M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm just gonna pose the question and see what kind of responses I get. Would Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist, Paul, and John (the disciple) be considered bad husbands and bad family men in the opinion of most modern day church-going females? Let it rip. Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Abraham probably would be. He seemed pretty eager to pawn off his wife to some Egyptians to save his own skin. Then there's that whole willingness to kill his kid thing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Abraham probably would be. He seemed pretty eager to pawn off his wife to some Egyptians to save his own skin. Then there's that whole willingness to kill his kid thing. That's my point! I know you're probably coming at this from an anti-Christian perspective, but I agree with you. He would NOT be liked by today's church. Yet God called him "righteous" due to his faith in God. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that God's values and standards are clearly far different from the modern church's values and standards. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 That's my point! I know you're probably coming at this from an anti-Christian perspective, but I agree with you. He would NOT be liked by today's church. Yet God called him "righteous" due to his faith in God. Oh, "anti-Christian" is probably putting too fine a point on it. There's a fair bit of the Bible that I can't get a handle on, things like an eternal hell (which makes Free Will seem like God's idea of a sucker's bet), and the necessity for the shedding of blood to atone for sins (God didn't have to permit sin to exist in the first place; He pretty obviously saw how THAT was going to turn out.) But there's alot of value there as well. Even Paul, who IMO said alot of stuff that was downright silly (I'm surprised anyone in Crete would even become a Christian, based on his opinion of them), had some brilliant stuff to say about how a man should love his wife. Hint: it didn't include pawning your wife off on Egyptians. Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Oh, "anti-Christian" is probably putting too fine a point on it. There's a fair bit of the Bible that I can't get a handle on, things like an eternal hell (which makes Free Will seem like God's idea of a sucker's bet), and the necessity for the shedding of blood to atone for sins (God didn't have to permit sin to exist in the first place; He pretty obviously saw how THAT was going to turn out.) But there's alot of value there as well. Even Paul, who IMO said alot of stuff that was downright silly (I'm surprised anyone in Crete would even become a Christian, based on his opinion of them), had some brilliant stuff to say about how a man should love his wife. Hint: it didn't include pawning your wife off on Egyptians. Do you believe Paul was contacted by Christ in the blinding light on way to Damascus? If so, I would say it's a safe bet to bank on his writings since he would have heard direct words from Christ (as is written in the account). Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Do you believe Paul was contacted by Christ in the blinding light on way to Damascus? If so, I would say it's a safe bet to bank on his writings since he would have heard direct words from Christ (as is written in the account). I think it's a mistake to look upon any work written by man as being infalliable. Certainly, some stuff may be more inspired than others, but a discerning eye is always necessary. The compilers of the Bible, separating apocrophia from the stuff that went into the Bible, used their discernment. I figure I can too. Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 I think it's a mistake to look upon any work written by man as being infalliable. Certainly, some stuff may be more inspired than others, but a discerning eye is always necessary. The compilers of the Bible, separating apocrophia from the stuff that went into the Bible, used their discernment. I figure I can too. If you possess the Holy Spirit, then you can. Do you? The Scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. If anything in there is wrong, then it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But the Bible makes the self-claim that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 If you possess the Holy Spirit, then you can. Do you? I don't know. I thought I did 30 years ago, but it may not have taken. And given the multitude of interpretations of Scripture, the once-saved-always-saved debate being only one of many, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the Holy Spirit provides uniform views on the Bible. Including perhaps on the part of those who assembled the Bible as we know it. The Scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. If anything in there is wrong, then it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. But the Bible makes the self-claim that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. Please see the above. Don't get me wrong here, man. I'm not trying to get you to believe any differently than you do. Evangelical atheists annoy me as much if not more than evangelical Christians. This is just a friendly debate, and I respect your religious views, even if I don't share them all. Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Believe me, I can already tell you're a fair person who doesn't kneejerk. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
