NationStates

Lower Nubia wrote:

The Union of the West wrote:Yes

That's good, I just thought it odd at the time. I also did not partake of communion, you'll be happy to know, as a non-Catholic.

Like Tarsonis said, it’s quite unusually (I’ve never seen it myself), but it does happen.

To compete with NS summer, I was able, in my absence here, to attend a Choral Evensong at the Parish of Saint Mary the Virgin on the Holy Island of Lindisfarne.

The service itself was pretty amazing though, and a professional choir was attending from Durham. Veni Creator Spiritus, in Latin was amazing to hear and really made you think of the life of the Island several centuries ago. Everything else was sung in the vernacular, including Psalms 65-67, the Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis and Lesser Litany for Lord’s Prayer. Which from a Baptist perspective is something you never hear, or even imagine existing, within religious life, so it was really beautiful to see first hand.

It was in someways quite sad to see the ruins of the monastery there, and it would no doubt continue to be in use if not for the Dissolution of the Monasteies.

However, they do do great Meade at the winery, so it’s ups and downs.

What other Holy places exist in the British isles to visit?

Northern Davincia wrote:

Auristania wrote:GOP totally adore the vengeful God of Old Testament; Democrats pay lip service to the loving God of New Testament. Both factions are totally in love with the Money Lenders, so neither faction will drive the Money-lenders out of the Temple.

True. What frustrates me is the perception that God is somehow different between testaments.

He kind of was. Or at least, the actions of those who represented God were very different. In the old testament, you had a ruthless God who killed those who questioned him, and instructed a collection of tribes to wage total war and slaughter their enemies. In the new testament you have a guy (Jesus) who doesn't kill anybody. Heals the sick without hesitation, instructs people to turn the other cheek, and is grouchy but mostly peaceful sans the incident with the temple markets. It's a remarkable difference in tone.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:True. What frustrates me is the perception that God is somehow different between testaments.

He kind of was. Or at least, the actions of those who represented God were very different. In the old testament, you had a ruthless God who killed those who questioned him, and instructed a collection of tribes to wage total war and slaughter their enemies. In the new testament you have a guy (Jesus) who doesn't kill anybody. Heals the sick without hesitation, instructs people to turn the other cheek, and is grouchy but mostly peaceful sans the incident with the temple markets. It's a remarkable difference in tone.

I wouldn’t describe it as ruthless. Ruthless implies without mercy, but plenty of time was given for the evil of the people there to flee from the land.

Lower Nubia wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:He kind of was. Or at least, the actions of those who represented God were very different. In the old testament, you had a ruthless God who killed those who questioned him, and instructed a collection of tribes to wage total war and slaughter their enemies. In the new testament you have a guy (Jesus) who doesn't kill anybody. Heals the sick without hesitation, instructs people to turn the other cheek, and is grouchy but mostly peaceful sans the incident with the temple markets. It's a remarkable difference in tone.

I wouldn’t describe it as ruthless. Ruthless implies without mercy, but plenty of time was given for the evil of the people there to flee from the land.

I would describe it as ruthless. No chance, as far as I'm aware was given for the good people there to leave their land. Even if it was, they were living there and had every right to remain living there, so it's not reasonable to expect them to leave.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
I wouldn’t describe it as ruthless. Ruthless implies without mercy, but plenty of time was given for the evil of the people there to flee from the land.

I would describe it as ruthless. No chance, as far as I'm aware was given for the good people there to leave their land. Even if it was, they were living there and had every right to remain living there, so it's not reasonable to expect them to leave.

400 years in Genesis 15, 40 years in Sinai.

Plenty of time.

They also sacrificed babies. If they were in my neighbourhood, I’d want them expelled. Then imprisoned.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
I wouldn’t describe it as ruthless. Ruthless implies without mercy, but plenty of time was given for the evil of the people there to flee from the land.

I would describe it as ruthless. No chance, as far as I'm aware was given for the good people there to leave their land. Even if it was, they were living there and had every right to remain living there, so it's not reasonable to expect them to leave.

It’s one of the most difficult concepts to wrap our heads around that God is both merciful and wrathful. It should be noted that the cosmological realities during the Old Testament were different, than in the new thus the concepts of wrath and mercy were applied very differently than during the new. In the OT, several key factors are at play: 1. Heaven is closed to all people, so it doesn’t matter when and where anyone dies, everyone goes to Sheol. It might seem callous, but there is no intrinsic value to life beyond the imago dei, which God is free to override as He is the creator. 2. As a result God deals with humanity less on an individual level and more on a corporate level. Hence why entire civilizations get out to the sword rather than certain individuals. 3. Humanity is tribalistic in nature, only one tribe worships God thus God only advocates for the one Tribe. Any tribe that opposes Israel gets diced, so long as Israel remains faithful. the concept of a merciful and wrathful God are understood through this lens. Betraying the covenant invites God’s wrath, and repentance invites God’s mercy. Betray the covenant God will let Israel’s enemies run roughshod over them. Repentance returns them to God’s grace and God’s protection.


During the New Testament, however the Cosmological realities are very different:1. Heaven is open. Thus life is even more precious now because taking someone’s life can rob them of eternity, where as before that wasn’t the case.

2. The crucifixion ended the age of tribalism, instead we are all now one people with one God and one covenant, meaning the age of heavy handed wrath against nations and people’s is over. Now it’s up to the individual.

3. God’s mercy and wrath are conceived of differently now, with regards to eternal life rather than just the earthly life. God is merciful for opening heaven through Christ, and is wrathful in his punishment of sins.

God is still very much the same in the OT and the NT. But he cosmological realities are so vastly different that how His qualities are applied seem almost diametrically opposed.

Happy Father's Day everyone!

Aeritai wrote:Happy Father's Day everyone!

Today is also Trinity Sunday, so here's the Athanasian Creed.

It’s also Orthodox Pentecost.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:True. What frustrates me is the perception that God is somehow different between testaments.

He kind of was. Or at least, the actions of those who represented God were very different. In the old testament, you had a ruthless God who killed those who questioned him, and instructed a collection of tribes to wage total war and slaughter their enemies. In the new testament you have a guy (Jesus) who doesn't kill anybody. Heals the sick without hesitation, instructs people to turn the other cheek, and is grouchy but mostly peaceful sans the incident with the temple markets. It's a remarkable difference in tone.

The point of value for christians is that it's all the same god, in both old and new testament. It's the point of view which changes.

In the old testament you have people looking up to god, and with some reverent distance kept from humans, god gives rules and signs to guide humans.
In the new testament you've Jesus making a living example of what god really meant with its rules and signs.

So god is strict, because strictness is needed for selfrestrain and virtue, which are needed to get to kindness.

The Union of the West wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
That's good, I just thought it odd at the time. I also did not partake of communion, you'll be happy to know, as a non-Catholic.

Like Tarsonis said, it’s quite unusually (I’ve never seen it myself), but it does happen.

I've seen communion only services conducted by a priest, but only at 5:30-6:00 in the morning so the crowd that has to be at work before the morning mass is finished can receive communion. Usually right before the early morning mass. I've never seen a layman running one.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:So, I know the trinity but for sake of interest want people to explain and discuss it.

Well, the Athanasian Creed explains it perfectly: We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance, and we are compelled by the Christian Truth to confess each distinct Person - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - as God and Lord, coequal and coeternal in majesty and glory.

On another note, I almost forgot: The obligatory reposting of St. Patrick's Bad Analogies!

Eternal Lotharia wrote:So, I know the trinity but for sake of interest want people to explain and discuss it.

