Re: RELIGION - intuition

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> >>Polygyny was common in the Bible, but not polyandry.

> >>

> >>

> >Lots of behaviors are common in the Bible, given its historical

> >narrative. Probably every sin imaginable under the sun is mentioned

> >there. One could just as well say *sin* is common in the Bible, though

> >its presence and description doesn't tell us whether that is how

> >people OUGHT to behave. It is just a historical and present reality.

> >

> >

> Historical reality. Do you mean the Genesis book is a chronicle of

> events as they actually happened?

I didn't mention anything about the book of Genesis. I specifically

referred to the Bible as a narrative of historical events. I doubt

you are talking about Genesis but probably more accurately the

creation story in Genesis, but I answered you at length about the

Church's view of Genesis 1 and 2 on NT_Politics. No reason to waste

space here doing it again as it has little to do with my point.

nt_politics/message/1016

And that point still stands. The recording of sinful behavior doesn't

at all speak to whether it is how people OUGHT to behave.

> Are illnesses caused by demons?

You mean do I think the invisible world which we cannot see, can have

an impact on the visible world we do see? Yes, very much so. And do I

believe there are beings who actually exist whom I cannot see with the

naked eye who live in that invisible world? Why of course. God,

angels, and humans who have left this life. But of course you already

knew that, so I assume the statement above is for rhetorical purposes

as well.

At any rate this is a conundrum that often baffles secular therapists.

Sometimes in their ministrations they run across clients/patients

where they clearly realize they are dealing with something beyond that

client/patient, that they are in the presence of evil, but they don't

have a box to put the phenomenon in. IIRC M. Peck talks about

this in his popular series of psychotherapeutic books a few years

ago..

Nonetheless, Christ certainly thought created beings that could not be

seen with the naked eye existed and acted in this world. Just a casual

read through the Gospels makes that abundantly clear.

> Is polygyny sinful?

Either this is a rhetorical question, asked with something else in

mind, or you have become a Mormon.

> What about the trial by ordeal that *only women*

> were subject to? If a husband suspected the wife (or one of them) of

> adultery, he could have the priest feed her a holy water and dust

> concoction which would demonstrate the validity of the claim. If she

> got sick, guilty, if nothing happened, innocent. Of course, the wife

> did not have the same right to suspect her husband and have him tried by

> ordeal. And isn't this the technique that was used by the Spanish

> Inquisitors?

The penalties associated with couples caught in the act of adultery

in the OT were the same for men and women. This is part of the reason

why Christ could deal with the pharisees so easily in the story of the

women caught in adultery in the Gospel of . The OT law required

that *both* parties be brought to trial. If they had caught the woman

in adultery, where was the man? Last I checked adultery required two

folks. The man was one of the pharisees and probably all of them at

one time or another had been with the woman. She was most likely a

regular consort, which is why they were able to " catch " her.

But unfortunately for them not only did the OT law require both

parties, but it also made clear that you couldn't act as judge if you

were guilty of the very same thing. So when Christ said " let he who is

without sin cast the first stone " , he meant that specific sin, which

all of them were guilty of, and he thus exposed them for the

hypocrites they were.

As to this being the same as the Spanish Inquisition (or the host of

other cultures which had similar kinds of things) the answer is no.

First, there was none of the penalties involved with adultery attached

to it. That is because there were no witnesses. No one got convicted

in Israel of anything without witnesses. The woman in this examination

walked away with her life and freedom no matter the outcome.

Second the name is misleading. Trial by ordeal is what secular writers

have used to described the various methods from around the world where

people were subject to painful torture under the guise that if they

were innocent they would be spared. If carried through it was gruesome

and was anything BUT a trial. There is no mention by that name or

otherwise of any method like that in the OT. NONE.

The " law of jealousies " in the OT was the exact opposite of the " trial

by ordeal. " The woman was given a harmless mixture of dust and holy

water. If she was innocent nothing would happen. If she was guilty

then her belly would swell and thigh would rot. If taken literally

clearly it means that the Hebrews were expecting God to step in

miraculously and show them the truth of the matter via the liquid. But

whatever it means (and I'm not interested in debating obscure

Scriptural interpretations with skeptics) it is not anything like what

the *Roman Catholic* Spanish Inquisitors were doing.

