Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

[Politesse]

Yet what is written in the Torah on morality does not show the same regard for those who were not 'Gods chosen people.'

Jesus did not agree, obviously. He was not a "literalist", and indeed mocked those who were as hypocrites and fools.

The laws outlined in the Torah were not meant to be taken literally? When Jesus reportedly said that he had not come to abolish the law of the prophets, he did not mean it literally?

Literalism was not a word or philosophy that existed at the time, but Jesus' recorded actions and teachings make it very clear that he did not value the letter of the law over what he saw as its purpose, as indeed I have just quoted him as saying. If to love God and your neighbor is the whole of the law, that excludes any interpretation of the law as a weapon against the oppressed. "The whole of", not "the moral of", or "one important purpose of". It's not that some verses are literal and others aren't, it's that using Torah to abuse and oppress others is to misunderstand Torah as Jesus himself thought it was intended. In his words:

'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'

Naturally, he would not have seen his career as abolishing the law; if anything, he believed he was re-establishing it. He believed, after all, that the world was very soon to end altogether and presumably all of its books and so forth along with it. But the eternal Torah is that which was "written on the hearts" of the Jewish people. A belief and a promise, not a collection of physical scrolls or the common civic law of a nation he believed would soon be destroyed.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

Okay, have fun with that.

I think you will struggle to actually live such a principle without contradiction, though. It will not be long before you find yourself straining gnats but swallowing camels.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Thomas II]

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:8-10)

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14)

https://engediresourcecenter.com/2018/11/09/what-it-means-to-fulfill-the-law-parts-1-2/

 

[Thomas II]

Question: Did the death of Jesus appease YHWH?

 

[Thomas II]

 

[bilby]

 

[Politesse]

When the people who pass around all these fake Sitting Bull quotes ever run across actual Sitting Bull quotes they must feel very uncomfortable, haha. He was not a man naturally predisposed for a career in refrigerator magnet affirmations.

My favorite:

"The love of possessions is a disease in them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break, but the poor may not! They have a religion in which the poor worship, but the rich will not! They even take tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule. They claim this mother of ours, the earth, for their own use, and fence their neighbor away. ... If America had been twice the size it is, there still would not have been enough."

 

[Thomas II]

Question: Did the death of Jesus appease YHWH?

He died in our place as he absorbed the wrath of God for our sins. That's what the word propitiation refers to in Rom. 3:25. It means Christ satisfied God's wrath against us for our sins...

 

[Learner]

Hey snap!

Two birds with one stone. Verses 17 to 18 in Galatians 5... happens to relate nicely to both of these recent posts:


Galatians 5: 17 & 18

17. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

and...

18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

 

[DBT]

Yet what is written in the Torah on morality does not show the same regard for those who were not 'Gods chosen people.'

Jesus did not agree, obviously. He was not a "literalist", and indeed mocked those who were as hypocrites and fools.

The laws outlined in the Torah were not meant to be taken literally? When Jesus reportedly said that he had not come to abolish the law of the prophets, he did not mean it literally?

Literalism was not a word or philosophy that existed at the time, but Jesus' recorded actions and teachings make it very clear that he did not value the letter of the law over what he saw as its purpose, as indeed I have just quoted him as saying. If to love God and your neighbor is the whole of the law, that excludes any interpretation of the law as a weapon against the oppressed. "The whole of", not "the moral of", or "one important purpose of". It's not that some verses are literal and others aren't, it's that using Torah to abuse and oppress others is to misunderstand Torah as Jesus himself thought it was intended. In his words:

'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'

Naturally, he would not have seen his career as abolishing the law; if anything, he believed he was re-establishing it. He believed, after all, that the world was very soon to end altogether and presumably all of its books and so forth along with it. But the eternal Torah is that which was "written on the hearts" of the Jewish people. A belief and a promise, not a collection of physical scrolls or the common civic law of a nation he believed would soon be destroyed.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

Okay, have fun with that.

I think you will struggle to actually live such a principle without contradiction, though. It will not be long before you find yourself straining gnats but swallowing camels.

The bible is full of contradictions. In this instance the issue lies between the 'letter of the law,' no leniency, and the spirit of the law, which may allow for leniency if that is called for.

 

[DBT]

Hey snap!

Two birds with one stone. Verses 17 to 18 in Galatians 5... happens to relate nicely to both of these recent posts:


Galatians 5: 17 & 18

17. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

and...

18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Luke 16:17.

 

[Politesse]

Yet what is written in the Torah on morality does not show the same regard for those who were not 'Gods chosen people.'

Jesus did not agree, obviously. He was not a "literalist", and indeed mocked those who were as hypocrites and fools.

The laws outlined in the Torah were not meant to be taken literally? When Jesus reportedly said that he had not come to abolish the law of the prophets, he did not mean it literally?

Literalism was not a word or philosophy that existed at the time, but Jesus' recorded actions and teachings make it very clear that he did not value the letter of the law over what he saw as its purpose, as indeed I have just quoted him as saying. If to love God and your neighbor is the whole of the law, that excludes any interpretation of the law as a weapon against the oppressed. "The whole of", not "the moral of", or "one important purpose of". It's not that some verses are literal and others aren't, it's that using Torah to abuse and oppress others is to misunderstand Torah as Jesus himself thought it was intended. In his words:

'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'

Naturally, he would not have seen his career as abolishing the law; if anything, he believed he was re-establishing it. He believed, after all, that the world was very soon to end altogether and presumably all of its books and so forth along with it. But the eternal Torah is that which was "written on the hearts" of the Jewish people. A belief and a promise, not a collection of physical scrolls or the common civic law of a nation he believed would soon be destroyed.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

Okay, have fun with that.

I think you will struggle to actually live such a principle without contradiction, though. It will not be long before you find yourself straining gnats but swallowing camels.

The bible is full of contradictions. In this instance the issue lies between the 'letter of the law,' no leniency, and the spirit of the law, which may allow for leniency if that is called for.

Okay. So, what do you do when you're reading a text and it contains seeming contradictions?

 

[Learner]

John 14:30

“Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe the Gospel.”

'There is a sucker born every minute' Attributed to PT Barnum.

'Never give a sucker an even break,' WC Fields.

'Don't take any wooden nickels.'

'Actions speak louder than words.'

'An ounce of prevention s worth a pound of cure.'

'Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy,wealthy, and wise.' Ben Franklin.
'A penny saved is a penny earned.'
'Fish and visitors stink in three days.'

'Give a Chr9stian an inch and they will take a yard.' Steve Bank.

Feelings of opinion noted and acknowledged. Argument... not.

One of may favorites form Confucius goes something like this..'Wise is the man who gets beyond words of wisdom'.

Confucius among other things was a moralist predating Jesus. What makes a moral person?

Noah who was a righteous man predates Jesus too.

Christians have their moral guide which is through the teachings of Christ.

I interpreted saying to mean at what point do you start living what you are quoting? Christians quote the bibe profuslty and derive a pleasure from the act of quoting.

Nothing wrong with deriving pleasure from the act of quoting. Quotes like: 'love your neighbour, feed the poor and hungry, and all the other good things I'm sure you would like yourself.

They think quoting the bible is being moral.

As a duty, teaching the above yes. And why not?

The question I ask Christians is how does the bible affect how you live in the world and how you act. Never get an answer.

I may have a similar response as politesses response to you, depending on your further posts ( do or don't ignore my answer).

From the actions of Christians throughout history obviously they do not practice a morality or the morality in the wrings is not a morality, at least in our modern sense.

In the modern sense I would say: don't confuse the Christianity set out as according to Jesus, exampled from the actions of men. Men who abuse their places in faith as do men in political or similar influential high authority.

Christianity is a feel good panacea, not a morality.

This simply would be your view.... but to Christians, morality would be included in the "feel good panacea" as you put it.

 

[DBT]

Yet what is written in the Torah on morality does not show the same regard for those who were not 'Gods chosen people.'

Jesus did not agree, obviously. He was not a "literalist", and indeed mocked those who were as hypocrites and fools.

The laws outlined in the Torah were not meant to be taken literally? When Jesus reportedly said that he had not come to abolish the law of the prophets, he did not mean it literally?

Literalism was not a word or philosophy that existed at the time, but Jesus' recorded actions and teachings make it very clear that he did not value the letter of the law over what he saw as its purpose, as indeed I have just quoted him as saying. If to love God and your neighbor is the whole of the law, that excludes any interpretation of the law as a weapon against the oppressed. "The whole of", not "the moral of", or "one important purpose of". It's not that some verses are literal and others aren't, it's that using Torah to abuse and oppress others is to misunderstand Torah as Jesus himself thought it was intended. In his words:

'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'

Naturally, he would not have seen his career as abolishing the law; if anything, he believed he was re-establishing it. He believed, after all, that the world was very soon to end altogether and presumably all of its books and so forth along with it. But the eternal Torah is that which was "written on the hearts" of the Jewish people. A belief and a promise, not a collection of physical scrolls or the common civic law of a nation he believed would soon be destroyed.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

Okay, have fun with that.

I think you will struggle to actually live such a principle without contradiction, though. It will not be long before you find yourself straining gnats but swallowing camels.

The bible is full of contradictions. In this instance the issue lies between the 'letter of the law,' no leniency, and the spirit of the law, which may allow for leniency if that is called for.

Okay. So, what do you do when you're reading a text and it contains seeming contradictions?

Do? If contradictions are to be found within a holy book, does this not pose a problem for whatever religion it represents?

 

[Learner]

Hey snap!

Two birds with one stone. Verses 17 to 18 in Galatians 5... happens to relate nicely to both of these recent posts:


Galatians 5: 17 & 18

17. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

and...

18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Luke 16:17.

Yes that's right. If Jesus came to destroy the law of the commandments then one should wonder: By what measure or rule will sins be judged and accounted for? The commandment (moral) laws still stands but a mediator/savior would be needed ... lest you be judged by those laws.


Galatians 3:13

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[DBT]

Hey snap!

Two birds with one stone. Verses 17 to 18 in Galatians 5... happens to relate nicely to both of these recent posts:


Galatians 5: 17 & 18

17. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Not observing the 'letter of the law' when doing so may unnecessarily harm someone does not necessarily negate the laws being literal. The laws were meant to be observed and practiced.

and...

18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Luke 16:17.

Yes that's right. If Jesus came to destroy the law of the commandments then one should wonder: By what measure or rule will sins be judged and accounted for? The commandment (moral) laws still stands but a mediator/savior would be needed ... lest you be judged by those laws.


Galatians 3:13

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The Law was not given as a curse but a guide, a set of rules according to the values of God, which the words attributed to Jesus uphold.

 

[Politesse]

Do? If contradictions are to be found within a holy book, does this not pose a problem for whatever religion it represents?

I suppose it might. And?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I love the Gnostic Informant. So many good videos. All his videos on early Christianity are awesome. Another chanel I like is estoterica. It's similar stuff. But with an occulitism perspective.

 

[DBT]

Do? If contradictions are to be found within a holy book, does this not pose a problem for whatever religion it represents?

I suppose it might. And?

Isn't that enough to raise questions in regard to the validity of what they teach? That given the contradictions, something is wrong?

 

[Thomas II]

Do? If contradictions are to be found within a holy book, does this not pose a problem for whatever religion it represents?

I suppose it might. And?

Isn't that enough to raise questions in regard to the validity of what they teach? That given the contradictions, something is wrong?

Keep going! What do you think is wrong? What are the issues and what is the solution ?