Seeing as you want some discussion, I like to personally describe the trinity as a sheet of rubber. Then out of that sheet appears a peak _/\_ , alongside this first peak, appears two equal peaks making three _/\_/\_/\_ . Each peak is equally spaced between one another, forming an equalatoral triangle, with the base of each peak at each corner of the triangle. Each of the peaks is made of the same substance, the rubber, homoousios while being distinct within it, the hypostasises. Each peak is equal in size and thus co-equal.

I then like to think of a second sheet of rubber, which is above the first sheet, and intersects only the tops of each peak, so that above that second sheet, one can see three separate peaks:

__/\_ <—- second sheet intersecting. Material world.
_/ \_ <—- first sheet. Immaterial homoousios which makes up the sheet.

This second sheet is our material world, and those peaks represent how the trinity can be separate, yet wholly United. As per the case in Matthew, where we see Father, Son and Holy Spirit and separate entities.

I like to further think that where one peak exists, by defintion the other two must also exist, likened to a phenomenon of matter, where antimatter exists, matter exists (for the Big Bang for example), this we notice that they are whole and undivided, not parts of some device, for they are wholly one within the rubber,, and not divided by the rubber.

How do you personally view the trinity? How you describe it can help understand short coming, explain discrepancies, and visualise common heresies.

Tarsonis wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:I would describe it as ruthless. No chance, as far as I'm aware was given for the good people there to leave their land. Even if it was, they were living there and had every right to remain living there, so it's not reasonable to expect them to leave.

It’s one of the most difficult concepts to wrap our heads around that God is both merciful and wrathful. It should be noted that the cosmological realities during the Old Testament were different, than in the new thus the concepts of wrath and mercy were applied very differently than during the new. In the OT, several key factors are at play: 1. Heaven is closed to all people, so it doesn’t matter when and where anyone dies, everyone goes to Sheol. It might seem callous, but there is no intrinsic value to life beyond the imago dei, which God is free to override as He is the creator. 2. As a result God deals with humanity less on an individual level and more on a corporate level. Hence why entire civilizations get out to the sword rather than certain individuals. 3. Humanity is tribalistic in nature, only one tribe worships God thus God only advocates for the one Tribe. Any tribe that opposes Israel gets diced, so long as Israel remains faithful. the concept of a merciful and wrathful God are understood through this lens. Betraying the covenant invites God’s wrath, and repentance invites God’s mercy. Betray the covenant God will let Israel’s enemies run roughshod over them. Repentance returns them to God’s grace and God’s protection.


During the New Testament, however the Cosmological realities are very different:1. Heaven is open. Thus life is even more precious now because taking someone’s life can rob them of eternity, where as before that wasn’t the case.

2. The crucifixion ended the age of tribalism, instead we are all now one people with one God and one covenant, meaning the age of heavy handed wrath against nations and people’s is over. Now it’s up to the individual.

3. God’s mercy and wrath are conceived of differently now, with regards to eternal life rather than just the earthly life. God is merciful for opening heaven through Christ, and is wrathful in his punishment of sins.

God is still very much the same in the OT and the NT. But he cosmological realities are so vastly different that how His qualities are applied seem almost diametrically opposed.

"They're all going to hell anyway, what's so wrong with them dying?" Is not a massive consolation. And "God can override your life's value, no problem." Is just scary, not at all benevolent, and violates a certain commandment. And you keep talking about God dealing with humanity at a corporate rather than an individual level. I wouldn't buy that excuse from a fallible human, let alone a being who is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
It’s one of the most difficult concepts to wrap our heads around that God is both merciful and wrathful. It should be noted that the cosmological realities during the Old Testament were different, than in the new thus the concepts of wrath and mercy were applied very differently than during the new. In the OT, several key factors are at play: 1. Heaven is closed to all people, so it doesn’t matter when and where anyone dies, everyone goes to Sheol. It might seem callous, but there is no intrinsic value to life beyond the imago dei, which God is free to override as He is the creator. 2. As a result God deals with humanity less on an individual level and more on a corporate level. Hence why entire civilizations get out to the sword rather than certain individuals. 3. Humanity is tribalistic in nature, only one tribe worships God thus God only advocates for the one Tribe. Any tribe that opposes Israel gets diced, so long as Israel remains faithful. the concept of a merciful and wrathful God are understood through this lens. Betraying the covenant invites God’s wrath, and repentance invites God’s mercy. Betray the covenant God will let Israel’s enemies run roughshod over them. Repentance returns them to God’s grace and God’s protection.


During the New Testament, however the Cosmological realities are very different:1. Heaven is open. Thus life is even more precious now because taking someone’s life can rob them of eternity, where as before that wasn’t the case.

2. The crucifixion ended the age of tribalism, instead we are all now one people with one God and one covenant, meaning the age of heavy handed wrath against nations and people’s is over. Now it’s up to the individual.

3. God’s mercy and wrath are conceived of differently now, with regards to eternal life rather than just the earthly life. God is merciful for opening heaven through Christ, and is wrathful in his punishment of sins.

God is still very much the same in the OT and the NT. But he cosmological realities are so vastly different that how His qualities are applied seem almost diametrically opposed.

"They're all going to hell anyway, what's so wrong with them dying?" Is not a massive consolation. And "God can override your life's value, no problem." Is just scary, not at all benevolent, and violates a certain commandment. And you keep talking about God dealing with humanity at a corporate rather than an individual level. I wouldn't buy that excuse from a fallible human, let alone a being who is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

The people of the time would of seen it as quite fair, they were a corporate society, dealing in corporate justice and punishment.

What other means is God supposed to enact justice? Use a system they wilfully abandoned (turning to God), use their own system of justice against them, or use an arbitrary modern standard?

Lower Nubia wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:"They're all going to hell anyway, what's so wrong with them dying?" Is not a massive consolation. And "God can override your life's value, no problem." Is just scary, not at all benevolent, and violates a certain commandment. And you keep talking about God dealing with humanity at a corporate rather than an individual level. I wouldn't buy that excuse from a fallible human, let alone a being who is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

The people of the time would of seen it as quite fair, they were a corporate society, dealing in corporate justice and punishment.

What other means is God supposed to enact justice? Use a system they wilfully abandoned (turning to God), use their own system of justice against them, or use an arbitrary modern standard?

The people of the time would be wrong, at least according the the sixth commandment, and now that I think of it, the seventh, eighth and tenth as well.

How about a standard that doesn't involve mass murder? That shouldn't be hard for an omnibenevolent God. And why wouldn't they use their own system of justice? Just because others don't recognize it shouldn't make it a bad system. I mean, in our criminal justice system, we don't treat criminals who believe in the system and criminals who don't believe in the system differently from one another.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
The people of the time would of seen it as quite fair, they were a corporate society, dealing in corporate justice and punishment.

What other means is God supposed to enact justice? Use a system they wilfully abandoned (turning to God), use their own system of justice against them, or use an arbitrary modern standard?

The people of the time would be wrong, at least according the the sixth commandment.

How about a standard that doesn't involve mass murder? That shouldn't be hard for an omnibenevolent God. And why wouldn't they use their own system of justice? Just because others don't recognize it shouldn't make it a bad system. I mean, in our criminal justice system, we don't treat criminals who believe in the system and criminals who don't believe in the system differently from one another.

They were wrong? When was mankind judged by one man in one year of the thousands to exist? Whose standard? Their own standards allowed it. If they used any other standard, the people of that time would of seen it as un-just, without honor, so we’re back at square one. Appease today, piss off yesterday. Appease yesterday piss off today. The difference is that by appeasing yesterday in this situation the people would of been under their own system of justice, anything done to them would be just by their own standards.

So why isn’t it fair?

Lower Nubia wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:The people of the time would be wrong, at least according the the sixth commandment.

How about a standard that doesn't involve mass murder? That shouldn't be hard for an omnibenevolent God. And why wouldn't they use their own system of justice? Just because others don't recognize it shouldn't make it a bad system. I mean, in our criminal justice system, we don't treat criminals who believe in the system and criminals who don't believe in the system differently from one another.