> >These terms (and others) were quite common in the ancient world, from

> >Aristotle to the early Church Fathers. Unicorns ( " one horned " animals)

> >are described all over the place in ancient literature as real one

> >horned animals that could not be tamed. There is even a rhinoceros

> >whose scientific term is rhinoceros unicornus, the Indian Rhinoceros,

> >that fits that description.

> >

> >

> But I wonder how Noah got all these animals on the ark?

And I wonder what Noah and the ark has to do with my comment above.

> >Where we run into problems is when we fill these words with our modern

> >mythical understandings of such animals and become " western

> >literalists " regarding the OT, a practice common among skeptics who

> >normally decry such when they find a " fundamentalist " using such an

> >approach.

> >

> Yes, and God made the sun move around so that shadows went back ten

> degrees, which is kind of interesting when you consider the now known

> mechanics of the universe. All sorts of orbital issues would have

> ensued by such a move, yet there it is in 2 Kings 20.

I asked this once before in a long ago post but I guess it bears

asking again. Do you actually read what I write or is it once you get

something fixed in your head (like the stupidity of the young earthers

and their take on Genesis) you spend the rest of your response just

reacting?

I just said above that one of the problems is that skeptics want to

take the metaphorical and figurative language of the OT and make it

literal in order to debunk belief in the Scriptures, a move they decry

when so called fundamentalists use the exact same tactic to

provoke/sustain/defend belief in the Bible.

But lo and behold in trying to rebut me you do the exact same thing.

Your response only proves my point. I was arguing against the skeptics

blanket " literal " understanding of the OT (except for the creation

story of course). And what do you go and do? Give us a literal

understanding of the OT (except for the creation story of course).

Hmmm....

However, without commenting on the actual interpretation of the

passage you raise, if God exists, and if he is personally involved in

His creation and universe, then He is certainly capable of suspending

the actions of the universe He created in order to accomplish certain

ends without things going chaotic, including any orbital issues.

Perhaps you have heard about this. It's called a miracle.

> Or is this

> another example of our modern mythical understanding of the workings of

> the universe? This is the biggest problem I see, and yes fundamental

> literalists are sprouting it forth again. History repeats.

But I'm talking about *unbelievers* who want to read the OT literally

and then use that to attack Christianity. I'm talking about secular

literalists, like yourself, not fundamental literalists.

And I never mentioned anything about " our modern mythical

understanding of the universe " , I was talking about certain animals

that we tend to think of today in mythical terms.

> " ... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said

> Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and

> altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth

> and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus

> Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de

> Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many...

> Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any

> further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has

> decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and

> Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected. "

> -- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic

> Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

What does that have to do with what I am talking about?

I could post all kind of crazy stuff about the Catholic Church,

including their gruesome persecution/killing of the Orthodox faithful

in the last world war. You will find no apologist for Romanism here,

believe me. As far as I am concerned Rome fell away from the Faith

centuries ago. And Orthodox bear witness to that fact every Sunday at

the Eucharist, which no Roman Catholic is allowed to partake of.

> >>Hosea 9:16 - Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear

> >>no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved

> >>fruit of their womb.

> >>

> >>

> >Hosea 9:1 says : " Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for

> >thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon

> >every cornfloor. "

> >

> >Thus you have the *context* of verse 16, God is speaking to Israel

> >about the consequences of their *spiritual* adultery, i.e. chasing

> >after strange gods. It is a common theme throughout the Old Testament.

> >In fact that is one of the themes of the book of Hosea, God's

> >judgement on the spiritual whoredom, if you will, of Israel.

> >

> Yes, but God is taking out the children of Ephraim, either out of the

> womb - abortion - or after birth - infanticide. They weren't old enough

> most likely to be guilty of adultery, spiritual or otherwise.

This is again metaphorical language. Interesting how literal you

become when it suits your purpose, all the while vehemently calling

out fundamentalist literalists. If the creation story isn't literal,

why must this passage be literal?

God wasn't literally taking children out of the womb or killing them

after they were born. This was the result of what happened when the

Hebrews followed after strange gods (Baal), whose sacrificial rituals

*_included the sacrifice of children_.*

It is described the way it is because God eventually left them to

their wayward ways. The same theme is repeated again in the Book of

Romans. If someone consistently persists in rejecting God He

eventually gives them up to the path they have chosen.