies.
It's not progressive. This was nothing new. Job by the way is one evidence of this. The covenant he made with his eyes was because of God's law. Do you think Job's conviction about looking lustfully at a young woman was self induced? Why would he make such a covenant in a society that allegedly accepts sex outside of marriage?

Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.
That poor woman who was almost stoned to death in the Book of John I'm quite sure wouldn't agree.

You seem to be the one suggesting a contradiction.
I should have said sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and is not always looked down upon.  That being said, I generally avoid discussions about Biblical contradictions (or perceived contradictions). It has been my experience people interested in discussions on this topic are generally much more passionate about winning than truth. I prefer not to be one of those people.
I have some doubts on that one Skep. Sorry.

You're in a debate forum where that's pretty much the intention of most posters. And you do challenge people to formal debates at times where there's even more focus on winning as you're trying to sway an audience in your favor.

Obviously you believe this was made up. Why would you have a problem with the authors of the Pentateuch making up a story of a super moral God who demanded complete purity towards all women, domestic or foreign? Keep in mind, this wouldn't harm your position one bit. If the Israelite authors make up such outlandish claims of an entire sea parting, why would you insist that they didn't make their God out to be a super humanitarian who even cares for foreigners?
The words of the OT do not suggest a super moral god - it is story of a powerful, capricious, petty, ignorant tyrant who happened to prefer the Hebrews.
(Worded to the mimic of Basil Fawlty)

Oh! I seeee! And all this time I thought Yahweh was supposed to be the good, moral God who loves the entire world and all of it's living occupants. How clear it is now. (Proceeds to spank myself).

As the saying goes,"If Moses and Yahweh had both been angry with the Israelites at the same time, not one of them would have survived!" To argue that this same god is/was a super humanitarian is absurd to the Nth degree. Mosaic law was crafted with this god in mind or by this god (as the case may be), and it shows.

This sounds like one of those Mad Magazine versions of biblical texts. You state "as the saying goes.......", where is this saying originating from?

As far as a disconnect, I would agree that once a conversation ends up to be a "You say tomato, I say tomawto" standoff, the conversation will become fruitless.


If the difference between Psalms and Mosaic law is not clear to everyone, I don't see how you a conversation strictly about Mosaic law could be had.
The books have their own unique qualities, but that doesn't mean the law isn't equally represented in each book.


That being said perhaps you'll find this amusing (as I did), a disagreement on how to say the name of a fruit is not actually fruitless... ;-P

Sure! Why not?

Topic's author
#345
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
However, every chapter directly laying out the law has moments of human circumstance just like every other chapter in the OT like Psalms and Job.
There is no Biblical expert worth his salt that would confuse Psalms or Job with law. The 613 commandments in the Torah are given specifically as law unlike Job/Psalms. 

This is another motte. You're attempting to suggest books outside the Torah were written as law so you can avoid admitting things modern Christians hold as immoral are not necessarily that way in the law. 

It occurs to me I may be pushing you to admit something you haven't (and may never) realize, and no good can come from continuing this conversation. We'll talk another time, friend.



#346
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The law was given for a nation. The spirit of the law was to direct those under it towards love of The Truth and love for their neighbor.


The Church is not a secular government. We do not make laws. The Church respects the free will of man as a sacred thing, and so the use of coercion is very intentionally avoided.

Evangelicals/protestants do not represent the Orthodox position, and so they do not represent the church or what is properly Christian. The confusion caused by their denominationalism makes teaching proper orthodox Christianity very difficult as everyone already thinks they know what it is all about before they really do.
#347
Dynasty
Dynasty's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 220
1
1
7
Dynasty's avatar
Dynasty
1
1
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
It's Christian values.
Topic's author
#348
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Dynasty
It's Christian values.
Define "It's".
Topic's author
#349
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The law was given for a nation. The spirit of the law was to direct those under it towards love of The Truth and love for their neighbor.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, many conflate 'neighbor' with peoples not under the law and not part of the nation of Israel. 
#350
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The story of the good Samaritan shows that we are supposed to be neighbors even to those who do not share our faith.

#351
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
I will honor your request then.

When you have time, you might get a kick out of this video though. It's a scene from a movie I recently saw, that had me chuckling. It reminds me of the debating scene in general, particularly forums. I'm just linking this strictly for entertainment. It's not aimed at anyone who posts here (But it's not far off from some arguments I've read in this forum), or to sabotage your thread.




Topic's author
#352
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Indeed. It is very much like that at times. Here is a skit I've always enjoyed.


Topic's author
#353
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
The story of the good Samaritan shows that we are supposed to be neighbors even to those who do not share our faith.

Mosaic law would have been around for ~1500 years at the time of this story. Have you ever wondered why a lawyer (someone who would be very familiar with law and the term "neighbor") would need to ask "who is my neighbor? 

#354
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Not at all, it is very clear from the tribalism I see even in my own time that  people struggle with this.




Topic's author
#355
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac
If we struggle against something, we fight against it. Mosaic law integrated tribalism into law. It's sort of like the old joke 'Crazy doesn't run in my family - it sits in the corner and laughs maniacally'....just replace crazy with tribalism and family with religion. 😆
#356
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Israel, and by that I mean the church, must be set apqrt for its holy purpose, that is, to preserve and teach the mystery of Hod and salvation, being the ground and pillar of truth.

But we are called to love everyone, even as Jesus loved sinners.

1074 days later

#357
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.

Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
Judeo-Christian Principles is a combination of Judaism and Christian principle beliefs.
Judaism teaches about a coming Messiah who will liberate the Jews and restore the Davidic Kingdom. The Jews rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah and demanded he be crucified.
Christianity teaches the Messiah Jesus was crucified and will return to restore the same Davidic Kingdom.

So Judeo-Christian is about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by Jesus a Jew. It is about the humble expectations Jews and Christians have placed on Jesus.

How big  was the Davidic Kingdom? The united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

Jerusalem was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. These findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.

Marcus says that Finkelstein is "difficult to dismiss because he's so much an insider in terms of his credentials and background. He's an archaeologist, not a theologian, and he is an Israeli. It's hard to say that someone who was born in Israel and intends to live the rest of his life there is anti-Israeli."

Topic's author
#358
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
So Judeo-Christian is about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by Jesus a Jew. It is about the humble expectations Jews and Christians have placed on Jesus.
Judaism and Christianity holds conflicting views on Jesus. This proposed definition of Judeo-Christian is incoherent. Additionally, you've provided no position on Christian Nationalism. 



#359
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
So Judeo-Christian is about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by Jesus a Jew. It is about the humble expectations Jews and Christians have placed on Jesus.

Judaism and Christianity holds conflicting views on Jesus. This proposed definition of Judeo-Christian is incoherent. Additionally, you've provided no position on Christian Nationalism. 
The term Judeo-Christian is used to group Christianity and Judaism together, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism, Christianity's borrowing of Jewish Scripture to constitute the "Old Testament" of the Christian Bible, or due to the parallels or commonalities in Judaeo-Christian ethics shared by the two religions.

At the end of the day ― or the end of the world, for that matter ― the term "Judeo-Christian" is one we might well do to abandon. It conceals the Western history of anti-Judaism. Even when, in philo-Semitic mode, it appears to extol the virtue of Jewish identity, it is deeply anti-Judaic.

Simply put, then, there is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian tradition." It is a modern invention. There always has been a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition ― or, more accurately, varieties of Jewish and Christian traditions. The term "Judeo-Christian tradition" continues the suppression of Jewishness by hiding the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity, one of which is that each denies the validity of the other. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits puts it, "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."



Topic's author
#360
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
Simply put, then, there is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian tradition." It is a modern invention. There always has been a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition ― or, more accurately, varieties of Jewish and Christian traditions. The term "Judeo-Christian tradition" continues the suppression of Jewishness by hiding the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity, one of which is that each denies the validity of the other. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits puts it, "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."
Agree. Judeo-Christian is code for Christian.