They were wrong? When was mankind judged by one man in one year of the thousands to exist? Whose standard? Their own standards allowed it. If they used any other standard, the people of that time would of seen it as un-just, without honor, so we’re back at square one. Appease today, piss off yesterday. Appease yesterday piss off today. The difference is that by appeasing yesterday in this situation the people would of been under their own system of justice, anything done to them would be just by their own standards.

So why isn’t it fair?

It isn't fair because God commanded against murder, adultury, theft and jealousy. Yet he commanded the Israelites to kill children, take virgin women as sex slaves, steal the land of the people they committed genocide against, and all theft (at least all theft not motivated out of survival) is motivated out of jealousy.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
They were wrong? When was mankind judged by one man in one year of the thousands to exist? Whose standard? Their own standards allowed it. If they used any other standard, the people of that time would of seen it as un-just, without honor, so we’re back at square one. Appease today, piss off yesterday. Appease yesterday piss off today. The difference is that by appeasing yesterday in this situation the people would of been under their own system of justice, anything done to them would be just by their own standards.

So why isn’t it fair?

It isn't fair because God commanded against murder, adultury, theft and jealousy. Yet he commanded the Israelites to kill children, take virgin women as sex slaves, steal the land of the people they committed genocide against, and all theft (at least all theft not motivated out of survival) is motivated out of jealousy.

He did, shame they rejected that covenenat treaty. It’s the sad truth of humanity, we’re not consistent, but God was consistent in using their justice system against them. It can’t get any more just than that after they rejected the desire to repent of their evil.

However, you so far make them out to be innocent peoples, they were far from innocent, human sacrifices, human trafficking, torture of enemies, beastiality. So hated were the people that even the Egyptians and Babylonians called them vile.

Corporate society was judged in a corporate manner, under their own system of judgement.

It’s also very debatable about the sex slaves.

Lower Nubia wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:It isn't fair because God commanded against murder, adultury, theft and jealousy. Yet he commanded the Israelites to kill children, take virgin women as sex slaves, steal the land of the people they committed genocide against, and all theft (at least all theft not motivated out of survival) is motivated out of jealousy.

He did, shame they rejected that covenenat treaty. It’s the sad truth of humanity, we’re not consistent, but God was consistent in using their justice system against them. It can’t get any more just than that after they rejected the desire to repent of their evil.

However, you so far make them out to be innocent peoples, they were far from innocent, human sacrifices, human trafficking, torture of enemies, beastiality. So hated were the people that even the Egyptians and Babylonians called them vile.

Corporate society was judged in a corporate manner, under their own system of judgement.

It’s also very debatable about the sex slaves.

You don't stop believing in ethics when dealing with people who don't share them. You don't stoop to their level, if you're a fallible human. So you certainly don't stoop to far below their level if you're an omnibenevolent God. Using someone's own system against them does not make you cinsistent, it makes you petty and unprincipled.

They could be the worst people since Stalin, and it wouldn't matter because, according to God, murder, theft and adultery are wrong.

It might be debatable, but "they weren't sold into sex slavery, they were sold into normal slavery" is a rather impotent defense.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
He did, shame they rejected that covenenat treaty. It’s the sad truth of humanity, we’re not consistent, but God was consistent in using their justice system against them. It can’t get any more just than that after they rejected the desire to repent of their evil.

However, you so far make them out to be innocent peoples, they were far from innocent, human sacrifices, human trafficking, torture of enemies, beastiality. So hated were the people that even the Egyptians and Babylonians called them vile.

Corporate society was judged in a corporate manner, under their own system of judgement.

It’s also very debatable about the sex slaves.

You don't stop believing in ethics when dealing with people who don't share them. You don't stoop to their level, if you're a fallible human. So you certainly don't stoop to far below their level if you're an omnibenevolent God. Using someone's own system against them does not make you cinsistent, it makes you petty and unprincipled.

They could be the worst people since Stalin, and it wouldn't matter because, according to God, murder, theft and adultery are wrong.

It might be debatable, but "they weren't sold into sex slavery, they were sold into normal slavery" is a rather impotent defense.

The problem is that yes, they are things we don’t do, TODAY, but not then, that was what was expected, that was what was to be done. You have to remember, God is dealing with people of then, not today.

Your ideas are foreign even to people who lived just 300 years ago. It’s like going to the first century and discussing Nuclear reactors. The people of the Levant were judged fairy by their own rules. That’s all that matters.

Murder, implies without right, those people were guilty by their own standards, as well as the standards you no doubt espouse today. Theft implies it was theirs to begin with, but seeing as the land belongs to the obedient and good, and they were evil, it left their possession. Adultery was punished highly amongst the Jews of that time, it is ridiculous to assume they were wed and then had institutionally allowed sex slaves. Moses had a kid executed for picking up sticks. Adultery is not going to slide in that group.

Define slavery. In those days, it wasn’t the Atlantic Slave Trade, with whips or chains, it was merciful, otherwise you starved.

All of this is without discussing the nuances, such as that the people had time to escape, and be exiled from the cities, rather than stand and be slain. Without discussing the calamities that the people did to the Jews in the wilderness, the evil of those people, and their good.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
It’s one of the most difficult concepts to wrap our heads around that God is both merciful and wrathful. It should be noted that the cosmological realities during the Old Testament were different, than in the new thus the concepts of wrath and mercy were applied very differently than during the new. In the OT, several key factors are at play: 1. Heaven is closed to all people, so it doesn’t matter when and where anyone dies, everyone goes to Sheol. It might seem callous, but there is no intrinsic value to life beyond the imago dei, which God is free to override as He is the creator. 2. As a result God deals with humanity less on an individual level and more on a corporate level. Hence why entire civilizations get out to the sword rather than certain individuals. 3. Humanity is tribalistic in nature, only one tribe worships God thus God only advocates for the one Tribe. Any tribe that opposes Israel gets diced, so long as Israel remains faithful. the concept of a merciful and wrathful God are understood through this lens. Betraying the covenant invites God’s wrath, and repentance invites God’s mercy. Betray the covenant God will let Israel’s enemies run roughshod over them. Repentance returns them to God’s grace and God’s protection.


During the New Testament, however the Cosmological realities are very different:1. Heaven is open. Thus life is even more precious now because taking someone’s life can rob them of eternity, where as before that wasn’t the case.

2. The crucifixion ended the age of tribalism, instead we are all now one people with one God and one covenant, meaning the age of heavy handed wrath against nations and people’s is over. Now it’s up to the individual.

3. God’s mercy and wrath are conceived of differently now, with regards to eternal life rather than just the earthly life. God is merciful for opening heaven through Christ, and is wrathful in his punishment of sins.

God is still very much the same in the OT and the NT. But he cosmological realities are so vastly different that how His qualities are applied seem almost diametrically opposed.

"They're all going to hell anyway, what's so wrong with them dying?" Is not a massive consolation.

No it’s not a massive consolation, but you have to remember God sees things on a much larger picture than we do. Also Sheol wasn’t hell, at least not yet. Those distinctions hadn’t been made yet, Sheol was just where you go, where everyone goes. Perspectively, for us it’s a huge deal about life and deaths. But cosmically? It’s basically being in different rooms.

And "God can override your life's value, no problem."

That’s not really what I meant. Before Christ, the importance of preserving the earthly life was essentially none. Thus, the moral prohibition was essentially tied to what we call the Imago dei, bearing the image of God. We are prohibited from murdering people, because they are preciously made in the image of God. Didn’t mean you can’t kill people, just can’t commit murder. Which is “lying in wait” or essentially dishonorable killing without just cause or authority to do so. God, being the Creator and divine Judge has the authority to wipe you out, or command other humans to kill you.