RoseMadder Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Never mind bad husband/ father! I'm fairly sure if Moses was alive today he'd be wanted by the ICC for war crimes, I'll never understand why he is revered by anyone. I'm just glad I live in a time and place where slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children and giving little girls to your soldiers to rape isn't acceptable. I wonder if Joseph Kony will be considered a prophet one day.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Never mind bad husband/ father! I'm fairly sure if Moses was alive today he'd be wanted by the ICC for war crimes, I'll never understand why he is revered by anyone. I'm just glad I live in a time and place where slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children and giving little girls to your soldiers to rape isn't acceptable. I wonder if Joseph Kony will be considered a prophet one day.... Good point. Things bring up another equally serious question: What is man's rightness with God based on? Moses obviously did nasty things. I'm sure he would have also been court-ordered to take anger management classes. So why was he righteous in God's eyes while, for example, a nice swell chap from the religious south might not be? The ONLY conclusion one can draw from this is that it has ZERO to do with a person's merit, value, works, or goodness. Unfair? Maybe. But what is the alternative? To base it on works? How much good works is enough? Who defines it? Edited March 11, 2014 by M30USA Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 The ONLY conclusion one can draw from this is that it has ZERO to do with a person's merit, value, works, or goodness. Given the fact that David was the OM from hell, I can't disagree. I suppose the correct "Bible" answer would be that their faith made them righteous. To go back to your original question, that obviously doesn't mean they made good family men. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Given the fact that David was the OM from hell, I can't disagree. I suppose the correct "Bible" answer would be that their faith made them righteous. To go back to your original question, that obviously doesn't mean they made good family men. Totally agree with this Bible answer. This supports my view that, as humans, we are physical vessels for the spirit world to play out its story. And the only thing we have control over is which spirit(s) we allow to inhabit us. We don't have control over the good things OR bad things we do. I firmly believe that. Do you think an addict has ANY control over their addiction? Nope. But what they DO have control over (and ultimately what CAN beat the addiction) is their submission and acceptance of the Holy Spirit which CAN produce righteous behavior in them. This is why, I believe, God doesn't see our actions, per se, but rather the state of our hearts and which spirit we are allowing in. Sure, there is a GENERAL correlation between a righteous person (in God's eyes) and good behavior, but sometimes it's blurry. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Allumere Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 That is a very broad brush stroke and one I will humble disagree with. As stated then only "christian" addicts ever recover and that is not remotely the case. It also completely takes out the consideration that mental issues are the triggers for the addictions....and sorry, mental conditions can't be treated by being a Christian alone. I agree that the term righteousness has nothing to do with merit or good works, it is strictly in regards to faith and compliance (compliance is a horrible word but the blood sugar is low so brain is crawling) Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 That is a very broad brush stroke and one I will humble disagree with. As stated then only "christian" addicts ever recover and that is not remotely the case. It also completely takes out the consideration that mental issues are the triggers for the addictions....and sorry, mental conditions can't be treated by being a Christian alone. I agree that the term righteousness has nothing to do with merit or good works, it is strictly in regards to faith and compliance (compliance is a horrible word but the blood sugar is low so brain is crawling) Do you know that Bible-based Alcoholics Anonymous has a higher success rate than secular AA by a factor of 12? (Twelve.) Link to post Share on other sites
RoseMadder Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Good point. Things bring up another equally serious question: What is man's rightness with God based on? Moses obviously did nasty things. I'm sure he would have also been court-ordered to take anger management classes. So why was he righteous in God's eyes while, for example, a nice swell chap from the religious south might not be? It does seem like there's a complete contradiction between what the scriptures consider righteous and what we would consider righteous. Essentially though I think that trying to consolidate modern views with a text that was written over hundreds of years by multiple authors describing events that happened thousands of years ago is nigh on impossible. Ultimately, the fact that Moses was considered a righteous man by ancient scholars tells us less about the nature of God than it does about the nature of society at that time and place. Sometimes I think that maybe the story of Moses was a cautionary tale about extremism and the promised lands is a metaphor for heaven and he was only allowed to glimpse it because he'd done all that evil in Gods name... And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I was kicked out of Sunday school Personally I think that a nice, swell chap from the religious south is far more likely to have behaved in a way that Jesus would approve of than Moses. Moses must be like the completely inappropriate weirdo that everyone's dad seems to have to Jesus. Lol. Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Additionally, I never said non-Christians can't beat addictions. But if they do, it's still a mercy and grace from God. Remember that God has mercy on his believers AND non-believers, so as to not show favoritism. As it's written, God is not a respecter of persons. (You won't hear that in most churches. They love the whole "favor" thing. Ears get tickled.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Personally I think that a nice, swell chap from the religious south is far more likely to have behaved in a way that Jesus would approve of than Moses. Moses must be like the completely inappropriate weirdo that everyone's dad seems to have to Jesus. Lol. Really? Look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees. The Pharisees were very much like the religious south today--hanging onto a "form of godliness but denying its power". Jesus HATED those people who thought they were self-righteous and favored by God, but really blind and naked and wretched to the truth. (Ironic, it is, that Pharisee literally means "loved/favored of God". It was clearly a self-endowed term.) Edited March 11, 2014 by M30USA Link to post Share on other sites