Is just scary, not at all benevolent, and violates a certain commandment.

I disagree. God can be omnibenevolent, and still enact wrath. Because while God is benevolent God is also Just. The best example
I can think of this is Sodom, and the Abraham’s debate. God tells Abraham he’s going to be destroying Sodom. Abraham negotiates with him, saying “far be it from you do such a thing” slaughtering innocent and evil alike. Basically Abraham haggled with God to the point of saying that if there were as little as 5 righteous people in Sodom, God would spare the city. 5 righteous people couldn’t be found.

. And you keep talking about God dealing with humanity at a corporate rather than an individual level. I wouldn't buy that excuse from a fallible human, let alone a being who is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

Well that’s because you’re completely ignorant of the ANE cultural dynamics and context of the Mosaic Covenant.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
They were wrong? When was mankind judged by one man in one year of the thousands to exist? Whose standard? Their own standards allowed it. If they used any other standard, the people of that time would of seen it as un-just, without honor, so we’re back at square one. Appease today, piss off yesterday. Appease yesterday piss off today. The difference is that by appeasing yesterday in this situation the people would of been under their own system of justice, anything done to them would be just by their own standards.

So why isn’t it fair?

It isn't fair because God commanded against murder, adultury, theft and jealousy. Yet he commanded the Israelites to kill children, take virgin women as sex slaves, steal the land of the people they committed genocide against, and all theft (at least all theft not motivated out of survival) is motivated out of jealousy.

This part was already explained to you some posts before.

In the old testament, the people under god's rules weren't all humanity, but only the tribe of Israel. All the comandments, were valid only inside the tribe of Israel. As they were rules to govern the life inside the tribe. So there isn't inconsistency when war was waged on the enemies of Israel, who clearly, weren't part of Israel, so not under god's rules.

The universality of the comandments, and of being part of the peoples of god, was introduced by Jesus in the new testament.


I think the question of why in the old testament god couldn't make universal comandments from the start, instead of picking one human tribe over all the others, can be explained by looking at the relationship between god and humanity.
God. Immutable and eternal.
Humanity. Everchanging in knowledge and culture.
The Bond between God and Humanity. Developing as humanity gets more in tune with the eternal god.

Meaning over 4000 years ago, humanity as a whole wasn't developed enough, and wasn't yet at a stage of relationship with god where universal rules would have worked out.

Lost Memories wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:It isn't fair because God commanded against murder, adultury, theft and jealousy. Yet he commanded the Israelites to kill children, take virgin women as sex slaves, steal the land of the people they committed genocide against, and all theft (at least all theft not motivated out of survival) is motivated out of jealousy.

This part was already explained to you some posts before.

In the old testament, the people under god's rules weren't all humanity, but only the tribe of Israel. All the comandments, were valid only inside the tribe of Israel. As they were rules to govern the life inside the tribe. So there isn't inconsistency when war was waged on the enemies of Israel, who clearly, weren't part of Israel, so not under god's rules.

The universality of the comandments, and of being part of the peoples of god, was introduced by Jesus in the new testament.


I think the question of why in the old testament god couldn't make universal comandments from the start, instead of picking one human tribe over all the others, can be explained by looking at the relationship between god and humanity.
God. Immutable and eternal.
Humanity. Everchanging in knowledge and culture.
The Bond between God and Humanity. Developing as humanity gets more in tune with the eternal god.

Meaning over 4000 years ago, humanity as a whole wasn't developed enough, and wasn't yet at a stage of relationship with god where universal rules would have worked out.

That last line seems a bit insulting to the Patriarchs, especially Soloman, allegedly the wisest man on earth?

I think the covenant isn't universal, because like all ancient covenants it required a sacrifice on the part of the people, which in the case of the Jews, would be circumcision. Therefore only those of the circumcision are part of the covenant, and thus reprehensible for following its statues.