JamesM Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I have to assume this is very hypothetical, because if I am not mistaken, Paul and John the Baptist never married or had children...although John the Baptist lost his head over some woman. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Really? Look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees. The Pharisees were very much like the religious south today--hanging onto a "form of godliness but denying its power". Jesus HATED those people who thought they were self-righteous and favored by God, but really blind and naked and wretched to the truth. (Ironic, it is, that Pharisee literally means "loved/favored of God". It was clearly a self-endowed term.) I think you are painting with a broad brush. The issue here seems to be the doctrines of justification vs. sanctification. Another issues seems to be whether or not Paul was an apostle of Christ. Paul rebuked Peter to his face and Peter backed down, so, regardless of whether he we consider him an apostle (some denominations reject his writings) it seems Paul had some authority. Peter said some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, and that his writings are twisted (we still see this today). And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16) Paul's letters appeared to be circulating the churches early on, i.e. Colossians 4:16: After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. In terms of what books are accepted, one standard is basically if Christ Himself or the epistles written by the apostles of Christ quoted from them. There is more to it than that, obviously, but that should at least perhaps be considered as a minimal standard for consideration? Edited March 11, 2014 by TheFinalWord Link to post Share on other sites
RoseMadder Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 We don't have control over the good things OR bad things we do. I firmly believe that. Do you think an addict has ANY control over their addiction? Nope. But what they DO have control over (and ultimately what CAN beat the addiction) is their submission and acceptance of the Holy Spirit which CAN produce righteous behavior in them. This is why, I believe, God doesn't see our actions, per se, but rather the state of our hearts and which spirit we are allowing in. Sure, there is a GENERAL correlation between a righteous person (in God's eyes) and good behavior, but sometimes it's blurry. Isn't that a direct countermand of Gods law? I thought he gave us free will. This is what annoys me about religion, being good because you want to go to heaven is somehow better than being good because you believe it's the right thing to do and will get nothing for doing it? So basically you think we have no free will, so anything we do is pre-ordained and we have no control over it, therefore in Gods eyes as long as you have made the choice, which is the only choice we ever have, to be a Christian, then it doesn't matter if you commit the worst atrocities imaginable because it wasn't your choice? This is what happens when you try to make sense of the damn bible!! Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) TFW, I wouldn't have used the term "religious south" before living there and being part of the culture. Generalities obviously have exceptions. Just as there were exceptions among the Pharisees, I'm sure, but they still developed a reputation for a reason. Edited March 11, 2014 by M30USA Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Given the fact that David was the OM from hell, I can't disagree. I suppose the correct "Bible" answer would be that their faith made them righteous. To go back to your original question, that obviously doesn't mean they made good family men. LOL GT, I was going to bring up David, of whom was a man after God's own heart. This means there's a chance for me! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
TheFinalWord Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm just gonna pose the question and see what kind of responses I get. Would Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist, Paul, and John (the disciple) be considered bad husbands and bad family men in the opinion of most modern day church-going females? Let it rip. Just to switch this up a bit... Would Abigail (went behind her husbands back and then married David after he killed Nabal), Sari (told Abraham to sleep with Haagar), Rahab (a harlot that saved the spies of Israel), be considered bad wives and bad family women in the opinion of most modern day church-going males? Basically, when we are trying to compare these people to modern day husbands and wives, we have to make sure we aren't comparing apples to oranges. TFW, I wouldn't have used the term "religious south" before living there and being part of the culture. Generalities obviously have exceptions. Just as there were exceptions among the Pharisees, I'm sure, but they still developed a reputation for a reason. Those poor Pharisees... I'll reserve judgment until you make more of a case. I'm not totally seeing it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author M30USA Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Isn't that a direct countermand of Gods law? I thought he gave us free will. This is what annoys me about religion, being good because you want to go to heaven is somehow better than being good because you believe it's the right thing to do and will get nothing for doing it? So basically you think we have no free will, so anything we do is pre-ordained and we have no control over it, therefore in Gods eyes as long as you have made the choice, which is the only choice we ever have, to be a Christian, then it doesn't matter if you commit the worst atrocities imaginable because it wasn't your choice? This is what happens when you try to make sense of the damn bible!! No. A person who possess the Holy Spirit will show evidence (or fruits). The Bivle gives us specific traits which are evidence of the Holy Spirit. These evidences are not necessarily synonymous with our human moral code. That's all I'm saying. Additionally, the Bible says that those who live by the Spirit are not judged by the Law. AMAZING! Just be sure you're living by the Spirit. Edited March 11, 2014 by M30USA 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts